🔖Landing page: Moyle v. United States
All of rePro-Truth's coverage of the EMTALA lawsuit at the Supreme Court
On April 24, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that will determine whether the lives and health of pregnant patients experiencing obstetric emergencies are protected by the federal law (the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act)— or, conversely, “whether a state can prevent pregnant women from receiving the essential emergency medical treatment that federal law guarantees to all Americans.” The Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling in late June/early July.
This landing page compiles links to all of rePro-Truth’s coverage of the combined cases Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States for you to explore and utilize.
🔊 Listen to the oral arguments
📝 Read the transcript of the oral arguments
✳️ Equal protection— unless you are pregnant? The high stakes Idaho case before the Supreme Court
In this post:
Coverage of the Supreme Court’s decision in January 2024 to temporarily lift a federal injunction that protected emergency room doctors (and nurses, etc.) from being prosecuted for performing medically-necessary, emergency abortions
The underlying motivations of the Idaho Republican Party
What Idaho is asking the Supreme Court to do in this case
The high stakes of this case
✳️ Supreme Court to decide if states can ban emergency abortions: Can a state prevent pregnant women from receiving the essential emergency medical treatment that federal law guarantees to all Americans?
In this post:
Brief introduction to this case
How Idaho’s abortion ban conflicts with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA)
EMTALA and pregnancy complications
What’s at stake in this case
✳️ "Prolonged suffering": Maternal healthcare in a state without EMTALA protections
In this post: The devastating effects on maternal healthcare in Idaho following the Supreme Court’s January 2024 decision to temporarily lift a federal injunction that protected emergency room doctors (and nurses, etc.) from being prosecuted for performing medically-necessary, emergency abortions
✳️ Experts tell Court Idaho is wrong on EMTALA: “HHS has consistently interpreted the stabilizing care requirement in EMTALA to include abortion when clinically necessary.”
In this post:
EMTALA’s stabilizing-care requirement includes abortion
a. Pregnancy termination was recognized as an emergency medical treatment when EMTALA was enacted.
b. Conscience objections were enacted in recognition that stabilizing treatment includes abortions.
c. Federal enforcement actions include emergency abortions.
d. Congress has recognized that EMTALA requires necessary stabilizing abortions.EMTALA sets a national minimum standard for stabilizing emergency medical conditions
✳️ Fact Check: "Catholic hospitals treat pregnancy complications without ever having to performing abortions”
In this post: In a brief submitted to the Supreme Court in this case, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and several Catholic groups falsely claimed that Catholic hospitals treat patients experiencing catastrophic pregnancy complications without ever having to provide abortions.
Claim
Fact check verdict
Documentation
🟥 Denials of care
🟧 Delays in care
🟨 Patient dumpingCatholic healthcare’s reach and influence