Texas sues Biden administration for requiring abortions in medical emergencies

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  pat-wilson  •  4 weeks ago  •  63 comments

Texas sues Biden administration for requiring abortions in medical emergencies
“The Biden Administration seeks to transform every emergency room in the country into a walk-in abortion clinic,” Paxton said in a statement announcing the lawsuit on Thursday.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T





Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R)   sued   the Biden administration over   federal rules   that require abortions be provided in medical emergencies to save the life of the mother, even in states with near-total bans.“The Biden Administration seeks to transform every emergency room in the country into a walk-in abortion clinic,” Paxton   said in a statement   announcing the lawsuit on Thursday.




The suit follows   new guidance   from the Department of Health and Human Services that asserted federal law requiring emergency medical treatment supersedes any state restrictions on abortion in cases where the pregnant patient’s life or health is at risk.



Earlier this week, the Biden administration sent a memo to state officials reminding them of an existing law called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, which “requires that all patients receive an appropriate medical screening examination, stabilizing treatment, and transfer, if necessary,” according to the HHS guidance. That requirement exists “irrespective of any state laws or mandates that apply to specific procedures,” the memo said.






Although the HHS guidance focuses on abortions performed in emergency situations, Texas officials have interpreted the memo as an order that all hospital emergency rooms must act as a “walk-in abortion clinic.”



“President Biden is flagrantly disregarding the legislative and democratic process—and flouting the Supreme Court’s ruling before the ink is dry—by having his appointed bureaucrats mandate that hospitals and emergency medicine physicians must perform abortions,” the lawsuit said.



The lawsuit challenges the Biden administration guideline on the grounds that it uses federal funds — because it ties compliance to Medicare funds and because Justice Department funding would be spent enforcing the federal law — in violation of the Hyde Amendment that bars federal spending to facilitate an abortion   except in cases of rape, incest or the safety of the patient.   The suit suggests that this guidance will “coerce healthcare providers to supply abortions outside the allowable scope under the Hyde Amendment.”








The complaint also argues that HHS should have subjected the guidance to a lengthy “notice-and-comment” process required of newly proposed rules from federal agencies. The Biden administration memo did not implement a new rule, but asserted that an existing law should be applied to abortions.



And it contends the guidance violates the 10th Amendment, along with a law that forbids “arbitrary and capricious” actions by federal agencies.



Texas has a   near-total abortion ban   with an exception that allows doctors to perform an abortion to save the life of a pregnant patient.



The White House denounced Paxton’s attempt to block the national mandate to require physicians to provide abortions in medical emergencies.



“This is yet another example of an extreme and radical Republican elected official,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement on Thursday. “It is unthinkable that this public official would sue to block women from receiving life-saving care in emergency rooms, a right protected under U.S. law.”



HHS did not immediately respond to requests for comment.









Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
1  seeder  pat wilson    4 weeks ago
"If I owned Texas and Hell, I'd rent out Texas and live in Hell."
Gen. Philip Sheridan, 1855.
 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2  CB     4 weeks ago

Time to go vote. As you can see, time has come to change Texas or come up out of Texas and leave it to itself. I am pretty sure Texas conservatives want the 'grand' state for themselves, anyway.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2    3 weeks ago
I am pretty sure Texas conservatives want the 'grand' state for themselves, anyway.

Are you going to pretend that liberals don't want Texas?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.1  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1    3 weeks ago

Respect my wishes and stop addressing me directly! Damn it! July is not over; use your calendar!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.1    3 weeks ago
Respect my wishes and stop addressing me directly! Damn it! July is not over; use your calendar!

Feel free to put me on ignore.

You will not dictate to ME when and to whom I can post.

I will not grant you that authority.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.3  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.2    3 weeks ago

PISS OFF!  July, I am free of you.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.3    3 weeks ago

Again, put me on ignore or fuck off

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
2.1.5  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @2.1.1    3 weeks ago

CB, if you do not wish to read Texan's comments, use the ignore feature, please.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.6  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.5    3 weeks ago

Why is he able to address me directly if I expressly tell him to not do so? I was 'corrected' and told not to respond to a member directly and have not replied to him to this day. It's called common courtesy and discipline.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.7  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.4    3 weeks ago

You fuck off.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.7    3 weeks ago

No, don't think I will.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.9  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.8    3 weeks ago

Fuck off. That is my only response to you through the end of July.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.10  Ender  replied to  CB @2.1.9    3 weeks ago

Just put him on ignore. A lot easier.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.9    3 weeks ago

No, don't think I will.

