Texas sues Biden admin for requiring abortions in medical emergencies

cigaretteman

HR King
May 29, 2001
72,376
52,089
113
Texas attorney general Ken Paxton (R) sued the Biden administration over federal rules that require abortions be provided in medical emergencies in order to save the life of the mother, even in states with near-total bans.

“The Biden Administration seeks to transform every emergency room in the country into a walk-in abortion clinic,” Paxton said in a statement announcing the lawsuit on Thursday.
The suit follows new guidance from the Department of Health and Human Services that asserted federal law requiring emergency medical treatment supersedes any state restrictions on abortion in cases where the pregnant patient’s life or health is at risk.

Earlier this week, the Biden administration sent a memo to state officials reminding them of an existing law called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, which “requires that all patients receive an appropriate medical screening examination, stabilizing treatment, and transfer, if necessary,” according to the HHS guidance. That requirement exists “irrespective of any state laws or mandates that apply to specific procedures,” the memo said.






Although the HHS guidance focuses on abortions performed in emergency situations, Texas officials have interpreted the memo as an order that all hospital emergency rooms must act as a “walk-in abortion clinic.”
“President Biden is flagrantly disregarding the legislative and democratic process—and flouting the Supreme Court’s ruling before the ink is dry—by having his appointed bureaucrats mandate that hospitals and emergency medicine physicians must perform abortions,” the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit challenges the Biden administration guideline on the grounds that it uses federal funds — because it ties compliance to Medicare funds and because Justice Department funding would be spent enforcing the federal law — in violation of the Hyde Amendment that bars federal spending to facilitate an abortion except in cases of rape, incest or the safety of the patient. The suit suggests that this guidance will “coerce healthcare providers to supply abortions outside the allowable scope under the Hyde Amendment.”

The complaint also argues that HHS should have subjected the guidance to a lengthy “notice-and-comment” process required of newly proposed rules from federal agencies. The Biden administration memo did not implement a new rule, but asserted that an existing law should be applied to abortions.
And it contends the guidance violates the Tenth Amendment, along with a law that forbids “arbitrary and capricious” actions by federal agencies.
Texas has a near-total abortion ban with an exception that allows doctors to perform an abortion in order to save the life of a pregnant patient.
The White House and HHS did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
125,514
121,814
113
These laws are going to gut the Ob/Gyn departments in medical schools in these states.
No graduating doctor will ever have performed, or even seen, a basic abortion procedure.

Which will put the lives of pregnant women around the US at risk. We will revert to the mortality rates of the early 20th century in some parts of the country.
 

theiacowtipper

HR Legend
Gold Member
Feb 17, 2004
14,582
12,945
113
I find it difficult to believe that of a woman needs an abortion to live, Republicans would seek to prevent that abortion. I guess so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
125,514
121,814
113
I find it difficult to believe that of a woman needs an abortion to live, Republicans would seek to prevent that abortion. I guess so.
They claim they won't do this.

But they want to FORCE women AND their doctors to WAIT until the last possible moment for treatment, when medical standard of care would be to allow the abortion well before "the woman's life was in danger".

Basic statistical metrics would clearly show you WILL have unnecessary deaths by forcing them to wait. It's not even remotely in question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman

tumorboy

HR Legend
Gold Member
Sep 24, 2002
26,486
31,050
113
They claim they won't do this.

But they want to FORCE women AND their doctors to WAIT until the last possible moment for treatment, when medical standard of care would be to allow the abortion well before "the woman's life was in danger".

Basic statistical metrics would clearly show you WILL have unnecessary deaths by forcing them to wait. It's not even remotely in question.
This is what really bothers me about these laws. It should be strictly something between the patient and the Doctor they're weeding in. When legislators claim it's about eliminating folks who use it as birth control. It's not a binary issue folks.
 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
125,514
121,814
113
This is what really bothers me about these laws. It should be strictly something between the patient and the Doctor they're weeding in. When legislators claim it's about eliminating folks who use it as birth control. It's not a binary issue folks.

They don't want anyone getting abortions, for ANY reasons, AND they don't want easy access to birth control.

A position that is logically inconsistent.

In fact, they have had pharmacists deny medications doctors prescribe for easier IUD placement, but because those can also be used for abortion, they are DENIED by those pharmacists.

It's a fully Sharia-Like "standard". They aren't against abortions, they are FOR full reproductive control over women's choices. There's no other way to state that. If they wanted to lower abortions, they'd offer free birth control, ANY method, EVERYWHERE.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman

tumorboy

HR Legend
Gold Member
Sep 24, 2002
26,486
31,050
113
They don't want anyone getting abortions, for ANY reasons, AND they don't want easy access to birth control.

A position that is logically inconsistent.

In fact, they have had pharmacists deny medications doctors prescribe for easier IUD placement, but because those can also be used for abortion, they are DENIED by those pharmacists.

It's a fully Sharia-Like "standard". They aren't against abortions, they are FOR full reproductive control over women's choices. There's no other way to state that. If they wanted to lower abortions, they'd offer free birth control, ANY method, EVERYWHERE.
A miscarriage is essentially an abortion by a women's body.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
125,514
121,814
113
A miscarriage is essentially an abortion by a women's body.

It's "God's Abortion".

But who are we to say that putting an abortion doctor in close proximity to a woman and providing an abortion for her isn't part of his/her plan, too? God works in mysterious ways.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman