Thanks to Republican hate and efforts to stomp on the rights of all people who can become pregnant—including women, teenagers, children, trans men, nonbinary folks, and others—we’ve witnessed reproductive rights plummet across the country. While some folks have been lucky enough to live in states where their access to safe health care hasn’t changed, others are scrambling to come up with the money, time, and resources in order to get the life-affirming and lifesaving care they need. As Daily Kos has continued to cover, Texas has been one of the states at the center of this anti-choice nightmare.
Most recently, a federal judge in Texas—U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix—blocked the enforcement of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), federal health guidance issued by the Biden administration that directs medical providers to provide emergency abortions in spite of abortion bans on the state level. Hendrix argues that the guidance goes “beyond” the actual text of the law and isn’t authorized to do so.
RELATED STORY: Texas police called to pull book featuring gay character from high school library
Campaign Action
“Since the statute is silent on the question, the guidance cannot answer how doctors should weigh risks to both a mother and her unborn child,” Hendrix, who was appointed by Donald Trump, writes in his opinion, per The Independent. “Nor can it, in doing so, create a conflict with state law where one does not exist.”
Hendrix went on to write that per the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) analysis, the physician must “close his or her eyes to the unborn child’s health” if the pregnant person is in danger but the “unborn child” isn’t.
“This directly conflicts with the doctor's ongoing duty to provide care for both the mother and the unborn child when stabilizing a pregnant woman," the judge continues, per CNN. "Because the doctor has a duty to both, EMTALA does not require the doctor to introduce an emergency medical condition to one in order to stabilize the other. Again, EMTALA does not say how to balance both interests. It leaves that determination to the doctor, who is bound by state law."
In a word: Yikes.
So, what does this mean in practice? It’s a preliminary injunction against the guidance that came down from the HHS that says if a physician believes a pregnant patient is experiencing an emergency situation where abortion would resolve that condition, the physician has to provide the abortion, including in states where an anti-abortion ban does not make such exceptions for the life of the pregnant person. The HHS also provides its own definition of what constitutes an emergency in this case, which is likely more broad and inclusive than what anti-choice states have pushed.
All people deserve the right to safe, accessible, and affordable health care, regardless of where they live. This is always true, especially so when we’re talking about lifesaving services and emergency situations. Pregnant people of all ages and identities deserve and need this health care. Not everyone can up and move to a state where (for now) these protections are guaranteed, and we can’t leave anyone behind.
When we vote, we must vote with abortion in mind, and, as always, stay active and engaged on the local and state level as much as possible.
Abortion rights, gun safety, and the our planet are all at stake in this election. We must persuade Democratic voters to turn out in November. Click here to volunteer with Vote Forward and write personalized letters to targeted voters on your own schedule from the comfort of your own home, without ever having to talk to anyone.
