Connect with us

Economics

In its latest abortion case the Supreme Court seems to back Idaho

Published

on

IN 2022, five Supreme Court justices wrote that they were returning the issue of abortion to “legislative bodies”. Two years on, that sounds like wishful thinking: the court finds itself right back in the middle of America’s abortion battle. A month ago the issue was access to abortion pills—a fight opponents of abortion seem destined to lose. On April 24th the question was whether state bans that criminalise terminations are trumped by a federal law concerning emergency care.

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labour Act (EMTALA), passed in 1986, requires hospitals receiving federal funding to offer “stabilising treatment” to people showing up in their emergency rooms (ERs). In 2022 the Biden administration notified hospitals that this duty includes offering abortion when a woman’s pregnancy poses immediate risks to her health. But a law passed that year—the Idaho Defence of Life Act—prohibits abortion except in cases of rape or incest, or when “necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman”. Moyle v United States concerns cases where a woman’s health is at imminent risk but she is not at death’s door.

Joshua Turner, defending Idaho’s statute, faced a barrage from the three liberal justices. Idaho’s law explicitly recognises abortion as the standard of medical care when a woman’s “life is in peril”, Justice Elana Kagan noted. So can’t EMTALA extend that same standard to cases when her “health is in peril” and she could “lose her reproductive organs”? Well, Mr Turner said, that raises “tough medical questions that implicate deeply theological and moral questions” states should answer. “That would be a good response if federal law did not take a position on what you characterise as a tough question,” Justice Kagan retorted. But EMTALA “says that you don’t have to wait until the person is on the verge of death”.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor cited the case of “a real woman” in Florida who was sent home from hospital despite doctors believing she needed an abortion to avoid sepsis and uncontrolled haemorrhage. Doctors “refused to treat her because they couldn’t say she would die”. She later returned to the hospital, after bleeding at home and passing out, and an abortion saved her life. Would Idaho’s law require a woman to endure a similar experience? Mr Turner could not give a clear answer. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson walked Mr Turner through a discourse on the constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which states that “what the federal government says takes precedence”.

The Court’s conservative justices largely steered clear of questions of women’s reproductive health. But they voiced three lines of attack on the Biden administration’s position, suggesting that their sympathies lay with Idaho.

Justices Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas all noted that EMTALA was enacted under the constitution’s Spending Clause and probed whether it was proper for the government to withhold Medicare funds unless emergency abortions are provided. Mr Turner argued that such conditions must be “clear and unambiguous” in the statute itself. Elizabeth Prelogar, the solicitor-general, suggested that the court should not consider this argument as the lower courts “did not address” it. Conservative justices raised the question of conscience exemptions—whether doctors who object to abortion would have to follow a federal mandate. But Ms Prelogar insisted that “individual doctors are never required to perform an abortion”.

One objection to the Biden administration’s position seemed to gain more traction: the worry that adding a health exception via EMTALA would invite a host of elective abortions via mental-health claims. Ms Prelogar strove to allay concerns: it would be “incredibly unethical” to treat a woman who comes to the ER “with some grave mental-health emergency” by terminating her pregnancy, she said.

Mary Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California, Davis, said that, though it “seems like Idaho will prevail”, there is “a lot of ambiguity” about how the justices will justify such a ruling, as all of the pathways explored in the hearing are murky. By contrast, perhaps the starkest moment in the hearing was Justice Kagan’s observation that six women have been airlifted out of state from one Idaho hospital since the law went into effect. “It can’t be the right standard of care”, she said, “to force somebody into a helicopter.”

Economics

Job openings showed surprising increase to 7.4 million in April

Published

on

JOLTS beats estimates, posts best number since February

Employers increased job openings more than expected in April while hiring and layoffs also both rose, according to a report Tuesday that showed a relatively steady labor market.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey showed available jobs totaled nearly 7.4 million, an increase of 191,000 from March and higher than the 7.1 million consensus forecast by economists surveyed by FactSet. On an annual basis, the level was off 228,000, or about 3%.

The ratio of available jobs to unemployed workers was down close to 1.03 to 1 for the month, close to the March level.

Hiring also increased for the month, rising by 169,000 to 5.6 million, while layoffs fell by 196,000 to 1.79 million.

Quits, an indicator of worker confidence in their ability to find another job, edged lower, falling by 150,000 to 3.2 million.

“The labor market is returning to more normal levels despite the uncertainty within the macro outlook,” wrote Jeffrey Roach, chief economist at LPL Research. “Underlying patterns in hirings and firings suggest the labor market is holding steady.”

In other economic news Tuesday, the Commerce Department reported that new orders for manufactured goods fell more than expected in April. Orders fell 3.7% on the month, more than the 3.3% Dow Jones forecast and indicative of declining demand after swelling 3.4% in March as businesses sought to get ahead of President Donald Trump’s tariffs.

This is breaking news. Please refresh for updates.

