Remember this is for emergencies when the pregnant patient is dying! The keywords are emergencies and dying! Yet the republicans in Texas and in the Texas courts are so “pro-life” they are demanding a woman die rather than abort a non-viable fetus which can not survive outside the womb because it is not a baby yet. The keywords there are non-viable, can not survive, and not a baby yet. So we need to stop calling these people pro-life, and admit they are forced birth. Their ruling if you read the article says that the doctor has to balance the needs of the woman AND the needs of the fetus, but the court ruling calls it an unborn baby and give it priority over a living woman. The fetus is not a baby yet if it is non-viable, and if it is certain to die before being born, cause the death of the person carrying it, or will not survive long after being born then you can disregard anything it might need even if viable right then at exam time. But the court claims that the policy rule is silent on what to do if the state bans abortion. But that is not true. The policy rule says doctors must give an abortion to save the life of the woman! But Texas simply doesn’t want to do that! This is 100% about controlling women, making women livestock for men, simply breeding mares for men’s issue. A woman by herself has no rights, her duty is to the man who owns her at the time, it starts out as her father and then becomes her husband. That is why they call it giving away the bride! A female from birth is property and good only to serve and breed. In the minds of republicans.
I think the ruling is also over broad. It bans the Biden administration from enforcing the policy against the two religious doctors groups anywhere in the country not just in Texas. How can that be legal? The constitution specifically calls on the government to protect the welfare of the people. Apparently the Texas courts don’t that applies to pregnant people. Hugs. Scottie
An operating room sits empty at Alamo Women’s Reproductive Services, an abortion clinic that closed its doors following the overturn of Roe v. Wade and plans to reopen in New Mexico and Illinois, in San Antonio, Texas, August 16, 2022. REUTERS/Callaghan O’Hare/File Photo
The U.S. government cannot enforce federal guidance in Texas requiring emergency room doctors to perform abortions if necessary to stabilize emergency room patients, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday, siding with the state in a lawsuit accusing President Joe Biden’s administration of overstepping its authority.
The ruling by a unanimous panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals comes amid a wave of lawsuits focusing on when abortions can be provided in states whose abortion bans have exceptions for medical emergencies.
The U.S. Department of Justice declined to comment. The office of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and two anti-abortion medical associations that challenged the guidance – the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists and the Christian Medical & Dental Associations – did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The Biden administration in July 2022 issued guidance stating that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal law governing emergency rooms, can require abortion when necessary to stabilize a patient with a medical emergency, even in states where it is banned. The guidance came soon after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned its landmark Roe v. Wade ruling, which since 1973 had guaranteed a right to abortion nationwide.
Texas and the associations immediately sued the administration, saying the guidance interfered with the state’s right to restrict abortion. A lower court judge in August 2022 agreed, finding that EMTALA was silent as to what a doctor should do when there is a conflict between the health of the mother and the unborn child and that the Texas abortion ban “fills that void” by including narrow exceptions to save the mother’s life or prevent serious bodily injury in some cases.
Circuit Judge Kurt Engelhardt, writing for the 5th Circuit panel, agreed, writing that EMTALA also includes a requirement to deliver an unborn child and it was up to doctors to balance the medical needs of the mother and fetus, while complying with any state abortion laws.
The law “does not provide an unqualified right for the pregnant mother to abort her child,” he wrote.
The ruling upheld a lower court order that blocked enforcement of the guidance in Texas and also blocked the administration from enforcing it against members of two anti-abortion medical associations anywhere in the country.
The federal court’s decision comes a month after Texas’s highest state court ruled against a woman seeking an emergency abortion of her non-viable pregnancy. That court is currently considering a separate lawsuit by 22 women about the scope of the emergency medical exception to Texas’s abortion ban.
A federal judge last year reached the opposite conclusion in a similar lawsuit in Idaho, blocking that state’s abortion ban after finding it conflicted with EMTALA. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to hear the state’s appeal of that ruling later this month.
Reporting By Brendan Pierson in New York; Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and David Gregorio
So Republicans are officially the Party of Death. They’re okay with killing women who have complicated pregnancies. Horrific ruling.
Typical of what they do.
Once again: states that banned abortions with exceptions for rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother WILL NOT honor those exceptions. It’s all a charade.
Remember the logic for testing witches? Weigh her down, toss her in the pond, and if she dies, she was innocent. If she survives, she’s a witch, so execute her.
Obviously, you don’t know whether emergency action is required to save a woman’s life until you don’t do it and she’s dead. Until she’s dead, then you can’t know if an abortion was actually needed to save her life.
Besides, these people have made it abundantly clear since, well, forever, that their concern for life ONLY extends to the unborn. Once you’re alive – whether you’re the mother or the child – the only interest they have in you is fucking you over.
Since ecclesiastical SCOTUS brought us this nightmare we can’t look to them to save us. We gotta rip out all Christian Nazis from state houses. Gonna be a very tough thing with gerrymandered districts.
Ladies (and gentlemen) we need to remember $#!+ like this next November and get out there and VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE! Pass it on! (with 4-part harmony and feeling
Actually, we are costars. Women and LBGTs are both getting murdered by the right
These pro-lifers sure do like the idea of killing the mothers of these ‘babies’.
Back in the 80s, when I would attend pro-choice marches, we used to chant
Right to Life
You’re name’s a lie
You don’t care
If women die
That was 40 years ago, and nothing has changed.
It’s been going on for a while now.
Years ago, there was a pregnant woman who was found to be nonresponsive but the state forced the hospital to keep her “alive” until the fetus, which itself had a low or no probability of live birth, could be delivered.
I found an article about this: https://www.outsidethebeltw…
Scottie's Playtime 
Welcome to, HOWDY ARABIA, as someone from that video, stated, these beliefs, are, too, messed up, whatever happened to the right of, our, bodies? Oh yeah, the Supreme Court, AXED it, out…
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi TAURUSINGEMINI. Thanks for commenting. Yes so true, the fundamentalist Christians want to make the US a theocracy just like the Muslim ones. They want a country ruled by white Christian men by their church doctrines where women are subservient to pleasing men, where black people know their place and stay there, and the LGBTQIA are hidden from public view scared to be discovered and free to prey on by the white men in charge. We must not let the land of the free become the handmaid’s tale in real life. We must not let these people drag the US back to the regressive past as we are working for a more inclusive progressive future. Hugs. Scottie
LikeLike
Based on your introductory comments, along with my reading of another news article on this, it got me to thinking about my granddaughter who lives in Texas and is pregnant. I’m not in close contact with her so if there were any complications, I might not hear about them. In any event, since the family leans Republican, I have wondered how they would react if — Gawd forbid! — she were to develop some sort of severe problem.
The thing is … I don’t think many people actually consider the catastrophic effect these laws have on women — IF they are even aware of them. As I’ve said many times before, the young(er) women who would be affected are usually so caught up in making a living and surviving that they don’t give them a second thought. To their detriment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Nan. I hope your granddaughters pregnancy is healthy for all involved. I say it that way because as you show in your comment family is also involved, the partner of the pregnant person is also deeply involved and invested.
How would they react if there was a problem and they needed treatment now illegal so denied to them … that is a great question. Along with what you said I think a lot of people think they issue will never apply to them. They think abusive cops will never hurt them, they think their health needs won’t ever be restricted, they won’t need assistance, and so on. It always happens to others, to those people.
Your point about life being so hard and busy just to survive for so many people are what the wealthy, corporations, and republicans want and depend on. It is hard for the democrats who want to help people get their message across in the current struggle just to live. Hugs. Scottie
LikeLike