This is a Idaho news story, published by CNN, that relates primarily to Barrett news.
For more Idaho news, you can click here:
more Idaho newsFor more Barrett news, you can click here:
more Barrett newsFor more SCOTUS news, you can click here:
more SCOTUS newsFor more news from CNN, you can click here:
more news from CNNOtherweb, Inc is a public benefit corporation, dedicated to improving the quality of news people consume. We are non-partisan, junk-free, and ad-free. We use artificial intelligence (AI) to remove junk from your news feed, and allow you to select the best politics news, business news, entertainment news, and much more. If you like this article about SCOTUS, you might also like this article about
other conservative justices. We are dedicated to bringing you the highest-quality news, junk-free and ad-free, about your favorite topics. Please come every day to read the latest Idaho case news, state abortion ban news, news about SCOTUS, and other high-quality news about any topic that interests you. We are working hard to create the best news aggregator on the web, and to put you in control of your news feed - whether you choose to read the latest news through our website, our news app, or our daily newsletter - all free!
liberal justicesCNN
•78% Informative
In January , the Supreme Court let Idaho enforce its ban on abortion with an exception only to prevent the death of a pregnant woman.
The Biden administration argued that the ban intruded on federal protections for emergency room care.
A combination of misgivings among key conservatives and rare leverage on the part of liberal justices changed the course of the case.
Roberts , Kavanaugh and Barrett worked with Barrett on a draft opinion that would dismiss the case as “improvidently granted” Barrett had come to believe the case should not have been heard before lower court judges had resolved discrepancies over when physicians could perform emergency abortions, even if a threat to the woman’s life was not imminent.
In essence, Barrett and Roberts and Kavanaugh acknowledged they had erred in the original action favoring Idaho .
The question of whether federal law supersedes state law will inevitably return.
Jackson ’s arguments against dismissal were the opposite of those on the far-right.
She said physicians and their patients needed a straightforward answer now, not in a few years .
Jackson took the rare step of reading portions of her dissenting opinion from the bench.
VR Score
82
Informative language
80
Neutral language
65
Article tone
semi-formal
Language
English
Language complexity
62
Offensive language
not offensive
Hate speech
not hateful
Attention-grabbing headline
not detected
Known propaganda techniques
not detected
Time-value
short-lived
External references
3
Source diversity
2
Affiliate links
no affiliate links