WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Wednesday, Dec. 1

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. To suggest a piece for us to consider, email us at roundup@scotusblog.com.

Here’s the Wednesday morning read:

• Supreme Court considers whether to reverse Roe v. Wade in historic arguments (Nina Totenberg, NPR)
• Roe and Casey: The two abortion precedents the Supreme Court may overturn (Joan Biskupic, CNN)
• What abortion laws would look like if Roe v. Wade was overturned (Daniela Santamariña, The Washington Post)
• Mississippi Asks: If Women Can Have It All, Is Roe Necessary? (Claire Cain Miller, The New York Times)
• ‘Even if we win, we lose’: Abortion access in Miss. already limited without Roe challenge (Sarah Haselhorst & Maria Clark, Mississippi Clarion Ledger)

ARGUMENT ANALYSIS

“I’m stuck!” “What do I do?” “I’m baffled!”: Court struggles with Medicare payment technicalities

On Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument on a Medicare case that will have significant financial consequences for safety-net hospitals and could have implications for the Chevron doctrine, a core principle of administrative law.

At its core, the case, Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation, focusses on whether the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, acted lawfully when it expanded the definition of the phrase “entitled to” found in a Medicare payment statute. That statute sets out a formula for special Medicare payments to “disproportionate share hospitals,” or DSH hospitals, which serve a high percentage of low-income patients.

SYMPOSIUM

Dobbs and the undue burdens of pre-viability abortion bans

This article is part of a symposium on the upcoming argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. A preview of the case is here.

Maya Manian is a visiting professor at American University Washington College of Law.

The Supreme Court is poised to make momentous changes to the law on abortion rights. Since the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, the court has repeatedly reaffirmed that states cannot ban abortion before fetal viability, which is typically around 24 weeks of pregnancy.

SYMPOSIUM

A “right” without constitutional foundation

This article is part of a symposium on the upcoming argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. A preview of the case is here.

Helen Alvaré is the Robert A. Levy Endowed Chair in Law and Liberty at Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University.

Today, nearly 50 years post-Roe v. Wade and 30 years post-Planned Parenthood v. Casey, it is plain to see that both cases are political, not constitutional, decisions. In its opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, therefore, the Supreme Court should return the question of abortion to the states.

WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Tuesday, Nov. 30

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. To suggest a piece for us to consider, email us at roundup@scotusblog.com.

Here’s the Tuesday morning read:

• Supreme Court to Review Mississippi’s 15-Week Abortion Ban (Jess Bravin & Brent Kendall, The Wall Street Journal)
• Roe v. Wade has been the law of the land for nearly 50 years. Will that matter? (Ariane de Vogue, CNN)
• As the Supreme Court considers Roe v. Wade, a look at how abortion became legal (Nina Totenberg, NPR)
• Whatever Happened to the Exceptions for Rape and Incest? (Michele Goodwin & Mary Ziegler, The Atlantic)
• Supreme Court refuses to block vaccine mandate for Massachusetts hospital workers (Kelsey Reichmann, Courthouse News Service)