And thanks!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.12  CB   replied to  Ender @2.1.10    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @2.1.10    3 weeks ago
[deleted]
 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
3  bbl-1    4 weeks ago

Texas is even a democracy.   Besides, Paxton is corrupt.  Follow the money.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1  Texan1211  replied to  bbl-1 @3    3 weeks ago
Texas is even a democracy.

Yes, it is, very good recognition there!

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
4  Kavika     4 weeks ago

No surprise, look at who is suing. 

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
4.1  seeder  pat wilson  replied to  Kavika @4    4 weeks ago

Lol, you'd think repub leadership would be talking to some of these loons like a dutch uncle with the midterms coming up.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
4.1.1  Gsquared  replied to  pat wilson @4.1    4 weeks ago

I think the republicons should double down on it.  Triple down!!!  Let the American voters see the full extent of their extremism.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
4.1.2  Split Personality  replied to  Gsquared @4.1.1    4 weeks ago

Watch out, outlawing vasectomies is next./s

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.1.3  CB   replied to  Split Personality @4.1.2    4 weeks ago

After 50 years of CONSERVATIVE girls and women being indirectly empowered to control their own. . .sexual appetites and not having to birth and raise all 'these' babies. . . getting back into the role of being fertile 'fields' and vessels carrying a proper nine to fifteen children on average can give a 'girl' pause. She might even consider what TO DO with her one vote in November.

Surprise MAGA! It might have just stooped too deep for conservative girls and women to hang in there!

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
4.1.4  seeder  pat wilson  replied to  Split Personality @4.1.2    4 weeks ago

Apparently many men are getting vasectomies recently.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
4.1.5  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  pat wilson @4.1.4    4 weeks ago

HAAA, i was way ahead of the curve then . by 20-30 years .

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.1.6  CB   replied to  pat wilson @4.1.4    4 weeks ago

Okay, since some states are boxing THEIR girls and women IN and demanding to know what happened to that baby you were carrying when you departed our territory. . .I have to ask this. Which is it, Pat? Are you a citizen of the United States or of your state (alone)?

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
4.1.7  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  CB @4.1.6    3 weeks ago
Are you a citizen of the United States or of your state (alone)?

That is actually a complicated question .

 because one can be a citizen of both or likely more than the 2 mentioned , thats what happens when there is multiple jurisdictions .

most would say that federal is the supreme and takes precedent , , but one can also be subject to state jurisdiction , and even then , one could go even further and say local jurisdiction also comes into play on the county and locale level.

thing is each jurisdiction has boundries , locale is usually ends at a city or county line , state ends at the state line ., federal is unenforcable outside the countries borders .

Example would be some things local , like casinos where i live , can be illegal in the county but allowed because of location somewhere in the county  ,, also think dry county vs a wet county where booze is concerned , state jurisdiction is pretty much the same , it will depend on what the county legislature would decide and is allowed .

 My view is a lot is dictated by the 10th amendment , if one reads that it either explicetly give the choice to the feds , state or the people to decide ,depending on what the constitution says where the power to do so is either granted or denied .

sorry i wont be able to keep up with the discussion after this post , i have a 4 hr road trip im making to an area with spotty to no cell or internet service . but there is something to think about .

have a good next couple of days all. I know i will.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.1.8  CB   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @4.1.7    3 weeks ago

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

"Or to the people." Is interesting phrasing rounding out the whole of the amendment. That would be. . . Congress.

The question asked: Are you a citizen of the United States or of your state (alone)?

Texas is arguing that its sovereign 'rule' over abortion extends to what a citizen of the United States and Texas does outside the state of Texas:

Is it true that an illegal act in Texas codified as legal or not chargeable in another state leaves Texas with no jurisdictional control over what happens there?

