New-ish CNN medical correspondent Meg Tirrell showed Thursday morning she’s so far to the left she doesn’t even believe basic biology as, in reacting to the released Supreme Court opinion on Idaho’s abortion law, Tirrell implicitly proclaimed men can get pregnant as she repeatedly told viewers the Court’s punt on the merits of the deal dealt with federal law protects “a pregnant person’s health” and “person who’s pregnant”.

Tirrell first told Fake News Jim Acosta that the Court’s decision allows “medically necessary care” in the Potato State (i.e. kill your unborn child) “in the situations of abortion where that is the medically necessary care to stabilize a pregnant person’s health.”

 

 

Without a blink, CNN’s new top medical reporter made herself wholly qualified in the liberal media and advocacy scene, but unqualified in the real world.

Tirrell immediately doubled down and went further with the “strict” qualifier: “So, Idaho has a very strict abortion ban that bans all abortions except to save the life of the pregnant person and in rare, other circumstances.”

Moments later, she reiterated her stance that men can grow babies in their wombs: “I’ve talked with law professors who looked at the decision — the sort of decision that came out yesterday and said this allows confusion to rein in other states with abortion bans, even in states that have exceptions for the health of the pregnant person.”

She returned in the next hour with even more quackery. First, she told host Wolf Blitzer that “reactions” to the Court’s decision were pouring in “from people who are pro-abortion access and anti-abortion access and neither one is particularly satisfied by this Supreme Court decision in the Idaho abortion case.”

Then proceeded to label the Guttmacher Institute as “a pro-reproductive rights group” while slapping the Charlotte Lozier Institute with the description as one of the “groups that are against abortion access, including the Charlotte Lozier Institute”. 

Tirrell twice made sure Blitzer was told women aren’t the only ones who have give birth: “

So, essentially what the court did here is say that actually we shouldn’t have taken this case and we’re going to send it back down to the lower courts in Idaho, but while we do that, we are going to keep in place federal protections for providing abortions in emergency room settings or emergencies settings at hospitals to preserve the health of the person who’s pregnant. Idaho’s abortion law right now contains an exception just to save the life of the person who’s pregnant and rare other exceptions.

After fretting the lack of an answer on the validity of Idaho’s (pro-life) law will create “a lot of confusion in other states,” Tirrell slipped up and said “women”: “So, right now, nobody seems to be particularly happy with the Supreme Court’s holding here that essentially they sort of kick the can down the road, but in Idaho at least, there we’ll be those protections for women who need abortions and these emergency settings, Wolf.”

Blitzer closed by asking Tirrell to “elaborate a little bit more Meg, if you don’t mind, on the practical effect of this decision on women in Idaho”, which allowed her a shot at redemption for her transgender overlords

[W]e’ve been to Idaho. We’ve talked with doctors there who are practicing family medicine. We’ve talked with patients who are pregnant and Idaho and what they told us is that they’re afraid to be pregnant in the state because they’re worried about not having these protections and they’ve had to travel out of state themselves in some cases to access this kind of care.

To see the relevant transcript from June 27, click “expand.”

CNN Newsroom with Jim Acosta
June 27, 2024
10:28 a.m. Eastern

JIM ACOSTA: I want to go out to Meg Tirrell and Meg, a little weird in terms of how this ruling came out yesterday. But it sounds like it’s pretty much in line with what we saw yesterday. What do you think? What does this — gonna mean for women’s health?

