The state of Texas sued the federal government on Thursday after the Biden administration said federal rules require hospitals to perform abortions if the procedure is necessary to save the mother’s life, even in cases where state laws mostly prohibit the procedure.
The lawsuit, which names the Department of Health and Human Services and Secretary Xavier Becerra among its defendants, says the guidelines issued by the Biden administration earlier this week are illegal and that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act does not cover abortions.
“The Biden administration is seeking to transform every emergency room in the country into an abortion clinic,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said when he announced the lawsuit. He said the federal government is not authorized to require emergency health care providers to perform abortions.
Litigation worries doctors. Dr. Ghazaleh Moayedi, a Dallas-based obstetrician/gynecologist and former abortion provider, said emergency rooms can encounter these situations frequently — when patients experience miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies, or when a woman’s water breaks before the fetus. to be viable.
“Physicians should not be forced to call a lawyer, an ethicist, another lawyer, a hospital administrator while a patient is actively dying,” she said. “That’s reckless.”
The lawsuit comes after the Biden administration told hospitals on Monday that they “must” provide abortion services if the mother’s life is at risk, saying the federal Emergency Treatment Guidelines Act takes precedence over state laws , which have almost total bans on the procedure after the US Supreme Court ruled that abortion is not a constitutional right.
In a letter to providers, the Department of Health and Human Services said medical facilities are required to determine whether the person seeking treatment may be in labor or is facing a medical emergency — or one that could develop into an emergency — and provide treatment. The letter states that if an abortion is the necessary treatment to stabilize the patient, it should be performed.
“When a state law prohibits abortion and does not include an exception for the life of the pregnant woman — or makes the exception narrower than EMTALA’s definition of a medical emergency — that state law prevails,” the letter said.
The department says its guidance does not reflect a new policy, but reminds doctors and providers of existing obligations under EMTALA, which was passed in 1986 and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan.
But Texas officials disagree and are asking a judge to strike down the Biden administration’s guidelines and declare them illegal.
The lawsuit says Biden “blatantly disregards” the legislative and democratic process and that the guidelines force “hospitals and doctors to commit crimes and risk being licensed under Texas law.”
The lawsuit says EMTALA does not mandate, direct or suggest the provision of any specific treatment and says nothing about abortion.
“On the contrary, EMTALA considers a medical emergency to be one that threatens the life of the unborn child,” the lawsuit states. “It is clear that abortion does not preserve the life or health of the unborn child.”
The fall of Roe triggered the Texas law that will ban nearly all abortions in the coming weeks. In the meantime, clinics have tried to continue serving patients, but legal battles over whether a 1925 passive abortion ban can be enforced for now have already stopped most doctors from performing abortions. Abortions will soon be legal in Texas only when the mother’s life is in danger or if she is at risk of “substantial impairment of an essential bodily function.”
Laura Hermer, a professor at Mitchell Hamline School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota. said Texas cares more about its own sovereignty than protecting pregnant women.
“It’s dangerous to be pregnant in Texas,” said Laura Hermer, a professor at Mitchell Hamline School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota. “People who are pregnant are going to die in Texas because of the position that Texas is taking on this issue. This is not about life. There’s nothing pro-life about that.”
Jonathan Turley, a professor at the George Washington University School of Law, said it was surprising that the challenge came from a state government. “Typically, providers would challenge any coverage mandate that is not clearly established in federal law,” Turley said.
Moayedi, the Dallas doctor who also sits on the board of Physicians for Reproductive Health, said the federal government’s guidelines have not been helpful — and that the Texas lawsuit is instilling fear among health care providers across the state.
“Healthcare providers have always been very hesitant to participate in anything that could be considered an abortion in our state unless they are an abortion provider,” she said.
The lawsuit says doctors would be forced to choose between violating the Texas law — which bans nearly all abortions — or jeopardizing their ability to receive Medicare funds. The lawsuit says the federal guidelines also run afoul of the Hyde Amendment, which generally prohibits the use of federal dollars to fund abortions unless the pregnancy is the result of rape, incest or the woman’s life is in danger.
White House press secretary Karin Jean-Pierre said it was an example of an “extreme and radical” Republican elected official. She added: “It is unthinkable that this public official would sue to prevent women from receiving life-saving care in emergency rooms, a right protected by US law.