Supreme Court Won’t Hear Biden Appeal in Texas Emergency Abortion Case
The lower court’s ruling stands, stopping the Biden admin from forcing health care providers to perform emergency abortions.
The Supreme Court decided not to hear oral arguments regarding the Biden administration’s plan to force hospitals to perform emergency abortions in Texas.
The “certiorari denied” order means that the lower court’s ruling will stand.
SCOTUS did not provide a reason.
Texas sued the Department of Health and Human Service when it used the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) to force health providers to perform emergency abortions.
Texas said it allows abortion if the mother’s life is in danger “or faces a serious risk of ‘substantial impairment of a major bodily function.'”
U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix in Lubbock, TX, agreed with Texas, blocking the guidance.
Hendrix ruled: “That guidance goes well beyond EMTALA’s text, which protects both mothers and unborn children, is silent as to abortion, and preempts state law only when the two directly conflict.”
The Biden administration appealed.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Hendrix’s ruling, refusing “to expand the scope of EMTALA:”
- “The Texas plaintiffs argument that medical treatment is historically subject to police power of the States, not to be superseded unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress, is convincing,” the opinion states.
- The federal statute “does not provide an unqualified right for the pregnant mother to abort her child especially when EMTALA imposes equal stabilization obligations,” the court document says.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
SCOTUS made it clear that abortion is a state issue, why would they step in again?
No, it didn’t. I don’t know where people are getting that idea, but it never happened.
They would step in again if the federal action were authorized by the EMTALA statute. There is no question whatsoever that EMTALA, as a federal statute, is the supreme law of the land and overrides anything Texas does. So if EMTALA clearly said what the DHHS claims it says, then the Texas lawsuit would have been dismissed, and the district court certainly wouldn’t have granted an injunction; if by some chance the district court had erred and granted an injunction the 5th circuit would have reversed, and if not then SCOTUS would have.
But the fact is, as both the district court and the 5th circuit said, that EMTALA simply doesn’t say that. Therefore TX is likely to succeed when the case comes up, and in the meantime is entitled to the injunction. There is no reason for SCOTUS to intervene.
You are so tiresome. You have to be right in everything to the extent that you just have to jump in and correct everyone.
I notice that you don’t dispute anything I wrote. When someone makes an egregious misstatement such as that Dobbs assigned abortion to the states, someone has to correct it.
Ah, but you misstated what JohnSmith said. He didn’t say SCOTUS assigned abortion to the states. That’s your blinders skewing his words.
What he said was that “SCOTUS made it clear it is a state issue.” Where he might be considered wrong is that SCOTUS made clear it was a state issue only insofar as the Constitution speaks. It determined the fictional connection between abortion and the “right to privacy” was a lie and that the states couldn’t be bound by that sort of restriction. IOW, it’s a state issue in the Constitution.
No, GWB, SCOTUS did not make anything like that clear, or even unclear. Nothing in Dobbs even hints that abortion is a matter for the states. What it says is that abortion is in the first instance a matter for the political branches, not the judicial branch, because there’s nothing in the constitution about it. Of course when legislatures do act, it then falls the judicial branch to interpret those acts.
I hate to say it. But, in this particular instance he’s correct and unfortunately, it’s a very important point he’s getting at. Dobbs purposefully steered clear of the 10A argument against Roe. I’d have to go back and read the briefs again to be certain. But, I believe Mississippi didn’t even attempt to make that argument likely knowing the votes on this Court aren’t there for it. Instead, Dobbs made the point that Roe circumvented the Democratic process, presumably a signal – at least by some in the majority opinion – that Congress could regulate and/or create a ‘right’ to an abortion if it wanted to. I suspect that’s exactly what’s going to happen if Democrats ever get in control of Congress and the White House again. I’m skeptical even the filibuster would be enough to stop them because there are probably no less than 10 Republicans who would vote with them.
Ultimately, there are really only two Justices at the moment – Alito & Thomas – who give any real deference to the 10th Amendment. Certainly Gorsuch and his insane majority Opinion in Bostock completely ignores the right of the state to regulate things the Constitution – and even federal statute – are silent on. Hard to believe he lean into 10A for abortion.
its a sadddd game being played
“the life of the women in danger” allows for alll the rules ( including tax funding of the abortion) to be thrown to the side
Nobody is claiming that any lives are at stake. This case is not about life-and-death emergencies, or even about risk of serious injury. It’s only about “emergencies” that don’t involve any significant risk of death or of “substantial impairment of a major bodily function”.