Have a nice trip.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
4.1.9  Ozzwald  replied to  Split Personality @4.1.2    3 weeks ago
Watch out, outlawing vasectomies is next.

Soon to be illegal in Texas...

Kleenex.jpg?v=1575352255

 
 
 
Snuffy
Masters Guide
4.1.10  Snuffy  replied to  CB @4.1.8    3 weeks ago
Texas is arguing that its sovereign 'rule' over abortion extends to what a citizen of the United States and Texas does outside the state of Texas:

While I'm not a legal scholar I have a hard time seeing how this could pass constitutional muster.  If allowed to stand then any state could prosecute their citizens for any action in another state if that action is illegal in their own states.  A resident of New York who while in Las Vegas visited a gun range and rented a fully auto gun could be prosecuted in New York.  A resident of Alabama who visited California and smoked a blunt could be prosecuted back home under the marijuana laws in Alabama.

But in this recently changed world of post-Roe, I have no doubt there will be several other laws passed by over-zealous state legislatures only to eventually be shot down.   

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.1.11  CB   replied to  Snuffy @4.1.10    3 weeks ago

I think Texas has tried this once already back in December 2021 when it passed its abortion bill into law that said anybody in the country could turn in a person trying or getting in abortion in Texas. . . or something of the sort. (I am not going to dignify it by looking it up. It was a big news story, nevertheless.)

Oppression/suppression/repression and still people don't get that MAGA conservatism is a fraud and about power, influence, and control over who has more freedoms and who shall be bequeathed less freedoms.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Masters Guide
4.1.12  Snuffy  replied to  CB @4.1.11    3 weeks ago
I think Texas has tried this once already back in December 2021 when it passed its abortion bill into law that said anybody in the country could turn in a person trying or getting in abortion in Texas. . . or something of the sort. (I am not going to dignify it by looking it up. It was a big news story, nevertheless.)

Of course you should be held accountable for breaking the law in the location you break the local law in, otherwise someone from Montana could take their guns to NYC without repercussion under the law.  And we know that's not right, you go to visit NYC you are accountable under the laws in NYC while you are there.  Coming from Montana gives you no special protection under the laws of NYC.  It's the same thing here.  If a person from California is in Texas they are accountable under the laws of Texas while they are there and if they attempt to get an abortion in Texas they will be held accountable for breaking Texas law while in Texas.  I don't agree with the law in Texas around abortion but it is the law currently in Texas and everybody who is physically in Texas must follow that law.  But if a resident from Texas goes to Colorado and gets an abortion, even if someone in Colorado reports it back to Texas I do not believe that Texas will have any legal standing to arrest and try the person when they get back to Texas.  The abortion did not happen in the borders of the State of Texas and I do not believe that any arrest and conviction by Texas for this would stand up under appeal.  

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.1.13  CB   replied to  Snuffy @4.1.12    3 weeks ago

This is the problem with 'hostile' treatment of this country's citizens. States take and create harsh policies for a unified people to live by in "pockets" of the country. It is all too reminiscent of why congress (and in the past courts due to inaction) were COMPELLED to act in finding relief for social problems. 

This is not academic policy-making. Girls and women will be swept up and caught up in legal wranglings that will break their physical and mental underpinnings.

Texas is 'praying for relief' that a court will not decide the federal government and the President do not have the right "Act" or the right standing to protect abortions at the federal level and thus Texas should be allowed to continue on its headlong way of detailing to girls and women that they can not abort a child in or out of the state.

COUNT 7
Ultra Vires

Violation of the Tenth Amendment

76. The structure of the U.S. Constitution and the text of the Tenth Amendment protect
federalism.


Texas’s Original Complaint Page 18 of 20
77. The powers not delegated by the Constitution to the federal government are reserved to
the States.

78. “[T]he Constitution does not confer a right to abortion,” “does not prohibit the citizens
of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion,” and “return[ed] that authority to the people
and their elected representatives.” Dobbs, 142 S. Ct. at 2279, 2284. Thus, the authority to regulate
abortion in Texas rests with the State of Texas.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  CB @4.1.3    3 weeks ago
sexual appetites and not having to birth and raise all 'these' babies. . . getting back into the role of being fertile 'fields' and vessels carrying a proper nine to fifteen children on average can give a 'girl' pause.

