Texas Judge Blocks HHS Enforcement of Emergency Room Abortions, Cites Religious Objections

emergency room abortions
Demonstrators march and gather near the Texas state Capitol in Austin after the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade on June 24, 2022. A federal judge in Texas issued a ruling on Aug. 23, 2022, temporarily blocking the federal government from enforcing guidance against the state that requires hospitals to provide abortion services if the life of the mother is at risk. (AP Photo/Eric Gay, File)

Share

“Elective abortion is not life-saving care — it ends the life of the unborn — and the government can’t force doctors to perform procedures that violate their conscience and religious beliefs.”

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said, in reaction to the decision, that President Joe Biden would continue to advocate for women in need of emergency reproductive services.

“Because of this decision, women in Texas may now be denied this vital care — even for conditions like severe hemorrhaging or life-threatening hypertension,” she said in a statement. “It’s wrong, it’s backwards, and women may die as a result.”

Hendrix, who was appointed judge by President Donald Trump in 2019, ruled that the July 11 guidance by Becerra was “unauthorized,” in part because the EMTALA statute is silent about abortion and the guidance “cannot answer how doctors should weigh risks to both a mother and an unborn child.”

He added that HHS issued the guidance without offering an opportunity for public comment, which was required due to provisions of the Medicare Act.

The judge also cited “concrete financial harms”: the guidance’s threat of civil penalties and exclusions from health care programs such as Medicare.

“Only setting aside the Guidance until proper notice-and-comment procedures are followed or an injunction against its enforcement will protect the plaintiffs’ procedural rights,” he wrote.

The judge said HHS argued that the injunction, now preliminarily in place, “would increase the risk that pregnant women would be denied abortions to preserve their health and lives.”

But, he said, “Texas law already contains exceptions for abortions in life-threatening circumstances presenting a risk of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function.”

The judge said that in instances where HHS guidance requires abortion and Texas does not, the state law offers “the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive.” The Supreme Court, in Dobbs and previous cases, “has affirmed that states have a genuine interest in protecting the life of the unborn child,” he added.

RELATED: America’s religious communities are divided over the issue of abortion: 5 essential reads

This article originally appeared on ReligionNews.com.

Continue reading on the next page

AdelleMBanks@churchleaders.com'
Adelle M Bankshttp://religionnews.com
Adelle M. Banks, production editor and a national reporter, joined RNS in 1995. An award-winning journalist, she previously was the religion reporter at the Orlando Sentinel and a reporter at The Providence Journal and newspapers in the upstate New York communities of Syracuse and Binghamton.

Read more

Latest Articles