Last month the state of Texas sued the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) after a guidance was issued to doctors to perform emergency abortion under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. Last night, Federal Judge James Wesley Hendrix blocked the Biden Administration’s emergency abortion policy.
After the overturn of Roe v. Wade, different states, such as Texas, had trigger laws in place to ban abortions within their respective states unless there is going to be a threat to the life of the mother. But that has not stopped the Biden Administration from trying to implement abortion despite state laws.
The Biden Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) sent out a Guidance to hospitals claiming that, under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, doctors were required to give emergency abortions the patients’ emergency medical treatment required it. The Guidance stated that, “An emergency medical condition may include a condition that is likely or certain to become emergent without stabilizing treatment,”
The Health and Human Services Department stated that, under this, doctors still had a responsibility and obligation to give patients emergency abortions regardless of their state’s law. The Guidance given by HHS said, “If qualified medical personnel determine that the patient’s condition, such as an ectopic pregnancy, requires stabilizing treatment to prevent serious jeopardy to the patient’s health, the qualified medical personnel is required by EMTALA to provide the treatment,” said HHS.
Furthermore, if hospitals did not comply with EMTALA, then HHS claimed this could result in losing federal Medicaid and Medicare funding. This put many doctors on alert in states that outlawed abortions. Doctors don’t want to get sued, and they do not want to lose funding.
The EMTALA was enacted in 1986 to prevent patient dumping. Under this law, hospitals cannot turn away patients even if the patient cannot pay funding. The highlighted provision in the EMTALA used is, “EMTALA defines “emergency medical condition” to include “a medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity, such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in–(i) placing the health of the individual in serious jeopardy, (ii) serious impairment to bodily functions, or (iii) serious dysfunction of any bodily function or part.” 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd (e)(1)(A). 20. “To stabilize” means “to provide such medical treatment of the condition as may be necessary to assure, within reasonable medical probability, that no material deterioration of the condition is likely to result from or occur during the transfer of the individual from a facility.” 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(e)(3).”
In response to the Guidance, the state of Texas sued the Health and Human Services Department. The state of Texas said in the lawsuit that the Biden Administration was wrongly using the EMTALA to allow abortions in states that have outlawed it. Texas claimed that the EMTALA does not specify treatment, let alone abortion, and the act by the Biden Administration was a violation of states rights.
Additionally in the complaint made by the state of Texas, it was argued that there was a provision in the Social Security Act, which EMTALA is part of, that hinders Federal officers or employees from exercising “any supervision or control over the practice of medicine or the manner in which medical services are provided . . . or to exercise any supervision or control over the administration or operation of any such institution, agency, or person [providing health services].”
The decision came from the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Texas. Judge Hendrix sided with the State of Texas and stated that the Biden Administration did overreach and misuse the law in question. Judge Hendriks stated,“ The Court concludes that the Guidance extends beyond EMTALA’s authorizing text in three ways: it discards the requirement to consider the welfare of unborn children when determining how to stabilize a pregnant woman; it claims to preempt state laws notwithstanding explicit provisions to the contrary; and it impermissibly interferes with the practice of medicine in violation of the Medicare Act.”
The Biden Administration used the EMTALA to provide abortions in likely or certain to emerge circumstances. Texas’ abortion laws allow abortion in actual physically life-threatening situations. The Federal Court took those concepts and did not see Texas law in violation of the EMTALA provision of immediate medical treatment. Therefore, the District Court concluded there was no conflict between federal and state laws.
Furthermore, since the overturn of Roe v Wade, there is no longer a derived right to abortion from the Constitution. This eliminates, in the District Court’s argument, an inherit right to an abortion. That decision allows the states to decide how they handle abortion. The Judge in this case concluded it was in Texas’ right to establish its own abortion law, and it did not violate the EMTALA, which, the Judge notes, there is “nothing in the record [that] suggests that EMTALA has ever been interpreted and applied to supersede state laws governing the permissibility of abortions in medical emergencies.”
Thus, in the federal court’s view, that Biden’s use of the EMTALA did not fit the intent of the Guidance, and violated Texas’ sovereignty to establish its own abortion laws.
The Federal Judge only barred the emergency abortion guidance in the state of Texas and against two pro-life doctors’ coalitions made up of doctors. A similar case is brewing in Idaho and that decision is expected to be made in the same way. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who brought the lawsuit before federal court, has touted the victory as a win for pro-life and for states rights.
Story written by Jacob Lehrer