Democrats are claiming that exact thing! That if they cant kill unborn babies, women will lose their lives! Pull your head outta your ass sweetie and you’d be able to see what is right in front of you.
We are talking about the Texas law, and the challenge to it. The DHHS is not claiming that at all.
And we are talking about Democrats who do in fact claim women will die without access to abortion. If you had the ability to rub two or more functioning brain cells together you wouldn’t even be arguing this point Justice Milhouse.
No, we are not talking about Democrats and their various talking points. The topic here is the Texas law, and the DHSS challenge to it.
And Walz keeps bringing up that woman who traveled to Georgia as if that one anecdote justifies federal intervention over the entire industry.
From Georgia. And if that one anecdote were as he claims it to have been then maybe it might be enough to justify it. Perhaps it would be reasonably foreseeable that it would happen again, many times. That’s a judgment call, and Congress is entitled to make such a judgment; it’s not for the courts to second-guess it. But that’s not what happened. The whole story, as it is reported and represented by the Democrats, didn’t happen. Something did happen, but not that. So the whole discussion doesn’t start.
The left’s bloodlust for baby murder is demonic. They must be destroyed.
It should be clearly noted that the “emergencies” we are talking about are not ones where there is any significant risk to the mother’s life, or even of “substantial impairment of a major bodily function”.
No, we’re talking only about other kinds of “emergencies”. And no other “emergency” is so important as to justify deliberately taking a baby’s life. Or at least, that’s the Texas legislature’s opinion, and nothing in federal law says otherwise, so that opinion prevails.
Despite what milhouse claims, the scotus overturning of RvW definitely does kick the power of making abortion legislation from the federal level back to the state level, where it was before RvW. If abortion was a civil right under the federal constitution, they wouldn’t have reversed RvW. Under a state constitution, that could be a different matter – but also still out of federal court jurisdiction. Basically, RvW was seen as a penumbra too far.
The more pertinent issue here is the attempted end run around scotus’s stance using a (dishonest) “camel’s nose” argument. Pro-abortion as a (federal) civil right proponents have a history of making “emergency” abortion loopholes where “emergency” is so loosely defined (or (purposely?) not defined at all) so that, at the doctor’s discretion, it becomes a “having this baby would make me unhappy and possibly depressed” criteria. Which would allow abortion mills to claim 100% compliance while ignoring any legal (state) restrictions.
Outside of a small fringe, no one seriously supports the incredibly rare case of killing of an expectant mother when not aborting would do so. Just as, outside of a small fringe, few support at-will convenience abortions of a viable baby that could survive an early delivery. Yet here we are.
No, it did not. You are simply wrong.
Indeed. But they found that it is not a protected right, and therefore they did reverse. They did not in any way say that that made it an issue for the states.
Federal law overrides all state laws and constitutions. If the Texas law violates EMTALA then it is invalid . Thus it is legitimate for a federal court to consider whether it does violate it, and both the district court and the 5th circuit said it probably doesn’t. SCOTUS saw no reason to override them.
In due course DHHS will make its case to the district court, and try to convince the judge that its reading of EMTALA is correct and his reading is incorrect. If he is convinced he will strike down the Texas law. But in the meantime TX is free to enforce it.
Yes. That is the issue. The entire case is only about so-called “emergencies” that do not involve significant risk of death or serious injury. Before Dobbs, late-term abortion in states that would otherwise ban it required a threat to the mother’s “health”, and we saw that there was no shortage of doctors who would certify such a threat for any woman who wanted it, no questions asked. That’s why the Texas law carefully specifies what kind of emergency is valid. But IF it does violate a federal law, then the federal law prevails.
Federal law overrides all state laws and constitutions.
Not strictly true, Milhouse. Federal law that is authorized by and supportive of the Constitution overrides state law (and sometimes constitutions). This was a major sticking point for the anti-federalists and it’s why the 10th Amendment exists. Also, a lot of our woes would fade away if the Constitution were more strictly interpreted – in terms of agencies and laws – in accord with federalism.
