{"version":"1.0","type":"rich","provider_name":"Acast","provider_url":"https://acast.com","height":250,"width":700,"html":"<iframe src=\"https://embed.acast.com/$/695ea2381c1db1c5bdf7c59b/695ea25024334d02344b5a1d?\" frameBorder=\"0\" width=\"700\" height=\"250\"></iframe>","title":"Opinionpalooza: The Vanishing Emergency Abortion Decision (Preview)","thumbnail_width":200,"thumbnail_height":200,"thumbnail_url":"https://open-images.acast.com/shows/695ea2381c1db1c5bdf7c59b/786cce09e1d769a49680717e1d7e2c93.jpg?height=200","description":"<p>On Wednesday, the Supreme Court issued two important decisions in its traditional fashion: a box of printed copies for those journalists in the press room, and furious SCOTUS website refreshing for those who were not. </p><p><em>Murthy v Missouri </em>was one of the closely watched social media cases of the term, about “jawboning” or when and if the government can ask/prod/urge private social media companies to moderate content in the interest of things like public health or election integrity, or whether such conduct constitutes censorship. <em>Snyder v US </em>concerned corruption and the difference between bribes and gratuities under a federal corruption law. </p><p>Somewhere in between the publishing of these opinions, however, the court inadvertently and very briefly published what may or may not be its opinion in a pair of emergency abortion cases, <em>Moyle v United States</em> and <em>Idaho v United States. </em>The Court spokeswoman urged us all to pay no attention to the early draft. Chaos ensued. On this extra, members-only episode of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Mark Joseph Stern to try to get our arms around a day of big news, including the “now you see it, now you don’t” abortion news at the highest court in the land. </p><p><em>This is part of </em><a href=\"http://slate.com/opinionpalooza\"><em>Opinionpalooza</em></a><em>, Slate’s coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. We kicked things off this year by explaining </em><a href=\"https://slate.com/originalism\"><em>How Originalism Ate the Law</em></a><em>. The best way to support our work is by joining </em><a href=\"https://slate.com/plus\"><em>Slate Plus</em></a><em>. (If you are already a member, consider a </em><a href=\"https://slate.com/donate?utm_medium=link&amp;utm_campaign=plus&amp;utm_content=nav_bar&amp;utm_source=nav\"><em>donation</em></a><em> or </em><a href=\"https://shop.slate.com/collections/exclusive-amicus-merch\"><em>merch</em></a><em>!)</em></p><p>This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes of Amicus, but you’ll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit <a href=\"http://slate.com/amicusplus\">slate.com/amicusplus</a> to get access wherever you listen.</p><p> </p>","author_name":"Slate Podcasts"}