{"id":31011,"date":"2024-04-30T17:05:44","date_gmt":"2024-04-30T17:05:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/?p=31011"},"modified":"2024-04-30T17:07:28","modified_gmt":"2024-04-30T17:07:28","slug":"divided-supreme-court-hears-emergency-room-abortion-case-doj-vs-idahos-pro-life-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/divided-supreme-court-hears-emergency-room-abortion-case-doj-vs-idahos-pro-life-law\/","title":{"rendered":"Divided Supreme Court Hears Emergency-Room Abortion Case: DOJ vs. Idaho’s Pro-Life Law"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Supreme Court\u2019s decision in this case could have far-ranging effects on protections for unborn children in Idaho and more than 20 other states that have passed pro-life laws in the past few years.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Tyler Arnold\/CNA, originally published April 24, 2024, National Catholic Register<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A divided Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Wednesday in a case that will determine whether federal law requires pro-life states to have broader exceptions for women who seek abortions in emergency situations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The crux of the case focuses on whether Idaho\u2019s Defense of Life Act conflicts with a federal rule that requires hospitals to provide stabilizing health care that is consistent with standard medical practice in certain emergency situations.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit<\/a> that argues Idaho\u2019s law prevents hospitals from providing this care in some situations because it only allows abortions in cases of rape and incest and when \u201cnecessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The lawsuit, Moyle v. United States<\/em>, is based on the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which Congress enacted in 1986 to ensure that everyone has access to emergency medical care even if they can\u2019t afford to pay for that care. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Under EMTALA, hospitals that receive Medicare funds must provide stabilizing care<\/a> when the absence of care could put the patient\u2019s health in serious jeopardy or cause the impairment of bodily functions or serious dysfunction of bodily organs. The law does not specifically reference abortion, but the Department of Justice is arguing that an abortion will sometimes be the standard care necessary to meet these rules.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to the DOJ, Idaho\u2019s threshold for when it permits abortion is too strict, because it only permits abortions when necessary to prevent the death of the mother and does not include any exceptions that would cover the other health risks considered in EMTALA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court\u2019s decision in this case could have far-ranging effects on protections for unborn children in Idaho and more than 20 other states that have passed pro-life laws in the past few years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Idaho Claims There Is No Conflict<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

In oral arguments presented to the justices, Idaho\u2019s lawyer, Joshua Turner, said Idaho\u2019s law does not conflict with EMTALA in any way and claimed the DOJ is \u201cmisreading\u201d the statute when it makes that assertion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Turner argued that states can legally regulate the practice of medicine and that they frequently impose such regulations. As an example, he noted that states control medical licensing and the legality of certain treatments. He referenced the different approaches among states related to how long a doctor can prescribe opioids to someone who is dealing with chronic pain and said there are \u201ccountless examples\u201d of this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The DOJ\u2019s interpretation, according to Turner, would prevent the state from enforcing any of these regulations because it \u201clacks any limiting principle\u201d and essentially \u201cleaves emergency rooms unregulated under state law.\u201d He further said that proper \u201cprofessional standards\u201d change from day to day and that it is limited to available treatments, according to the text: \u201cIllegal treatments are not available treatments.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Turner added that the provisions in EMTALA have never been used to challenge a state regulation or criminal statute. He claimed that for EMTALA to override a state\u2019s criminal law, it would need to be very clear. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cCongress must speak clearly,\u201d Turner said. \u201cIt has not done so here.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some of the judges challenged Turner on his interpretation and probed him with questions about when abortions would be allowed under Idaho\u2019s law. Justice Elena Kagan argued with Turner about whether EMTALA was clear, claiming \u201cthe federal government has plenty to say about [when care must be provided] in this statute.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Justice Sonia Sotomayor pressed Turner with questions about whether Idaho\u2019s law would permit an abortion in various hypothetical situations. Turner said the law permits an abortion when the life of the mother is threatened, which is based on \u201cthe doctor\u2019s good-faith medical judgment,\u201d but was repeatedly interrupted when he sought to explain further.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The line of questioning and frequent interruptions provoked the ire of Justice Samuel Alito, who commented that Turner was presented with quick hypotheticals and \u201casked to provide a snap judgment of what would be appropriate\u201d and \u201chardly given an opportunity to answer.