LogFAQs > #980074289

They'll go with a "leave it up to the states" mandate. Gorsuch's main schtick is teh sakred free murketz. Alito and Thomas are religious extremists and far right. I can't remember what Kavanaugh's thing is, and I can't recall how ACAB always votes on these issues, except that she surprisingly doesn't adhere to her stereotype 100% of the time.
BTW, I've noticed that the chuds don't like ACAB as much as they like Thomas and Alito.

Of course, the core issue here is about medicare/medicaid funding. So I think the conservative justices are going to go the "give conscientious objector exemptions for pro-life medical staff" They may also go the dumb/loophole route and say "medicare/caid funds cannot go to these hospitals, but state-funded healthcare coverage plans funded by medicaid/medicare can, and it's up to the states if they want to do this"
While likely obscuring or omitting the fact that state healthcare plans or hospital funding programs use medicare/medicaid funds.

Not that it will matter. Alito and Thomas will rule against this, so it's +2 for the evil fucks out of the gates. It won't take much for the other fucks to twist this in a way that makes sense to them. Kav already is trying, with the "but was the bill originally passed for this intent?"

That isn't how laws work. Only the actual language matters. If that was the case, then the 1st wouldn't protect non-18th century technology free speech, no one would have a right to a gun, etc.

Actually, it does matter to some extent. E.g. if loophole abuse exists, IIRC the justices can add the closing of said loophole as a clause in their rulings, though usually there has to be some sort of precedent or constitutional logic for doing that.