Pro-Lifers Score Supreme Court Win Over the Biden Administration
The U.S. Supreme Court recently rejected a request from the Biden administration to intervene in a Texas law that bans most abortions. The administration aimed to challenge a prior decision related to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), arguing that it should mandate hospitals to provide abortions when necessary for a woman’s health. However, the Fifth Circuit Court previously ruled that EMTALA does not require any specific medical treatments, including abortions, and that it should not be used as a basis for overriding state laws. The Supreme Court’s decision upholds this ruling, emphasizing that the regulation of medical practices falls under state jurisdiction, and does not extend EMTALA’s scope to include mandating abortion services. This outcome highlights ongoing conflicts between federal and state regulations regarding abortion following the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
A Biden administration bid to poke a hole in a Texas law banning abortion was defeated by the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday.
As summarized by SCOTUSblog, the administration had sought to have lower courts review a decision concerning the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act.
The Biden administration said the act should be used to force Texas hospitals to provide abortions to save a woman’s life or prevent damage to her health.
The EMTALA regulates the conduct of hospitals that receive Medicaid funding.
The Biden administration contended that that abortions should be provided under the act even if this contradicts a state law.
The court turned away the request without comment.
That leaves intact a ruling from a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit that said the Biden administration’s bid to use the Medicaid act to tell hospitals what to do was government overreach.
The act “does not mandate any specific type of medical treatment, let alone abortion,” the judges ruled
“In sum, EMTALA does not govern the practice of medicine,” the panel ruled.
“While EMTALA directs physicians to stabilize patients once an emergency medical condition has been diagnosed … the practice of medicine is to be governed by the states. HHS’s argument that any type of treatment should be provided is outside EMTLA’s purview,” the ruling said.
Although the subject of the case was abortion, the court said the underlying issue was control.
“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. We therefore decline to expand the scope of EMTALA,” the ruling said.
As noted by The New York Times, the Texas law that outlaws most abortions allows abortion to prevent a serious risk of “substantial impairment of a major bodily function.”
In June, the Supreme Court had supported allowing Idaho hospitals to perform emergency abortions in emergency situations, regardless of what state law might say.
However, in that case the court used a technicality to rule against the appeal that would have overturned that practice.
The dispute began when, after the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade, the administration told hospitals it would use the federal Medicaid law as a vehicle to push for abortions to be performed, according to USA Today.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