Continue Reading

Economics

Euro zone inflation, May 2025

Published

on

Shoppers buy fresh vegetables, fruit, and herbs at an outdoor produce market under green-striped canopies in Regensburg, Upper Palatinate, Bavaria, Germany, on April 19, 2025.

Michael Nguyen/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Euro zone inflation fell below the European Central Bank’s 2% target in May, hitting a cooler-than-expected 1.9% as the services print eased sharply, flash data from statistics agency Eurostat showed Tuesday.

Economists polled by Reuters had expected the May reading to come in at 2%, compared to the previous month’s 2.2% figure.

The closely watched services inflation print cooled sharply, amounting to 3.2% last month, compared to the previous 4% reading. So-called core inflation, which excludes energy, food, tobacco and alcohol prices, also eased, falling from 2.7% in April to 2.3% in May.

“May’s steep decline in services inflation, to its lowest level in more than three years, confirms that the previous month’s jump was just an Easter-related blip and that the downward trend in services inflation remains on track,” Jack Allen-Reynolds, deputy chief euro zone economist at Capital Economics said in a note.

Inflation has been moving back towards the 2% mark throughout 2025 amid uncertainty for the euro zone economy.

The latest figures will be considered by the European Central Bank as it prepares to make its next interest rate decision later this week. Markets were last pricing in an around 95% chance of interest rates being cut by a further 25-basis-points on Thursday.

Back in April, the central bank took its key rate, the deposit facility rate, to 2.25% — nearly half of the high of 4% notched in the middle of 2023.

But the global economic outlook remains muddied. U.S. President Donald Trump’s protectionist tariff plans have been casting shadows over the global economic outlook, with his so-called “reciprocal” duties — which are also set to affect the European Union — widely seen as harmful to economic growth. Their immediate potential impact on inflation is less clear, with central bank policymakers and analysts noting that it could depend on any potential countermeasures.

Despite the transatlantic tumult, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in its latest Economic Outlook report out on Tuesday said it was expecting the euro area to expand by 1% in 2025, unchanged from its previous forecast. Euro area inflation is meanwhile projected to come in at 2.2% this year, also in line with the March report.

Euro country bond yields were last lower after the fresh inflation data, with the German 10-year bond yield falling by over two basis points to 2.499%, while the yield on the French 10-year bond was last down by more than one basis point to 3.169%.

The euro was meanwhile last around 0.3% lower against the dollar.

Continue Reading

Economics

U.S. growth forecast cut further by OECD as Trump tariffs sour outlook

Published

on

Old Navy and Gap retail stores are seen as people walk through Times Square in New York City on April 9, 2025.

Angela Weiss | Afp | Getty Images

Economic growth forecasts for the U.S. and globally were cut further by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development as President Donald Trump’s tariff turmoil weighs on expectations.

The U.S. growth outlook was downwardly revised to just 1.6% this year and 1.5% in 2026. In March, the OECD was still expecting a 2.2% expansion in 2025.

The fallout from Trump’s tariff policy, elevated economic policy uncertainty, a slowdown of net immigration and a smaller federal workforce were cited as reasons for the latest downgrade.

Global growth, meanwhile, is also expected to be lower than previously forecast, with the OECD saying that “the slowdown is concentrated in the United States, Canada and Mexico,” while other economies are projected to see smaller downward revisions.

“Global GDP growth is projected to slow from 3.3% in 2024 to 2.9% this year and in 2026 … on the technical assumption that tariff rates as of mid-May are sustained despite ongoing legal challenges,” the OECD said.

It had previously forecast global growth of 3.1% this year and 3% in 2026.

“The global outlook is becoming increasingly challenging,” the report said. “Substantial increases in barriers to trade, tighter financial conditions, weaker business and consumer confidence and heightened policy uncertainty will all have marked adverse effects on growth prospects if they persist.”

Frequent changes regarding tariffs have continued in recent weeks, leading to uncertainty in global markets and economies. Some of the most recent developments include Trump’s reciprocal, country-specific levies being struck down by the U.S. Court of International Trade, before then being reinstated by an appeals court, as well as Trump saying he would double steel duties to 50%.

The OECD adjusted its inflation forecast, saying “higher trade costs, especially in countries raising tariffs, will also push up inflation, although their impact will be offset partially by weaker commodity prices.”

The impact of tariffs on inflation has been hotly debated, with many central bank policymakers and global analysts suggesting it remains unclear how the levies will impact prices, and that much depends on factors like potential countermeasures.

The OECD’s inflation outlook shows a notable difference between the U.S. and some of the world’s other major economies. For instance, while G20 countries are now expected to record 3.6% inflation in 2025 — down from 3.8% in March’s estimate — the projection for the U.S. has risen to 3.2%, up from a previous 2.8%.

U.S. inflation could even be closing in on 4% toward the end of 2025, the OECD said.

Continue Reading

Trending