MEG TIRRELL: Yeah, Jim, reading through this, it does look the same as what we saw in an advertently posted yesterday and what it means for women’s health is that, in Idaho, this does put back into effect the protections of this federal law EMTALA, on hospitals providing emergency care in the situations of abortion where that is the medically necessary care to stabilize a pregnant person’s health. So, Idaho has a very strict abortion ban that bans all abortions except to save the life of the pregnant person and in rare, other circumstances. So, the Biden administration had argued that that federal law called EMTALA conflicted with Idaho’s strict abortion ban. And right now, what the Supreme Court is essentially saying is we shouldn’t have taken up this case. This should go back down to the lower courts in Idaho, but while that happens hospitals can provide this emergency care. But as we were hearing from Elie, you know, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson points out, this is essentially a delay in deciding the issues of this case. And I’ve talked with law professors who looked at the decision — the sort of decision that came out yesterday and said this allows confusion to rein in other states with abortion bans, even in states that have exceptions for the health of the pregnant person. Because in many instances I was talking with Elizabeth Sepper at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law, and she was saying a lot of those states that have health exceptions, those exceptions are narrower than what the EMTALA federal law would state. And so, there’s still going to be a lot of confusion in other states, particularly in Texas where the Biden administration has asked the Supreme Court to look at their abortion ban. And so, we are potentially going to see this come back. But what a lot of folks have been pointing out today is that on both of the abortion cases before the court, this term, mifepristone, the abortion pill, they dismissed that based on standing. They didn’t consider the merits of that case. Now, with this emergency abortion case, sending it back down to the lower courts. So, there is a thought that this pushes this off until after the election, potentially when depending on who wins, this could come back in myriad ways, either through the courts or through other — other methods. And so, this doesn’t really settle any of these cases about abortion through the courts. This just sort of says that the courts aren’t going to really issue decisions on the merits, right now, guys.

ACOSTA: Very interesting, Meg. All right. Thank you very much.

(.....)

CNN Newsroom with Wolf Blitzer
June 27, 2024
11:09 a.m. Eastern

WOLF BLITZER: Joining us now for more on this, CNN medical correspondent Meg Tirrell. Meg, is this huge victory for those who support abortion rights for women?

TIRRELL: Well, Wolf, it does — not sounding that way. We’re getting the reactions really pouring in this morning after we saw this inadvertent posting yesterday, there were sort of reactions to that, but now that we know it’s official, we are seeing both reactions from people who are pro-abortion access and anti-abortion access and neither one is particularly satisfied by this Supreme Court decision in the Idaho abortion case. We’re hearing from the Guttmacher Institute, which is a pro-reproductive rights group, that says, “the Supreme Court is preserving the federal protections for emergency abortion care in Idaho for the time being”. They say, “the decision is the bare minimum and the court should have been clear and affirming that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) protects abortion in emergency situations in all states.” Now, we also have been hearing from groups that are against abortion access, including the Charlotte Lozier institute, who’s saying that they’re disappointed that the Supreme Court has not rejected the Biden administration’s what they call blatant attempt to hijack a law that protects mothers and babies. So, essentially what the court did here is say that actually we shouldn’t have taken this case and we’re going to send it back down to the lower courts in Idaho, but while we do that, we are going to keep in place federal protections for providing abortions in emergency room settings or emergencies settings at hospitals to preserve the health of the person who’s pregnant. Idaho’s abortion law right now contains an exception just to save the life of the person who’s pregnant and rare other exceptions. And so there’s this argument that these two things are in conflict that has not been resolved by the Supreme Court. Legal experts also point out that this leaves a lot of confusion in other states. Legal experts also point out that this leaves a lot of confusion in other states with abortion bans. There are an additional seven states that have gestational limit bans between six and 18 weeks. And I was talking with legal scholar Elizabeth Sepper the University of Texas at Austin — she says, even in states that have health exceptions in their abortion bans, they are — still might be a lot of confusion here and we’re thinking about Texas in particular because the Biden administration has already asked the court to look at their abortion law as it pertains to these federal protections for emergency abortions. So, right now, nobody seems to be particularly happy with the Supreme Court’s holding here that essentially they sort of kick the can down the road, but in Idaho at least, there we’ll be those protections for women who need abortions and these emergency settings, Wolf.

BLITZER: So, elaborate a little bit more Meg, if you don’t mind, on the practical effect of this decision on women in Idaho?

TIRRELL: Yeah. Well, what we heard is that while this protection wasn’t in place, St. Luke’s Health Care system — which is one of the largest healthcare systems in Idaho — said that they had to airlift six patients out of Idaho to receive this kind of care. That compared with just one in the previous year when this kind of protection had been in place. And so, we’ve been to Idaho. We’ve talked with doctors there who are practicing family medicine. We’ve talked with patients who are pregnant and Idaho and what they told us is that they’re afraid to be pregnant in the state because they’re worried about not having these protections and they’ve had to travel out of state themselves in some cases to access this kind of care.

BLITZER: Meg Tirrell reporting for us. Meg, thank you very much.