In a recent development, a federal appeals court has ruled that the U.S. government cannot enforce federal guidance in Texas requiring emergency room doctors to perform abortions to stabilize emergency room patients. The unanimous decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals supports Texas in a lawsuit against President Joe Biden’s administration, accusing it of overstepping its authority.
This ruling occurs amidst a series of legal battles addressing the circumstances under which abortions can be provided in states with abortion bans that allow exceptions for medical emergencies.
The U.S. Department of Justice offered no comment, and there was no immediate response from the office of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton or the two anti-abortion medical associations involved in challenging the guidance: the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists and the Christian Medical & Dental Associations.
The Biden administration’s guidance in July 2022 asserted that the federal law governing emergency rooms, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), can mandate abortion when necessary to stabilize a patient with a medical emergency, even in states where abortion is prohibited. This guidance followed the U.S. Supreme Court’s overturning of the Roe v. Wade ruling, which had guaranteed the right to abortion nationwide since 1973.
Texas and the aforementioned medical associations promptly filed a lawsuit, arguing that the guidance infringed upon the state’s right to restrict abortion. A lower court judge sided with them in August 2022, stating that EMTALA was silent on how to resolve conflicts between the health of the mother and the unborn child. The judge argued that the Texas abortion ban appropriately filled this void by allowing narrow exceptions to save the mother’s life or prevent serious bodily injury in certain cases.
Circuit Judge Kurt Engelhardt, writing for the 5th Circuit panel, concurred with this perspective. He emphasized that EMTALA includes a requirement to deliver an unborn child, leaving it to doctors to balance the medical needs of the mother and fetus while adhering to state abortion laws.
The court’s decision not only upholds the lower court order blocking the guidance’s enforcement in Texas but also prevents its enforcement against members of the two anti-abortion medical associations across the country.
This federal ruling follows a recent decision by Texas’s highest state court, which denied an emergency abortion to a woman with a non-viable pregnancy. The state court is currently deliberating on another lawsuit involving 22 women, exploring the scope of the emergency medical exception to Texas’s abortion ban.
Interestingly, a federal judge in Idaho reached the opposite conclusion in a similar lawsuit last year, blocking the state’s abortion ban by finding a conflict with EMTALA. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to hear the state’s appeal later this month.
As the legal landscape continues to evolve, this latest ruling underscores Texas’s stance on restricting emergency abortions, despite federal recommendations.
