top of page
  • Destiny Wells

PRESS RELEASE: DESTINY WELLS RESPONDS TO TODAY’S MOYLE V. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISION


June 13, 2024, 11:30AM


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                        

Contact: Lindsay Shipps Haake, Communications Director          

Cell: (812) 340-4242 or lindsay@wellsforindiana.com

 

DESTINY WELLS RESPONDS TO TODAY’S MOYLE V. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISION


INDIANAPOLIS—Destiny Wells, Democratic candidate for Indiana Attorney General, responded to today’s Moyle v. United States Supreme Court of the United States decision affirming access to Mifepristone – a safe, effective, FDA-approved medication that more than five million people have used over the last two decades. 


“Since I returned home from serving in Afghanistan in 2017, I realized more than ever that women are the barometer of a healthy democracy,” Wells stated. “As Attorney General, I will stand by each Hoosier’s ability to determine their healthcare decisions—today’s SCOTUS decision preserving access to lifesaving medication is a win for American liberty.”



Background:

The Department of Justice (DOJ) sued the State of Idaho, arguing that the severity of the state's abortion ban – which does not include an exception for women’s health – conflicts with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) federal law that requires hospitals to provide stabilizing care to patients in emergency rooms, even if that means abortion care.


EMTALA preempts state laws, meaning that even if an abortion ban is in place medical providers can step in to treat and stabilize patients, even if that means with abortion care. (Note: Even with EMTALA protections, medical providers in states with extreme bans like Texas are struggling to understand where their hands begin to be tied by state abortion bans.)

In heated oral arguments on this case, justices tried to get clarity on what treatments would be covered, such as abortions that would preserve a woman’s organs, her fertility, prevent debilitating kidney diseases, etc. The anti-abortion defense by Idaho could not commit to which health-threatening conditions could legally be treated with abortion under their state laws.

# # #


Comments


bottom of page