Judge blocks enforcement of Biden abortion guidance in Texas
Source: Associated Press
LUBBOCK, Texas (AP) A federal judge in Texas temporarily blocked the federal government from enforcing a legal interpretation that would require hospitals in the state to provide abortion services if the health or life of the mother is at risk.
Texas sued Department of Health and Human Services and Secretary Xavier Becerra last month, arguing that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, a federal law commonly referred to as EMTALA, doesnt require doctors to provide abortions if doing so would violate a state law.
In a ruling Tuesday, U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix temporarily blocked the government from enforcing the guidance in Texas, saying the guidance would force physicians to place the health of the pregnant person over that of the fetus or embryo even though EMTALA is silent as to abortion. He also said the guidance couldnt be enforced against members of two national anti-abortion medical organizations, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Christian Medical and Dental Associations.
Performing an abortion creates an emergency medical condition in the fetus or embryo, the judge wrote.
Read more: https://apnews.com/article/abortion-health-texas-xavier-becerra-4ccc7296f015270b0dc66c64e975689c?utm_source=Connatix&utm_medium=HomePage
RKP5637
(67,109 posts)woman can vote for GOP assholes is beyond me. I just don't get the psychology behind their decisions to vote republican. And the republican party is gone. Today it's GOP, The Terrorist Party!
iluvtennis
(19,861 posts)PSPS
(13,599 posts)cstanleytech
(26,293 posts)the states most dependent on federal welfare (aka the deeper red states) need to be redirected.
That should include putting military bases in such states at the top of the next BRAC closings.
Lonestarblue
(10,003 posts)I guess emergency rooms should just turn women away no matter the risks to life and health. This judge sounds like he believes in the concept of fetal personhood, which would confer full rights on a fetus and require women to do nothing that might endanger the fetus. Republicans are fighting to establish it as law, a truly sick and dangerous movement.
Women would not be allowed to take painkillers or have any treatment, like chemotherapy, because it would damage the fetus. So a pregnant woman in a car accident who needs emergency surgery to save her life could be allowed to die because the anesthesia required for surgery has a high chance of causing brain damage in the fetus.
This insanity is out of control when women have no rights even to emergency care.
Warpy
(111,267 posts)If I could see well enough, I'd run up some Grand Inquisitor robes for these sanctimonious assholes. I'm sure they'd prefer them to government robes.
Texas to the female half of its population: JUST DIE, ALREADY
ificandream
(9,373 posts)... it would leave the raising of children strictly to the male population. Can you see some of these assholes stuck completely raising a baby from infancy? They couldn't handle it. (Or they'd hire someone ... another male ... LOL.)
MissMillie
(38,560 posts)so much for "pro-life"
GreenWave
(6,757 posts)Russia wants to turn women into birthing machines with a million rubles if she has 10.
The USA conservatives want to kill women.
If both succeed, Russia will overpopulate. More cannon fodder?
FloridaBlues
(4,008 posts)The first thing. Carve out the filibuster for this as their first vote in January.
Traildogbob
(8,746 posts)You GQP judges. You are opening the flood gates on the damn with waters (pro choice voters) aT historical flood levels for the tsunami in November. Double down on ignorant and pro woman-murder. Keep it up Joe. This exposes them all.
LetMyPeopleVote
(145,291 posts)Karma13612
(4,552 posts)😢😢😢🤬
keopeli
(3,522 posts)Novara
(5,842 posts)I thought Federal imperatives override state bullshit. Even if it isn't law passed by Congress, it's a Federal imperative.
How women can stand to live in that state is beyond me. It's clear women are considered nothing but breeding animals in Texas.
FBaggins
(26,744 posts)The 10th Amendment wouldn't exist if there weren't some things that the federal government can't force on the states. That doesn't mean that this is one of them, but it clearly isn't true that just any federal guidance overcomes all state objections.
And there absolutely has to be a law passed by Congress. You can't get a "Federal imperative" without one.
The question in this case is whether a new interpretation of the law is correct and whether (assuming that it's correct) Congress would have had the power to make such a law to begin with.