In Texas Case, Federal Appeals Panel Says Emergency Care Abortions Not Required By 1986 Law

LOADING ERROR LOADING NEW ORLEANS (AP) — The Biden administration cannot use a 1986 emergency care law to require hospitals in Texas hospitals to provide abortions for women whose lives are at risk due to pregnancy, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday. It’s one of numerous cases involving abortion restrictions that have played out in state and federal courts after the U.S.

Supreme Court ended abortion rights in 2022. The administration issued guidance that year saying hospitals “must” provide abortion services if there’s a risk to the mother’s life, citing the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act of 1986, which requires emergency rooms to provide stabilizing treatment for anyone who arrives at the emergency room.

Advertisement Texas state courts have also brought separate cases about when abortion must be allowed there, despite bans on it under most circumstances. The Texas Supreme Court ruled last month against a woman who asked for permission to abort a fetus with a fatal diagnosis. The same court heard arguments in November on behalf of women who were denied abortions despite serious risks to their health if they continued their pregnancies; the justices have not ruled on that case.

Abortion opponents have challenged the emergency care law guidance in multiple jurisdictions. In Texas, the state joined abortion opponents in a lawsuit to stop the guidance from taking effect and won at the district court level. The Biden administration appealed to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi.

But the appeal was rejected in Tuesday’s ruling by a unanimous three judge panel. The ruling said the guidance cannot be used to require emergency care abortions in Texas or by members of two anti abortion groups that filed suit — the American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists and the Christian Medical & Dental Associations.

The California based 9th Circuit has allowed use of the guidance to continue in an Idaho case, which is pending at the U.S. Supreme Court. Opponents of the guidance said Texas law already allows abortions to save the life of the mother, but that the federal guidance went too far, calling for abortions when an emergency condition is not present and eliminating obligations to treat the unborn child.

Advertisement The 5th Circuit panel sided with Texas. The opinion said language in the 1986 emergency care law requires hospitals to stabilize the pregnant woman and her fetus. “We agree with the district court that EMTALA does not provide an unqualified right for the pregnant mother to abort her child especially when EMTALA imposes equal stabilization obligations,” said the opinion written by Judge Kurt Engelhardt.

In the appellate hearing last November, a U.S. Justice Department attorney arguing for the administration said the guidance provides needed safeguards for women, and that the district court order blocking the use of the guidance was an error with “potentially devastating consequences for pregnant women within the state of Texas.” The panel that ruled Tuesday included Engelhardt and Cory Wilson, nominated to the court by former President Donald Trump , and Leslie Southwick, nominated by former President George W.

Bush. Support HuffPost The Stakes Have Never Been Higher At HuffPost, we believe that everyone needs high quality journalism, but we understand that not everyone can afford to pay for expensive news subscriptions. That is why we are committed to providing deeply reported, carefully fact checked news that is freely accessible to everyone.

Our News, Politics and Culture teams invest time and care working on hard hitting investigations and researched analyses, along with quick but robust daily takes. Our Life, Health and Shopping desks provide you with well researched, expert vetted information you need to live your best life, while HuffPost Personal, Voices and Opinion center real stories from real people.

Help keep news free for everyone by giving us as little as $1. Your contribution will go a long way. At HuffPost, we believe that everyone needs high quality journalism, but we understand that not everyone can afford to pay for expensive news subscriptions. That is why we are committed to providing deeply reported, carefully fact checked news that is freely accessible to everyone.

Help keep news free for everyone by giving us as little as $1. Your contribution will go a long way. As the 2024 presidential race heats up, the very foundations of our democracy are at stake. A vibrant democracy is impossible without well informed citizens. This is why HuffPost's journalism is free for everyone, not just those who can afford expensive paywalls.

We cannot do this without your help. Support our newsroom by contributing as little as $1 a month. As the 2024 presidential race heats up, the very foundations of our democracy are at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a vibrant democracy is impossible without well informed citizens. This is why we keep our journalism free for everyone, even as most other newsrooms have retreated behind expensive paywalls.

Our newsroom continues to bring you hard hitting investigations, well researched analysis and timely takes on one of the most consequential elections in recent history. Reporting on the current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly — and we need your help. Support our newsroom by contributing as little as $1 a month.

Support HuffPost Advertisement Related 5th U.S. Circuit Court Appeals Emergency Medical Treatment Labor Act 1986 LEAVE A COMMENT Suggest a correction Do you have info to share with HuffPost reporters? Here’s how. Go to Homepage Popular in the Community FROM OUR PARTNER.