Supreme Court Largely Unconcerned About Women Dying In Texas

They were not in love with dying, but they were doing it in Texas.

Photo by Fine Photographics on Unsplash

On Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States turned down a Biden administration appeal that would have required the state of Texas to allow physicians in hospitals to perform abortions in emergency situations. You know, because that is the kind of thing that is somehow up for discussion these days.

At issue is whether or not Texas’s bad abortion law conflicts with the the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which requires hospitals to provide stabilizing treatment in an emergency to any patient regardless of their ability to pay if those hospitals receive federal funds. Because abortions are often the only possible stabilizing treatment for certain pregnancy issues, it seems fairly obvious that it does! Not that certain members of our Supreme Court really care.

---

---

This means that the ruling from the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which held that emergency abortions don’t count as emergency care under EMTALA — what are they then? Shoes? A unicorn? A bottle of hand sanitizer? — will stand.

Three judges on the Fifth Circuit found that EMTALA “does not mandate medical treatments, let alone abortion care, nor does it pre-empt Texas law,” which does seem to defeat the entire purpose of the federal law.

---

---

The Supreme Court’s order also somewhat conflicts with the fact that they let another court ruling stand, in the case of Idaho’s “just let the pregnant ladies die” policy, that held that, under EMTALA, the state was required to allow emergency abortions to protect the life or health of the mother.

Supreme Court Rules You Can Stop Worrying Your Pretty Little Girl Heads About Abortion (Until After The Election)

It’s likely that they’ll return to the issue at some later date, when they feel like dealing with abortion again — because they sure as hell don’t seem like they feel like doing it now.