SCOTUS Declines to Hear Texas Abortion Case

0:00

/1861

Facts

The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) on Monday declined to hear the Biden administration's appeal regarding emergency room abortion care in Texas, leaving the lower US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals court ruling intact.^[1]
The case surrounds the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) of 1986, which requires hospitals to give emergency care regardless of a patient's ability to pay.^[2]
The lower court ruled that Texas, which has effectively banned all abortions with exceptions for the life of the mother, was not in violation of EMTALA. This prompted the Biden administration to issue a new EMTALA advisory saying the act includes performing abortions at hospitals that receive federal funds.^[3]^[4]
The 5th Circuit ruling, which will now remain in place, states that EMTALA does not apply to any particular medical procedure, including abortion.^[4]
This comes as SCOTUS has previously declined to hear a similar abortion case from Idaho, with some of the justices arguing it was too early to discuss the issue. A separate lower court ruling, however, has allowed some emergency room abortions in the meantime.^[1]^[2]

Left narrative, as provided by Guttmacher Institute. SCOTUS' decision not to hear this case is unfortunate. Texas has effectively banned abortion, and its law's exceptions are written in vague terms to further inhibit women and their doctors. With over a dozen states having passed similar laws, it's incumbent upon the court system to step in and overturn these violations of basic rights.
Right narrative, as provided by Federalist. Texas has the right to protect the state's unborn while there are unacceptable pro-abortion laws being passed elsewhere in the country. Democrats may support abortion on demand and want to nationalize such laws. But these procedures, not to mention abortion pills, both victimize the unborn and harm women.