EMTALA is a federal law that requires hospitals that receive Medicare funds to stabilize and care for any patient who needs emergency treatment, regardless of the patient’s ability to pay. Its purpose is not to facilitate the provision of abortions, but that is precisely what the Biden Administration is attempting to do. To provide context, it is necessary to first consider the background to this issue.
As previously discussed on Wednesday, Attorney General Merrick Garland has initiated legal proceedings against Idaho’s protective abortion law, which permits abortion in instances where it is deemed necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman, as determined by a physician in accordance with the standards of good faith medical judgment and the facts known to the physician at the time, as elucidated by Dan McLaughlin of National Review.
Furthermore, the legislation permits a defense when a medical practitioner performs a procedure that “provided the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive, unless, in his good faith medical judgment, termination of the pregnancy in that manner would have posed a greater risk of the death of the pregnant woman,” as McLaughlin continues. In essence, the legislation treats the mother and child as having an equal right to life. However, it permits abortion when the mother’s own life is threatened, even if her death is not certain and the child’s is. Furthermore, even in such circumstances, it requires that the utmost efforts be made to ensure the child’s chances of survival.
The Justice Department is initiating legal proceedings under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), contending that the “Idaho law prohibits abortions in instances where the denial of an abortion would contravene the federal act.” This assertion was made by McLaughlin.
On Wednesday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton asked a court to stop the Biden Administration from requiring Texas hospitals and doctors to perform abortions to get Medicare and Medicaid funding.
The Attorney General’s office released a press statement
This Biden Administration’s Abortion Mandate has the effect of requiring doctors and hospitals to choose between performing abortions in violation of State law or caring for women as they always have while incurring fines and the loss of federal funding.
Texas law has long permitted doctors to perform abortions when the life of the mother is at risk. That is still the law. EMTALA does not empower the federal government to change that. EMTALA requires hospitals to treat patients the same regardless of their ability to pay; it does not authorize the federal government to commandeer the practice of medicine.
“While the Biden Administration continues to make up rules that are unconstitutional, I will keep holding them accountable,” said Attorney General Paxton. “I will not allow the Biden Administration to threaten doctors and hospitals with this unlawful mandate and put millions of Texans’ access to healthcare on the line.”
The Attorney General’s brief requests a preliminary injunction. He writes:
As set forth more fully in the brief filed in support of this motion, injunctive relief is warranted because Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their claims that the Abortion Mandate is unlawful. Defendants lacked statutory authority to adopt it, failed to follow required procedures for adopting a rule, acted arbitrarily and capriciously, and made other legal errors. Moreover, the Abortion Mandate will cause irreparable harm by requiring doctors and hospitals to either violate State law and risk their medical licenses or comply with State law and risk enormous penalties and loss of federal funding.
McLaughlin notes that those who advocate for legal abortion have become accustomed to prevailing in court based on precedent and the sympathies of the judges. However, when they are required to present their arguments based on the facts and judged according to the same legal standards as other litigants, they often do not fare as well. It is important to monitor the actions of the Biden Administration, which is attempting to circumvent the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade, as well as state pro-life laws that have been democratically approved. We are equally resolved to impede their efforts.
Daniel Miller is responsible for nearly all of National Right to Life News' political writing.
With the election of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency, Daniel Miller developed a deep obsession with U.S. politics that has never let go of the political scientist. Whether it's the election of Joe Biden, the midterm elections in Congress, the abortion rights debate in the Supreme Court or the mudslinging in the primaries - Daniel Miller is happy to stay up late for you.
Daniel was born and raised in New York. After living in China, working for a news agency and another stint at a major news network, he now lives in Arizona with his two daughters.