You know, less than 800,000 abortions are performed a year int he US.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
4.1.15  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.14    3 weeks ago

Was gonna say...

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
4.1.17  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  CB @4.1.8    3 weeks ago
"Or to the people." Is interesting phrasing rounding out the whole of the amendment. That would be. . . Congress.

Trip was EXELLENT , grandkids have to stop growing though , it making me feel old, but that didnt stop me from assisting framing in a roof on an old log structure  .

Actually congress is part of the government , the legislative part one of 3 parts , so be it federal or state , the government has to be careful because there are certain prohibitions , making what "some " would like to do , not doable .

 As for the rest of your post , again , those entities need to be real careful about constitutional conflict , what i mean is , some things apply to the federal entity , some things apply to the state entity , and in some cases the feds have stated , that the stae is also ssubject to the limitations and prohibitions the feds are , take the freedom of speech it applies to both state and federal entities , so it is left to the people themselves to decide just how it will be handled .

but that is also why there is that 3rd part of government , the courts / judiciary , they are the arbriters that decide , if something has gone too far  and how it is to be applied persuant to the laws that are on the books .

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.1.18  CB   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @4.1.17    3 weeks ago

And yet libertarians have so harassed and badgered the courts into submission and bending to the will of a few that causes harm to other citizens in this country. That can not stand. We simply can not keep causing shisms for the citizenry to 'get over' and go back and forth on for the 'ride.'

Kids will grow. Gotta love that about them. It's the only way for you not to worry about them being 'runts.' :)

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
4.1.19  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  CB @4.1.18    3 weeks ago
And yet libertarians have so harassed and badgered the courts into submission

Now if you had left political affiliation out and let the reader decide for themselves which and what political party was doing that i would tend to agree with you .

as you wrote it , i disagree because i see more of "others " doing the same thing .

 old saying , if your going to point a finger , remember there are 3 more on that hand pointing back at you .

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
5  Buzz of the Orient    4 weeks ago

Wasn't there an article posted recently about Texans wanting their State to secede from the USA.  I think that desire should be taken seriously. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1  devangelical  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5    4 weeks ago

texas trumpsters can have all of texas AFAIC, as long as it's 6 feet below ground surface...

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
5.2  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5    4 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
6  Mark in Wyoming     4 weeks ago

"Texas has a      near-total abortion ban     with an exception that allows doctors to perform an abortion to save the life of a pregnant patient."

 which falls in line with what federal law says about emergency medical care , usually the laws are used in a way that a patient is to be stabilized , irregardless of ability to pay , before they can be moved to a different facility .

Way i understand the law is that no ER can refuse treatment until the presented situation is stabilized .

 In the case of an ER having to do a life saving abortion to save the mothers life so that she doesnt die , that would fall under this law , so texas , is going to lose and lose big .

federal laws and regulations are suppose to trump( pun intended for texas) state law and regulations . and since the exception already exists , those pols are grandstanding and nothing more .

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
6.1  seeder  pat wilson  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6    4 weeks ago

The pols aren't doing themselves any favors.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
6.1.1  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  pat wilson @6.1    4 weeks ago

i see that coming from both sides , unfortunately.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
6.1.2  seeder  pat wilson  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.1.1    3 weeks ago

Grandstanding yes, denying women bodily autonomy (that every man has), no only one side does that.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.1.1    3 weeks ago

Nonsense.  It's only from the 'right'.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.1.4  devangelical  replied to  pat wilson @6.1.2    3 weeks ago

a woman's body is now property of the draconian red state she lives in and she's required to seek prior approval for specific health choices or risk imprisonment for seeking alternative treatment by crossing a border to a free state.

one of the triggers prior to the civil war was the inability of slave owners to travel thru free states with their property. we're headed full speed towards another if americans don't get a handle on christo-fascism asap.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.1.5  CB   replied to  devangelical @6.1.4    3 weeks ago

Yeah, it just goes to show you have an entire country can be gaslighted through rhetoric. Just think about it. The first civil war as not about freedom and liberty its easy to tell that it was not because confederate states were determined to keep as FREE LABOR WORKERS WITHOUT PAY OR SALARIES while white slave owners took and held in trust all the power, wealth, and influence. And then passed it all on to their descendants while giving slaves, minorities, and others not a pot to piss in, in those territories!