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DOJ Asserts Abortion Is Covered Under EMTALA<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who provided the legal arguments on behalf of the DOJ, said Idaho\u2019s law conflicts with the text of EMTALA, which has real implications for what is \u201chappening on the ground.\u201d She asserted that Turner is \u201cgravely mistaken\u201d in saying that there is no conflict. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThis case is about how [EMTALA] applies to pregnant women in a medical crisis,\u201d Prelogar said. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Prelogar challenged Turner\u2019s interpretation that the DOJ\u2019s position would threaten all state medical regulations, asserting that EMTALA is \u201ctextually very narrow.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to Prelogar, if abortion is necessary to provide stabilizing care for a woman under the conditions set in EMTALA, \u201cthe statute protects her and gives her that choice.\u201d She said the patient must \u201cbe offered pregnancy termination [when it is] the necessary treatment.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some of the justices challenged Prelogar\u2019s interpretation of the law. Justice Clarence Thomas noted that EMTALA imposes a rule on hospitals as a condition to receive Medicare funding but that the law does not make demands of the state. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIn this case, you are bringing an action against the state, and the state\u2019s not regulated,\u201d Thomas said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thomas and other judges noted that EMTALA concerns spending and questioned Prelogar on whether it would preempt a state\u2019s criminal laws. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cCongress has broad power under the spending clause to impose [these rules],\u201d Prelogar responded. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The judges also questioned Prelogar about whether EMTALA respects conscience objections made by doctors and hospitals who have moral objections to providing abortions, and she said those protections are still in place. They also asked her whether a mental-health crisis could ever permit an abortion under EMTALA, to which she replied that abortion is \u201cnot the accepted standard of practice to treat any mental-health emergency.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tyler Arnold is a staff reporter for the National Catholic Register.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Supreme Court\u2019s decision in this case could have far-ranging effects on protections for unborn children in Idaho and more than 20 other states that have passed pro-life laws in the past few years. By Tyler Arnold\/CNA, originally published April 24, 2024, National Catholic Register A divided Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Wednesday in…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":31012,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-31011","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news"],"yoast_head":"\nDivided Supreme Court Hears Emergency-Room Abortion Case: DOJ vs. Idaho's Pro-Life Law - Cincinnati Right to Life<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/divided-supreme-court-hears-emergency-room-abortion-case-doj-vs-idahos-pro-life-law\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Divided Supreme Court Hears Emergency-Room Abortion Case: DOJ vs. Idaho's Pro-Life Law - Cincinnati Right to Life\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The Supreme Court\u2019s decision in this case could have far-ranging effects on protections for unborn children in Idaho and more than 20 other states that have passed pro-life laws in the past few years. By Tyler Arnold\/CNA, originally published April 24, 2024, National Catholic Register A divided Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Wednesday in…\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/divided-supreme-court-hears-emergency-room-abortion-case-doj-vs-idahos-pro-life-law\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Cincinnati Right to Life\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2024-04-30T17:05:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-04-30T17:07:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Divided-SCOTUS-banner.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1200\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"600\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Melanie Wade\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Melanie Wade\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/divided-supreme-court-hears-emergency-room-abortion-case-doj-vs-idahos-pro-life-law\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/divided-supreme-court-hears-emergency-room-abortion-case-doj-vs-idahos-pro-life-law\/\",\"name\":\"Divided Supreme Court Hears Emergency-Room Abortion Case: DOJ vs. Idaho's Pro-Life Law - Cincinnati Right to Life\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/divided-supreme-court-hears-emergency-room-abortion-case-doj-vs-idahos-pro-life-law\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/divided-supreme-court-hears-emergency-room-abortion-case-doj-vs-idahos-pro-life-law\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Divided-SCOTUS-banner.png\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-04-30T17:05:44+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-04-30T17:07:28+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/#\/schema\/person\/9a5fe1347253fa134f21cdb919caf789\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/divided-supreme-court-hears-emergency-room-abortion-case-doj-vs-idahos-pro-life-law\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/divided-supreme-court-hears-emergency-room-abortion-case-doj-vs-idahos-pro-life-law\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/divided-supreme-court-hears-emergency-room-abortion-case-doj-vs-idahos-pro-life-law\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Divided-SCOTUS-banner.