🤰The News Not Noise Letter: Can Hospitals Deny Pregnant Women Emergency Medical Care? SCOTUS Isn’t Sure

The latest abortion question before the court. Plus: answering your questions about student protests, and news that doesn’t suck – unless you’re an airline executive. ✈️

A student is arrested during a pro-Palestine demonstration at the University of Texas at Austin. Charges were dropped for 57 protesters arrested at UT Austin. (Photo by Brandon Bell/Getty Images)

For regular updates, follow us on Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, and Threads.

In today’s newsletter we cover the Supreme Court’s astonishing confusion about what constitutes medical care for pregnant women; share a surprising-not-surprising confession from the longtime publisher of the National Enquirer; and bring good news for air travelers – which one comedian called “the greatest thing the government has ever done.” For our in-depth write today we answer your questions about the student protests on college campuses; most of today’s reporting is free to all subscribers.

Here are your headlines:

• Abortion at the Court (Again): The Supreme Court heard a case this week that could have chilling implications for pregnant women’s access to emergency care. The Biden administration sued the state of Idaho, which has one of the strictest abortion bans in the country. The federal government’s lawyer argues that Idaho is denying pregnant women lifesaving medical care in emergency situations – in violation of federal law – because doctors’ hands are tied by the state ban. In legal terms they argued that Idaho’s ban violates the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which requires doctors to stabilize patients undergoing medical emergencies. 

  • Women Justices Lead Questioning: The four women justices on the Court grilled Idaho’s lawyer, pressing him to explain when hospitals could provide abortion care to stabilize a pregnant woman suffering a medical crisis. 

    • Justice Kagan: “If a woman is going to lose her reproductive organs unless she has an abortion, which happens in certain tragic circumstances, a doctor is supposed to provide an abortion, isn't that right?”

    • Justice Sotomayor: She asked if doctors have a right to perform abortion if the pregnant woman isn’t at risk of dying but could, without an abortion, suffer “blindness” or “the loss of organs” or “chronic blood strokes.” Idaho’s lawyer argued that abortion is only required when a life is in jeopardy – not, say, an organ.

    • You can listen to the complete oral arguments here.

  • Unlikely Swing Votes: We are wary of making predictions about Supreme Court rulings. Still, based on their questions (and records), Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch seem inclined to find for Idaho (ok to deny abortion); the liberal justices are likely to find for the Biden admin (must perform abortion). The swing votes: Justices Barrett, Roberts and possibly Kavanaugh – all staunch opponents of abortion.

  • Real-Life Risks: Meanwhile on the ground in Idaho, pregnant women in crisis are being airlifted to other states for treatment. And it isn’t just Idaho – hospitals in at least 19 states with abortion bans are denying care to pregnant patients in crisis.

• Trump Immunity: The Supreme Court heard arguments this week about whether or not Trump has “absolute immunity” for his actions while in office. The conservative justices including Brett Kavanaugh raised concerns that without strong immunity protections, presidents could be subject to endless partisan investigations (he’d know). The liberal justices expressed concern that limiting presidential immunity could give presidents unchecked power. Sotomayor asked whether presidents should be allowed to assassinate rivals and Kagan asked whether a president can order a coup without fear of prosecution. The Court’s ruling could drastically change how presidents exercise executive power – and possibly delay Trump’s federal Jan. 6 prosecution until after the election.

• Lyin’ (about) Ted: It’s week two of Trump’s New York criminal trial, and we’re upholding our promise not to overwhelm you with blow-by-blow coverage. Here’s what we found noteworthy this week: David Pecker, the longtime publisher of the National Enquirer, testified that, when Sen. Ted Cruz was running against Donald Trump in 2016, the Enquirer completely fabricated a story linking Cruz’s father with the JFK assassination. Pecker even testified that after GOP debates, Michael Cohen “would direct” him to publish negative stories about Trump competitors who were performing well, and Pecker would “embellish” information Cohen sent him. (Ever wonder where Trump got the idea that there’s a “crooked media”?) 

• Blinken’s Warning to China: Wrapping a trip to China, Secretary of State Blinken says there’s “evidence of attempts [by China] to influence and arguably interfere” in the 2024 US elections and warned China to stop or risk unnamed consequences. Blinken said he also warned China against “helping Russia perpetuate its aggression against Ukraine” by supplying Russia with weapon components; and said he and President Xi agreed to begin the first US-China talks on artificial intelligence in the “coming weeks.”

• Weinstein Conviction Overturned: This week the New York Supreme Court overturned the 2020 rape conviction of Harvey Weinstein, ruling that the trial judge “erroneously” allowed in the testimony of other women who alleged unproven sexual abuse not directly connected to the case. The Court suggested a new trial, and a spokesperson for DA Alvin Bragg’s office said “we will do everything in our power to retry this case.” Weinstein is still in prison serving 16 years his 2022 rape conviction in Los Angeles. #MeToo movement founder Tarana Burke said the new Weinstein ruling is “not a blow to the movement” but instead “a clarion call and we are prepared to answer that call.

Campus Protests: Your Questions Answered

The Gaza solidarity protests continue across the country. More than 500 people have been arrested since Thursday at 15 US colleges and universities, and students have set up encampments in dozens more universities nationwide. This is difficult to cover for many reasons: anything to do with Gaza and Israel is emotionally fraught; some of you have friends or kids involved in or impacted by the protests; and there’s some misunderstanding about protest language, campus rules, and the tradition of student activism. Here are answers to some of your questions.

• I’ve only seen peaceful anti-war protests. Why are people freaked out?

  While many anti-war protesters may aspire to peaceful demonstrations – which have a long tradition on college campuses – some are using language that glorifies and calls for violence. And many Jewish students have reported feeling threatened. Public and private universities alike have policies about violence and hate speech. Here are just two examples: 

  • Columbia: A leader of the student protest movement live-streamed a video declaring over and over that “Zionists don’t deserve to live.” A Zionist is a person who believes in the right of Israel to exist. The video was recorded during a session with the school administration, which took no disciplinary action. The student retracted the statement when the New York Times reported on the video. Also: at the encampment at Columbia University, one poster declared, “Whoever is in solidarity with our corpses but not our rockets is a hypocrite and not one of us, until victory.”

  • Cornell: I’ve verified video of students in the encampment chanting “intifada revolution” and “globalize the intifada.” Hamas’ doctrine calls for the extermination of all Jews. “Intifada,” an Arabic word directly meaning “uprising,” is how they call for this. In this context, the word intifada is understood by many Jews as a terror movement to exterminate all Jews in Israel and even around the world. It’s possible or likely many of the kids who are chanting intifada aren’t considering this. Leaders of the Gaza solidarity protest movement insist intifada means “resistance.” I’d point out that at universities today, it is the targeted group – whether it’s Black Americans, LGBTQ+ people, etc. –that defines what language is threatening to them.

• Why are there crackdowns on these encampments? What about freedom of speech?