[U] As Long As We're At It -- Here's A LEAKED Women's Rights Opinion, In Full...

It must be said -- this seems more a simply administrative gaffe, than a right-wing leak operation. But it may shake up the debate tomorrow night, if the Idaho opinion is not released tomorrow morning, instead of Friday (or later). [Updated: Here's the official version, as of Thursday morning.]

As is often true since 2022 -- the summary opinion is a tiny bow to the rules of law long decided in the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause -- but still leaves women in a bad position, post Dobbs.

Here is the full leaked opinion, but we will quote Justice Brown-Jackson, as she is the clarion call for most of what is wrong with the five who would treat adult women's bodies effectively as the property of the State of Idaho (among others) / hard righters, here:

. . .Recognizing the clear conflict between EMTALA and Idaho law, a Federal District Judge issued an injunction that had the effect of ensuring that Idaho physicians would be able to provide the abortion care EMTALA requires. Five months ago, this Court stayed that injunction. As a legal matter, this Court's stay meant that unless a doctor could actually say that the abortion was necessary to prevent a patient's death, that doctor could no longer provide abortion care that she viewed as reasonably necessary to keep a patient from losing her uterus, going into organ failure, or avoiding any number of other serious health risks. Compare §18-622(a)i) with 42 U.S. C. §1395dd(e)(1)(A). As a practical matter, this Court's intervention meant that Idaho physicians were forced to step back and watch as their patients suffered, or arrange for their patients to be airlifted out of Idaho.

This months-long catastrophe was completely unnecessary. More to the point, it directly violated federal law, which in our system of government is supreme. See Art. VI, cl. 2. As Justice Kagan explains, EMTALA plainly requires doctors to provide medically necessary stabilizing abortions in limited situations. See ante, at 4-6 (concurring opinion). To the extent that Idaho law conflicts with EMTALA, the State's law must give way. I join in Justice Kagan's statutory analysis, see ibid., and I concur in the Court's per curiam decision to lift its stay, which should not have been entered in the first place. I dissent in part because, in my view, the Court is wrong to dismiss these cases as improvidently granted. . . .

So -- as I say -- one way or another, the patriarchy is. . . going to die -- and is dying day by day, in most of the USA.

नमस्ते