The Supreme Court decided not to hear a challenge to a lower-court ruling preventing emergency abortions in Texas if they violate the state’s strict abortion ban.
The Biden administration sought to appeal a ruling from the conservative-leaning U.S. Fifth Circuit of Appeals that sided with Texas on whether state-level abortion restrictions took precedent over federal law on emergency health care.
In June, the justices dropped a similar Idaho emergency abortion case, leaving the underlying legal questions unresolved. As a result, emergency-room doctors will continue being able to perform abortions even in states with abortion bans, while the Idaho case remains the subject of litigation in lower courts.
By dismissing the Texas case, the Supreme Court granted a major victory for Texas attorney general Ken Paxton (R) and a setback to the Biden administration’s pro-abortion agenda. The Biden administration asked the Supreme Court to throw out the Fifth Circuit’s ruling after it threw out the Idaho case.
The legal dispute centers around the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a 1986 law requiring hospitals to deliver emergency patient care regardless of the patient’s ability to pay. Hospitals that receive federal funds from Medicare are covered by the law.
When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the Biden administration’s Department of Health and Human Services issued new guidance stating that EMTALA covers abortions in situations where the mother needs stabilizing treatment. The decision to overturn Roe v. Wade returned abortion legalization to the states, allowing many red states to pass abortion bans to protect unborn children.
Texas prohibits abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected, usually around six weeks into pregnancy. The abortion law includes a private right of action allowing citizens to enforce the law through civil lawsuits. The Lonestar State also enacted the Human Life Protection Act, a law protecting the unborn from conception with an exception if the mother faces a life-threatening physical condition.
Texas quickly challenged the Biden administration’s EMTALA guidance and a lower court sided with the state, finding that the federal government overstepped its authority with the guidance. The Fifth Circuit unanimously upheld the lower court’s ruling in January preventing the federal government from enforcing the guidance.
“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,” the panel concluded.
The Biden administration also used the guidance to sue Idaho over its abortion ban, arguing that it came into conflict with EMTALA. Idaho’s abortion law bans abortions for the entirety of the pregnancy except for life of the mother and rape and incest.