And Lordy, we have not even begin to CRT what colonial-minded whites did to Native Americans. . . .

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
6.1.6  seeder  pat wilson  replied to  devangelical @6.1.4    3 weeks ago

It's just unbelievable. It can't persist.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
6.1.7  Thrawn 31  replied to  CB @6.1.5    3 weeks ago

Okay dude, my ancestors/we fucked up. No need to lay on the sauce.

Actually fuck that. Why am I apologizing for assholes? My ancestors fucked up the traitors.

They fought in The Revolution, Civil War, WW1, WW2, Korea, and Vietnam. and with me and my father Desert Storm and Iraq.

We, I, don't owe anyone a goddamn fucking thing, and nor does my family.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.1.8  CB   replied to  Thrawn 31 @6.1.7    3 weeks ago
We, I, don't owe anyone a goddamn fucking thing, and nor does my family.

Why are you writing this? Who asked you for any APOLOGY personally? We, some of us, plenty of us, served and fought in this country's wars. And for that we can take and accept the sufferings and thanks from a grateful nation. Who said otherwise.

However, and let me be clear. These wars are fought for territory, wealth, power, influence, humane and political reasons.

We have a political party that wants to pretend that revision history is all that is relevant to the present and that is a lie if a lie has ever been told. When you have apathetic 'creatures' arriving here waving flags and 'twilling' about taking THEIR country back, implying that it is THEIR country because it could not be a great country had their ancestors not been here. It is a bold assertion. One they can never, ever, prove. Why? Because your ancestors have always been here with my ancestors and Native American ancestors and other racial group ancestors and so it goes.

You don't need to apology for what you did not do to me. Because I have enough sense to realize that if you are living here and now that it is highly probable you were not living in the early years of this country's history!

So you don't have to 'stand in the stirrups' for me. Or, try to defend the indefensible. It, the past, happened. It is set in stone. We all should want to do better by the present. MAGA wants to be nasty, crude, and vulgar and mostly control the life of free people in this country, as it was once done in the past.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
6.1.9  seeder  pat wilson  replied to  CB @6.1.8    3 weeks ago

Let's stay on topic, everyone.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.1.10  CB   replied to  pat wilson @6.1.9    3 weeks ago

Okay. :)

Although, and I will abide your statement, there is a 'slavish' quality to what MAGA is putting in place for girls and women. I will work to stay on abortion, girls and women, nevertheless.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
6.1.11  Thrawn 31  replied to  CB @6.1.8    3 weeks ago

Meh, I was drunk as hell at the time.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
7  sandy-2021492    3 weeks ago

Pro-life, my ass.  

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
7.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7    3 weeks ago

pro life, til birth. After that, fuck it.

The p;ro life crowd are the most hypocritical, least trustworthy sacks of shit on the planet. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
8  Thrawn 31    3 weeks ago

Goddamn right! I don't give a fuck if having that baby will kill you, and the baby will end up dying too, your are a woman so fuck your rights and opinions, you be havin dat baby!

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
9  Buzz of the Orient    3 weeks ago

Who are these subhuman pieces of shit bastards who are causing women to experience this?  They should suffer the pain they are forcing women to endure. 

Complications such as  post-partum hemorrhage, amniotic fluid embolism, uterine rupture and eclampsia  can be fatal. Complications such as perineal tears, incontinence, and the need for major surgery, like a  Cesarean  section, can take a significant toll on the physical and mental health of a woman.

 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
9.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @9    3 weeks ago

Not sure you boss feels the same way

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
9.1.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Thrawn 31 @9.1    3 weeks ago

(deleted) 

Deleted due to duplication with the next comment.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
9.1.2  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Thrawn 31 @9.1    3 weeks ago

"you boss"?  Do you mean "your boss"?  I have no boss.  Can you restate that in English?

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
9.1.4  Thrawn 31  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @9.1.1    3 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
9.1.5  Thrawn 31  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @9.1.2    3 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 

Who is online

CB
zuksam
Freefaller
shona1


48 visitors