By Dave Andrusko
Without much explanation and no publicly noted dissent, the Supreme Court this morning left intact an appeals court decision that favored Texas in the contentious debate over abortion and the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act [EMTALA].
EMTALA was enacted in 1986 to prevent “patient dumping.” Under the law, hospitals were required to deliver emergency patient care regardless of the patient’s ability to pay. Under EMTALA, those hospitals that receive federal funds from Medicare are covered.
The 1986 EMTALA had nothing to do with abortion until Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra told hospitals more than two years ago that federal law requires them to provide pregnant patients experiencing emergency medical conditions with stabilizing treatment, including abortions, regardless of state restrictions.
“The Biden administration had asked the justices to throw out the lower court order, arguing that hospitals have to perform abortions in emergency situations under federal law,” according to Lindsay Whitehurst. “Texas asked the justices to leave the order in place, saying the state Supreme Court ruling meant Texas law, unlike Idaho’s, does have an exception for the health of a pregnant patient and there’s no conflict between federal and state law.”
John Seago, president of Texas Right to Life, said in a statement on X “Don’t believe the Democrat & media spin on this case! The court ruled that TX #prolife law has clear & sufficient provisions for treating women in med emergencies. Tx also has TMB [Texas Medical Board] rules. The fed gov introduced a new vague standard that would only lead to more confusion.”
Dr. Seago added, “Yes, many medical professionals are confused (mostly bc of the misinformation), but the solution is doubling down on education & teaching our healthcare workers the truth about the law & best practices during a life/health med emergency.”
According to Whitehurst
The Texas case started after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, leading to abortion restrictions in many Republican-controlled states. The Biden administration issued guidance saying hospitals still needed to provide abortions in emergency situations under a health care law that requires most hospitals to treat any patients in medical distress.
Texas sued over that guidance, arguing that hospitals cannot be required to provide abortions that would violate its ban. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the state, ruling in January that the administration had overstepped its authority.
The unanimous panel added,
“The injunction is not overbroad. As previously discussed, EMTALA does not mandate medical treatments, let alone abortion care, nor does it preempt Texas law. The injunction squarely enjoins HHS from enforcing the Guidance and Letter regarding these two issues within the State of Texas and against the plaintiff organizations.”
