The lawsuit was a kick-off in a protracted legal tug-of-war between the administration and states like Texas that have moved quickly to ban abortions in nearly all cases after the Supreme Court’s recent decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. The lawsuit, which names Mr. Biden’s health secretary, Xavier Becerra, as the lead defendant, follows guidance issued Monday by the federal Department of Health and Human Services. The agency has instructed hospitals that, even in states where abortion is illegal, federal law requires doctors to perform abortions for pregnant women presenting to their emergency departments if they believe it is “the stabilizing treatment needed » to resolve a medical emergency. “President Biden is blatantly ignoring the legislative and democratic process — and defying a Supreme Court decision before the ink is dry — by asking his bureaucrat appointees to order hospitals and emergency physicians to perform abortions,” Mr. Paxton wrote in a complaint filed Thursday. in the United States District Court in Lubbock, Texas. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre responded in a statement citing “yet another example of an extreme and radical Republican elected official.” Without naming Mr. Paxton, the statement said it was “inconceivable that this public servant would sue to prevent women from receiving life-saving care in emergency rooms, a right protected by US law.”
Read more at End of Roe v. Wade
The lawsuit lands amid active debate among doctors and hospital lawyers across Texas — and in other states that have banned all or most abortions — about when the procedure can be allowed in emergency situations. Texas law allows exceptions when an abortion would save the pregnant patient’s life or prevent “significant impairment of a major bodily function” — the types of situations the federal guidance focuses on, though it leaves room for interpretation. Mr. Paxton has often gone to court to voice his opposition to Mr. Biden’s policies. The Texas Tribune reported in April that it had filed 11 immigration-related lawsuits against the government. He has also filed or participated in a number of lawsuits related to Covid-19 policies, including the administration’s effort to mandate mask use and vaccination. For Mr. Biden, the legal challenge underscores the pressure he is under from all sides in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the case that overturned Roe. Abortion rights activists and some liberal lawmakers criticized the president for failing to act quickly and forcefully on the decision. Under pressure, Mr. Biden issued an executive order last week directing the Department of Health and Human Services and other federal agencies to do everything possible to do so. But Mr. Becerra conceded that there is no “magic bullet” to preserve or restore access to abortion. Monday’s guidance to hospitals was accompanied by a letter from Mr. Becerra to health care providers outlining their responsibilities under the Emergency Medical Care and Active Labor Act, known as EMTALA, a 1986 law that requires any arrive at an emergency department to be stabilized and are treated regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay. Anti-abortion opponents, including Roger Severino, who headed the Health Department’s Office of Civil Rights under former President Donald Trump, said the directive itself violates the law, which specifies that both a pregnant woman and the unborn her child must be stabilized. Mr. Paxton made this argument in his deposition. “No federal statute grants a right to abortion,” he wrote. “EMTALA is no different. It does not guarantee access to abortion. On the contrary, EMTALA considers that a medical emergency is one that threatens the life of the unborn child.” But Lawrence O. Gostin, a public health law expert who has advised the administration, said the new guidance rests on “solid legal ground” arguing that when federal and state laws conflict, federal law preempts state law. . “EMTALA was not specifically designed for abortion access or miscarriage management, but it absolutely includes both,” Mr. Gostin said. He said the law would allow an abortion “as long as it is based on the need to prevent a pregnant woman from serious health or life-threatening consequences due to her pregnancy.” The guidance for hospitals was the first of two abortion-related actions taken this week by the Department of Health and Human Services. On Wednesday, he warned the nation’s 60,000 retail pharmacies that they risk violating federal civil rights laws if they refuse to fill prescriptions for pills that can cause abortions. This guidance refers to three medicines – mifepristone, misoprostol and methotrexate – which are often prescribed for other conditions but can also cause abortions. But the guidance was carefully written, avoiding telling pharmacies to be required to supply the drugs for the purpose of abortion. Experts said the administration was reacting to reports that women of childbearing age are being denied the drugs after the Supreme Court ruling. “They’re doing everything they can to clarify what the federal protection is. I think there’s a lot of pressure to do that,” said Alina Salganicoff, director of women’s health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, adding, “Attorneys across America are very busy right now trying to advise employers. , hospitals and clinicians about what their responsibilities and potential liability are when it comes to abortion.” Michael D. Shear contributed reporting from Washington.
