The United States Supreme Court issued an opinion today with far-reaching implications for free speech protections from government censorship via third parties. The network evening newscasts chose NOT to cover that ruling, choosing instead to cover an inadvertently published and quickly retracted ruling on the left’s apex issue: abortion.

The erroneously published opinion led CBS and NBC’s newscasts. ABC’s top story, as on most nights, was the weather. Here’s how NBC opened the Nightly News:

LESTER HOLT: We start with one of the most anticipated decisions the Supreme Court will issue in these final days of its term, a ruling on Idaho's near total ban on abortion. The Court has not yet officially released its decision on whether emergency abortions can be allowed in Idaho. But, for a brief time today, a draft of the ruling appeared on the Court's website, suggesting it would rule in favor of permitting emergency abortions in Idaho. A Court spokesperson says the document had been posted “inadvertently”, but it's the second time in two years this has happened with a major Supreme Court decision on abortion. 

That summation could have been the whole report, but then there wouldn’t be three additional minutes to burn on establishing a fake link between this opinion published in error, and the actual and very dangerous leak of Dobbs. Wherein the Idaho case was clearly a case of good-faith error, the Dobbs leak was the exact opposite: a malicious leak intended to inflame public opinion ahead of the ruling, an attempt to coerce two or more of the conservative justices into changing their votes, and an incitation of violence against the conservative justices. To clarify, the reason I use “leaked” in quotes in the title is mostly out of derision for a Regime Media that very clearly and evidently thinks you are all morons. These…unauthorized advance publications…are in no way alike. 

Abortion, as the left’s apex issue and highest liturgy of the cult of Moloch, will always draw top billing across the Regime Media. With the exception of ABC if there’s severe weather going on. 

What’s really unsettling here is that an opinion published in error drew a combined 10 minutes and 11 seconds across the major evening network newscasts, but an actual, published opinion that essentially allowed the government to continue to pressure social media companies to suppress speech it deems to be “disinformation” drew zero seconds of coverage. Let that sink in.

I’m old enough to remember when the media presented themselves as defenders of free speech. These days, the only speech they seem interested in defending is that of the abortionist asking for forceps and vacuum cleaners. Dissenters and critics of government are on their own and out of luck.

Click “expand” to view the full transcripts of the aforementioned reports as aired on their respective evening newscasts on Wednesday, June 26th, 2024:

ABC WORLD NEWS TONIGHT

ABC WORLD NEWS TONIGHT

6/26/24

6:34 PM

DAVID MUIR:  In the meantime tonight, we turn to this major error at the Supreme Court. What appears to be a major new ruling on an abortion rights case that was briefly posted on the Court’s website before that decision was supposed to be made public. Now, the case is the first since Roe to test a state abortion ban, and whether federal law protects access to emergency abortion at the ER when a woman's health is at risk. The document signals the justices are poised to dismiss the case, sending it back to lower courts, which would allow emergency abortions in Idaho for now. This is the second time an abortion ruling got out early. You'll remember two years ago, an early draft of the decision overturning Roe was leaked months before it was announced. Terry Moran at the Supreme Court again tonight.

TERRY MORAN: Tonight, an egregious error at the Supreme Court. Somehow, what appears to be a ruling from the justices on a major abortion case was temporarily published before it was supposed to be on the Court’s website. And it indicates that the Court will allow some abortions in Idaho in emergency situations, for now. The document was pulled down from the site within minutes, and the Court issued a statement -- "The opinion has not been released," it said. "The Court’s publications unit inadvertently and briefly uploaded a document to the Court’s website." The case marks the first time the justices are considering a state abortion ban since the Court overturned Roe versus Wade two years ago. At issue, whether Idaho's ban on abortions, except when necessary to prevent death, takes precedence over the federal law guaranteeing that patients in emergency rooms get the emergency care they need, even in the rare cases when that might mean an abortion. The document today reported and published by Bloomberg indicates that by a vote of 6-3, the Court’s majority will send the Idaho case back down to the lower courts. Still, there were fiery opinions on both sides. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson writing that the Court missed an opportunity to rule on the law. "Today's decision is not a victory for pregnant patients in Idaho”, she wrote. “It is delay. While this Court dawdles and the country waits, pregnant people experiencing emergency medical conditions remain in a precarious position, as their doctors are kept in the dark about what the law requires." And Justice Samuel Alito almost taunting his colleagues, saying the Court should have ruled today to allow Idaho's ban to stand. "Apparently, the Court has simply lost the will to decide the easy but emotional and highly politicized question that the case presents. That is regrettable." The premature posting of this document, another serious mistake at the Court, which has sought to tighten security after the draft of the Dobbs decision overturning Roe, written by Justice Alito, leaked months before it was announced.

MUIR: So let's get right to Terry Moran, live at the Court again for us tonight for us. Terry, the Court making it very clear in this document, if it is to be believed it's the final document, that this is not the final opinion in this case.

MORAN: That's right, David. Justices can revise their opinions up until the moment of an official release. And if this is the official ruling, then that means, starting whenever it is released, that doctors in Idaho emergency rooms will be able to perform abortions if needed, in order to prevent serious harm to a woman's health. David?

MUIR: Terry Moran, you’ll be standing by at the Court tomorrow. We’ll see if it comes tomorrow officially. Thank you, Terry. 

