A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld a lower court ruling blocking the Biden administration from enforcing federal guidance in Texas related to emergency abortions.
Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Kurt Engelhardt, an appointee of President Donald Trump, penned the opinion, noting that the court declined “to expand the scope” of a federal statute to include enforcing abortions.
The unanimous opinion by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is a win for Texas, whose attorney general argued the rule would force doctors to perform elective abortions against state law.
The ruling means a loss for the White House’s abortion agenda, and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which argued that its federal guidance trumps state laws.
The 2022 HHS guidance at the center of the lawsuit mandated that medical providers perform abortions in emergency situations.
The guidance cited the 1986 federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which requires health providers to provide emergency care to a patient regardless of their ability to pay for it.
Under EMTALA, certain health care providers can face stiff civil penalties, as well as loss of Medicare or Medicaid funding, for violations.
“The question before the court is whether EMTALA, according to HHS’s Guidance, mandates physicians to provide abortions when that is the necessary stabilizing treatment for an emergency medical condition. It does not,” Judge Engelhardt wrote.
Judges Leslie Southwick, a President George W. Bush appointee, and Cory Wilson, another President Trump appointee, joined Judge Engelhardt in his decision.
“EMTALA does not mandate any specific type of medical treatment, let alone abortion,” the opinion reads.
Texas Sues and Wins
In July 2022, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued HHS over the guidance, seeking to block the enforcement of EMTALA, alleging that it forces providers to perform elective abortions in excess of HHS’s authority and contrary to state law.
Mr. Paxton argued that the rule forces hospitals and doctors to commit crimes and risk their medical licenses under Texas state law.
The lower court agreed in its August 2022 ruling, prompting HHS to appeal the ruling, which the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has now unanimously upheld.
The opinion noted, “The Texas plaintiffs’ argument that medical treatment is historically subject to police power of the States, not to be superseded unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress, is convincing.”
The federal law, the decision notes, “does not provide an unqualified right for the pregnant mother to abort her child, especially when EMTALA imposes equal stabilization obligations.”
The ruling comes after the Texas Supreme Court ruled last month that a pregnant woman suing the state over its abortion ban was not permitted to get such an emergency procedure in the state.
In August 2022, U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix agreed with Mr. Paxton that the HHS rule was “unauthorized” and went beyond the text of a related federal law.
His ruling noted that EMTALA “protects both mothers and unborn children.” However, the federal guidance “is silent as to abortion,” requiring doctors to ignore the well-being of the unborn child in favor of the mother when providing emergency care to stabilize the mother’s condition.
”Since the statute is silent on the question, the Guidance cannot answer how doctors should weigh risks to both a mother and her unborn child. Nor can it, in doing so, create a conflict with state law where one does not exist,” the ruling stated.
The judge declined to enjoin the guidance nationwide and instead only barred HHS from enforcing it and its interpretation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act in Texas.
In its lawsuit challenging the guidance, Texas argued that EMTALA does not give the federal government the authority to force health care providers to perform abortions.
The Epoch Times contacted HHS for comment.
Jack Phillips contributed to this report.
From The Epoch Times