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Divided-SCOTUS-banner.png\",\"width\":1200,\"height\":600},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/divided-supreme-court-hears-emergency-room-abortion-case-doj-vs-idahos-pro-life-law\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Divided Supreme Court Hears Emergency-Room Abortion Case: DOJ vs. Idaho’s Pro-Life Law\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/\",\"name\":\"Cincinnati Right to Life\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/#\/schema\/person\/9a5fe1347253fa134f21cdb919caf789\",\"name\":\"Melanie Wade\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7ec3fd7a1977f4be962597ccc3e12001?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7ec3fd7a1977f4be962597ccc3e12001?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Melanie Wade\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/author\/mwade\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Divided Supreme Court Hears Emergency-Room Abortion Case: DOJ vs. Idaho's Pro-Life Law - Cincinnati Right to Life","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/divided-supreme-court-hears-emergency-room-abortion-case-doj-vs-idahos-pro-life-law\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Divided Supreme Court Hears Emergency-Room Abortion Case: DOJ vs. Idaho's Pro-Life Law - Cincinnati Right to Life","og_description":"The Supreme Court\u2019s decision in this case could have far-ranging effects on protections for unborn children in Idaho and more than 20 other states that have passed pro-life laws in the past few years. By Tyler Arnold\/CNA, originally published April 24, 2024, National Catholic Register A divided Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Wednesday in…","og_url":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/divided-supreme-court-hears-emergency-room-abortion-case-doj-vs-idahos-pro-life-law\/","og_site_name":"Cincinnati Right to Life","article_published_time":"2024-04-30T17:05:44+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-04-30T17:07:28+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1200,"height":600,"url":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Divided-SCOTUS-banner.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Melanie Wade","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Melanie Wade","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/divided-supreme-court-hears-emergency-room-abortion-case-doj-vs-idahos-pro-life-law\/","url":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/divided-supreme-court-hears-emergency-room-abortion-case-doj-vs-idahos-pro-life-law\/","name":"Divided Supreme Court Hears Emergency-Room Abortion Case: DOJ vs. Idaho's Pro-Life Law - Cincinnati Right to Life","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/divided-supreme-court-hears-emergency-room-abortion-case-doj-vs-idahos-pro-life-law\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/divided-supreme-court-hears-emergency-room-abortion-case-doj-vs-idahos-pro-life-law\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Divided-SCOTUS-banner.png","datePublished":"2024-04-30T17:05:44+00:00","dateModified":"2024-04-30T17:07:28+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/#\/schema\/person\/9a5fe1347253fa134f21cdb919caf789"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/divided-supreme-court-hears-emergency-room-abortion-case-doj-vs-idahos-pro-life-law\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/divided-supreme-court-hears-emergency-room-abortion-case-doj-vs-idahos-pro-life-law\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/divided-supreme-court-hears-emergency-room-abortion-case-doj-vs-idahos-pro-life-law\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Divided-SCOTUS-banner.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Divided-SCOTUS-banner.png","width":1200,"height":600},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/divided-supreme-court-hears-emergency-room-abortion-case-doj-vs-idahos-pro-life-law\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Divided Supreme Court Hears Emergency-Room Abortion Case: DOJ vs. Idaho’s Pro-Life Law"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/#website","url":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/","name":"Cincinnati Right to Life","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/#\/schema\/person\/9a5fe1347253fa134f21cdb919caf789","name":"Melanie Wade","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7ec3fd7a1977f4be962597ccc3e12001?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7ec3fd7a1977f4be962597ccc3e12001?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Melanie Wade"},"url":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/author\/mwade\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31011","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=31011"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31011\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":31015,"href":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31011\/revisions\/31015"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/31012"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=31011"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=31011"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=31011"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}