The SCOTUS Embarrassment That Was the EMTALA Case
Added 2024-08-02 07:35:16 +0000 UTCOA1056
As the Trump campaign celebrates the “demise” of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, we check in on reports of its death to see just how exaggerated they might be. Does it even matter that the ultra-conservative push to remake the personnel and policies of the federal government run by people who talk like Bond villains is (allegedly) no longer in the policy game? And how did things get to the point that these people were too extreme for Stephen Miller?
We then discuss the Supreme Court’s recent decision to dismiss Moyle v US without a decision on the merits of Idaho's attempts to criminalize nearly all abortions. Why did the conservative justices rush to jump into this case only to find that they never should have done that? What can we learn from this week's unprecedented inside leaks about how this decision?
Finally, a quick check on the state of Donald Trump's gag order and Nikki Haley's weird attempt to get her name out of her treacherous former SuperPAC's collective mouth.
42 USC 1395dd (relevant EMTALA provision)
St Luke’s Medical System’s amicus brief in Moyle (detailing specific harms to pregnant people of allowing Idaho’s so-called “Defense of Life Act” to go into effect)
Comments
Love the new logo!
Ron W
2024-08-03 10:33:06 +0000 UTCThis treatment of pregnant people is horrific. I do want to add, though, that given the nature of our medical system, I’m pretty sure if it was legal some emergency rooms would absolutely be turning people seeking all sorts of care away! For (perceived) lack of ability to pay, perhaps especially.
Heather
2024-08-02 16:25:05 +0000 UTCmatt's puns: 👨⚖️🔟 👩⚖️🔟 🧑⚖️🔟
lauren
2024-08-02 16:07:50 +0000 UTCCorrection (of myself): the EMTALA opinion affects all people capable of becoming pregnant, not just women. The other issues I noted (domestic and sexual violence) absolutely effect everyone as well. Speaking from my own personal experience/observation based on how I identify, and not my intent to omit others who suffer under these same practices and laws.
Katie Herrmann
2024-08-02 16:01:38 +0000 UTCHey @Thomas you mentioned you’ve been listening/reading a series on originalism. Can you share the reference?
Tim H
2024-08-02 15:49:15 +0000 UTCMan, the tendency in this country - rather by law or in practice - to not care about a woman's life/rights until she is dead or dying. Disheartening doesn't begin to cover it. Whether it's reproductive care, domestic violence, sexual violence, etc. - there is this common view that if your life wasn't put in express, immediate danger or lost altogether: no harm done. This opinion (unsurprisingly) made me so angry. We don't hold cops responsible for knowing the law, when their actual job is law enforcement. But we're going to hold doctors accountable for interpreting a law about medical care written by folks who have no idea how medical care works? From the opening paragraphs of the opinion to the last sentence of Thomas' dissent (citing the Editor of the National Review in support of some wild BS): absolutely livid.
Katie Herrmann
2024-08-02 15:42:41 +0000 UTC