CBS EVENING NEWS:

CBS EVENING NEWS

6/26/24

6:30 PM

NORAH O’DONNELL: The stunning news tonight from the Supreme Court, admitting a document from one of the most highly anticipated cases of this term was accidentally leaked. Good evening. I'm Norah O'Donnell, and thank you for being with us. And we don't know for certain that it is the final opinion that was uploaded and first reported by Bloomberg News, but if it is true, this signals the justices are poised to side with the Biden administration by reinstating a lower court order, for now, that allows hospitals in Idaho to perform abortions during a medical emergency. Why does this matter? Well, the Associated Press found that this year, Idaho to medevac six women out of the state following a miscarriage and they were not treated in an emergency room. A Supreme Court spokesperson confirmed the document was inadvertently and briefly posted online. This is the second time in recent years that an abortion opinion from the nation's highest court has been revealed ahead of the decision. It's an extraordinary breach of protocol. CBS's Jan Crawford covers the TCourt for us and has new reporting.

JAN CRAWFORD: The draft opinion in one of the most closely watched cases of the term was briefly and inadvertently posted on the Court’s website, and Bloomberg News grabbed a copy. If it stands as the final decision in the case, it would mean emergency abortions in Idaho could resume, at least for the time being, if a woman's health is at serious risk. Doctors in the state have put those abortions on hold, fearing prosecution because Idaho’s restrictive law allows the procedure only when the woman's life is in danger, or in cases of rape or incest.

JESSICA KROLL: We are not legal lawyer people. We just want to practice medicine. Standard of care that takes years, years, decades, even, to develop.

CRAWFORD: Idaho, 1 of 6 states that ban abortion except to save a woman's life, enacted its law two years ago after the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade. The Biden administration sued, arguing those restrictive bands are at odds with a federal law that requires hospitals to provide stabilizing care in emergencies, care that could include abortions when a woman faces serious health complications. Idaho said its law allows doctors to perform abortions in those rare cases, when a woman is facing irreversible health conditions, but a lower court agreed with the administration and said the federal law on emergency care overrode Idaho's ban. The administration had urged the Court not to take up the case, and in the opinion posted today, five of the justices agreed to dismiss the case, saying it was too soon for the Court to decide. Three conservatives dissented, saying the Court should rule for Idaho, and the newest justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, also said the Court should move now but to rule against Idaho.

O’DONNELL: And Jan Crawford joins us now. Jan, this could be so interesting. You could ask at this debate tomorrow night:would a Trump administration have sued Idaho to protect a woman's health. Do we know, though, when this decision could become public but for real by the Supreme Court?

CRAWFORD: No. We don't know. We've got more decisions coming tomorrow morning and then again on Friday, possibly into next week, and of course this is just one of those major cases that we are still waiting on as they wrap up the term. There are those two big cases involving former President Trump, whether or not he is immune from prosecution for his actions around January 6th, and if he is not immune, what can he be charged with? We won't know which opinions are coming down until they actually announce them from the bench, and like I said, that could be anytime between now and sometime next week.

O’DONNELL: And we will break in tomorrow morning, Friday morning with that news when it comes. Thank you, Jan Crawford.

NBC NIGHTLY NEWS:

NBC NIGHTLY NEWS 

6/26/24

6:32 PM

LESTER HOLT: We start with one of the most anticipated decisions the Supreme Court will issue in these final days of its term, a ruling on Idaho's near total ban on abortion. The Court has not yet officially released its decision on whether emergency abortions can be allowed in Idaho. But, for a brief time today, a draft of the ruling appeared on the Court's website, suggesting it would rule in favor of permitting emergency abortions in Idaho. A Court spokesperson says the document had been posted “inadvertently”, but it's the second time in two years this has happened with a major Supreme Court decision on abortion. Laura Jarrett has more on today's misstep.

LAURA JARRETT: Tonight, a mistake of epic proportions rocking the U.S. Supreme Court. A closely watched decision on abortion set to come down any day now mistakenly and briefly posted to the Court's website this morning, indicating the high court is likely on the verge of allowing emergency abortions in Idaho. The document, obtained by Bloomberg Law before it was quickly removed from the website. The Court spokeswoman explaining “the Court's Publications Unit inadvertently and briefly uploaded a document to the website”, adding that the Court's official opinion will be issued in due course. NBC News has not verified whether the document is the final version of the opinion or a draft, but the media's rare advanced access in this case -- harkening back to a leak in another abortion case just two years ago in Dobbs, when Politico published the draft decision overturning Roe v. Wade. The current battle over Idaho's law, which criminalizes nearly all abortions except to save the mother's life. The Biden administration sued the state arguing that abortion ban directly conflicts with a federal law requiring hospitals that receive federal funding provide abortions to women facing health emergencies, even if not on the brink of death. That conflict, doctors say, puts them in a dangerous bind.

SARA THOMSON: It's a really heavy burden to carry to have the five years of potential incarceration to take care of your patients.

JARRETT: The document posted today and later published by Bloomberg in full includes an unsigned opinion from the court punting on the ultimate dispute for now and sending it back to the lower court, which means women in Idaho will be able to obtain emergency abortions while the lawsuit continues to play out. But it also highlights deep divisions on the high court. The justices trading barbs in the document. Justice Jackson saying, “today's decision is not a victory for pregnant patients in Idaho… While this Court dawdles and the court waits, pregnant people experiencing emergency medical conditions remain in a precarious position.” While Justice Alito calls the Court’s decision “baffling”, saying “the Court has simply lost the will to decide the easy but emotional and highly politicized question that the case presents.”

HOLT: A remarkable development, Laura. Any sense of when the Court might release the official opinion in the Idaho case?

JARRETT: Lester, we could see it as soon as tomorrow. The fact that the Court is saying it already made its way to the publication unit means that it’s nearing completion. So we could see it tomorrow at 10 AM, or Friday morning. Lester.

HOLT: Laura Jarrett, thanks.