The constitution itself says explicitly that federal law is the supreme law of the land, and always overrides state laws and constitutions.
Obviously unconstitutional laws are not laws and can’t override anything. But nobody is alleging that EMTALA is unconstitutional.
I have my doubts whether such a fringe exists at all, outside Democrat fantasies.
That, unfortunately, is not a small fringe. It’s official Democrat Party policy.
As to your first part, M, you’re arguing like 6 and half a dozen are different concepts.
But as to your second part, “official Democratic Party policy” IS set by their fringe. Any non-push polling (ie honest polls) about abortion shows that unlimited convenience abortion-at-will isn’t supported even by a majority of registered D’s.
1. No, you say there is such a fringe; I doubt it exists at all, however small.
2. By definition, anything that is official party policy can’t be a “small fringe”. “Not supported by a majority” is very very far from “a small fringe”!
Anything that enforces unreasonably short abortion limits is very bad for Republicans before a national election. Message to women that Republicans can’t be trusted.
Can’t be trusted to do what? Texas legislators never promised not to make such a law. On the contrary, they promised to do so, and they did it. That shows that they are trustworthy.
As for what is “unreasonably short”, that’s obviously a matter of opinion. Heartbeat is a very short deadline, and will leave some women unable to abort at all, but the Texas legislature doesn’t think that’s unreasonable given what’s at stake.
In any case, this isn’t about what’s bad for Republicans, it’s about right and wrong. There are many states where such a ban wouldn’t fly, but Texas is obviously one where it can, so it should.
In any case, this isn’t about what’s bad for Republicans, it’s about right and wrong.
QFT
Don’t alway concur with Milhouse, but he’s right in so much that “unreasonable” when it comes to abortion is all too often “any thing that doesn’t agree with me 100%”.
For example – the very same crowd that is always arguing “we should be more like Europe” defined a recent state first X weeks limit as “barbaric” despite it’s being a longer period than France’s abortion laws. Ironically enuf, to include the French leader hisownself.
European nations have limits on abortion. A fact even europeans ignore when criticizing America having any abortion limits at all.
Only not trustworthy to those incapable of thinking for themselves.
There are more than a dozen female contraception options. Women could require the men they have sex with to wear a condom. They could restrict their sexual activity to the confines of a long term committed relationship where producing children is a goal.
If they object to those then celibacy is an option. If that won’t work they can track their cycle and refrain from sexual activity during the less than 1/3 of a month they could become pregnant. If that’s too hard they could use the plan B/morning after pill.
Only by refusing to responsibly use one or more of the above effective options does abortion come into play. That’s the real issue, unwillingness to accept the biological reality that women risk more than men in casual sexual encounters b/c a pregnancy can result. A brief period of legal abortion following all these other options isn’t the problem you make it out to be.
The GoP isn’t pursuing a National abortion statute. That’s a tar baby we don’t need or want to get stuck in. Each State legislature is capable of enacting abortion statutes that fit the culture of their State.
This. Remember that the only reason abortion exists as a policy issue is because the left made it one so they could go full hedonist. Yes, they brought out the “bad cases” and the “necessary” reasons to provide cover, but ultimately, it was a way to enact the central Progressive doctrine of hedonism – as much for women as it already existed (to some extent) for men.
(“Bad cases” as in, “bad cases make bad law.” The idea that infrequent, on the border of the law, cases are seldom a good idea for sweeping changes in law. ESPECIALLY if they are used as if they are the entirety of the cases.)
I don’t have an issue with the hedonism. My issue is with the leftists stark refusal to accept that actions have consequences or to accept real world responsibility. Oh sure they go online or TV and mouth the words ‘I accept responsibility’ but they never want the consequences and repercussions to hit them.
Go do whatever you wish, so long as its legal, voluntary and among adults, but understand the risks and personal accountability that come with the voluntary choices. No one else is to blame if you had an ‘off ramp’, ignored it and instead decided to keep going all the way to the scene of your spectacular crash. IOW don’t hate the players, hate the game…and don’t try and evade responsibility for your choice to play the game if you come up a loser.