The Supreme Court Declines Biden’s Plea in Texas Abortion Case
This decision follows the court’s earlier ruling on a related case in Idaho concerning a federal emergency care statute.
WASHINGTON − On Monday, the Supreme Court turned down the Biden administration’s call to mandate emergency abortions in Texas to avert serious harm to mothers.
The court, without providing any comments, upheld a lower court’s decision which stated that Texas’s stringent abortion ban does not violate federal law.
This latest move comes months after the Supreme Court permitted emergency abortions in Idaho as the administration’s legal battle against that state’s abortion restrictions continues.
In Texas, the administration was counter-sued after instructing hospitals to provide abortions when necessary to safeguard a woman’s health, which is different from the situation in Idaho where the Biden administration was directly challenging the state’s laws.
This issue will still be addressed in lower courts, although the Justice Department’s position may shift if Donald Trump successfully returns to the presidency in the November elections.
Lower Court Determined EMTALA Does Not Require Abortion
Following the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision that revoked the constitutional right to abortion, the Biden administration informed hospitals of a federal law that mandates emergency care regardless of how a patient can pay.
This implies providing abortions when a woman’s health is at risk, not just her life, according to the administration’s interpretation.
However, after Texas filed a lawsuit, a panel from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) does not mandate any particular medical service, including abortions.
The appeals court also criticized the administration for not adhering to appropriate processes when it announced its enforcement actions.
In its petition to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department argued that the lower court’s ruling merits further examination due to recent developments.
These developments include the Supreme Court’s June decision that permitted emergency abortions in Idaho while the administration’s legal challenge to the state’s abortion laws is underway.
The administration also pointed out that Texas now claims there is no conflict with federal law, given that abortions are permitted if a mother’s life is threatened or there is a substantial risk to a major bodily function.
Texas, on the other hand, urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the administration’s appeal, upholding the previous court decision.
Healthcare professionals have expressed challenges in treating women facing severe health risks, such as the potential loss of organs or severe bleeding, without resorting to abortion unless the mother’s life is in immediate danger.
Women in Texas have filed federal complaints claiming they were denied abortions for ectopic pregnancies, which almost cost them their lives and led to the loss of fallopian tubes after repeated refusals for necessary care.
In May, the Texas Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to the state’s abortion restrictions brought by women facing serious complications during pregnancy. This followed a ruling that a Dallas woman carrying a fetus with a terminal condition was not eligible for an abortion under state law based on her doctor’s assessment of need.
A report from ProPublica revealed that a woman in Georgia died in 2022 after enduring a 20-hour wait for a hospital to treat her following complications from an abortion pill.
