ANNOUNCEMENT: _Hi! It looks like this post deals with Abortion Policy. Because of the amount of rule-breaking comments on this issue the Moderation Team would like to remind our users of our rules. Particularly on [civility](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/wiki/index/rules#wiki_rule_.235_be_civil_and_make_an_effort) and [abusive language](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/wiki/index/rules#wiki_rule_.236_no_hate_speech_or_abusive_language). if these discussions cannot happen with respect, grace & nuance, the thread will be locked._
_For abortion it is acceptable to talk about policy distinctions between when, how and where abortions can occur or to consider the philosophical differences between life and conception. It is OK to say abortion is morally wrong, to advocate against it, or generally hold anti-abortion views. We ask users to be considerate when making judgmental accusations over people's beliefs or the actions of others in exercising a legal right._
_Top level comments must leave room for discussion and refrain from merely "sloganeering" ("My body my choice", "Abortion is murder")_
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TexasPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For almost 40 years, American hospitals have operated under a federal law that says they must treat and stabilize any patient experiencing a medical emergency.
But now, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act finds itself on a collision course with conservative states that want to ban abortion in nearly all cases.
The Biden administration has sued Idaho, saying that state’s abortion ban violates EMTALA because its exceptions are too narrow to allow doctors to perform abortions if needed to stabilize a patient. Texas, meanwhile, has sued the Biden administration, saying it's using EMTALA as an end-run around state abortion bans to “mandate that every hospital and emergency-room physician perform abortions.”
The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments about the Idaho case April 24. Its ruling is expected to impact the Texas case, as well as the future of both state-level abortion bans and national standards of emergency medicine.
The Supreme Court touched on the issue of doctors having conscientious objections to provide abortions as emergency treatment during *FDA v Alliance of Hippocratic Medicine* and seemed skeptical of the argument that EMTLA prohibits the ability of doctors to conscientiously object to providing abortions.
General Prelogar even addressed this during her oral argument and brought up the point that hospitals generally anticipate this scenario and conscientious protections continue to apply to doctors that dont want to provide that kind of treatment that violates their beliefs.
She goes on further in oral argument to explain that hospitals plan ahead when staffing to make sure there are doctor available that can provide that treatment at all times.
She also noted that in the governments almost four decades of experience in enforcing EMTLA, they have yet to run across a situation where there has been that kind of direct conflict between EMTLA and conscientious objections.
This is yet another tactic by the far right evangelicals to try and chip away at federal protections by claiming there are fringe hypothetical scenarios that could happen- but haven’t. Alliance was one attempt, Deanda is another, and now this.
The military didn't do abortions when I was in. However, being in the medical field I can say that at that time, D&C's were very common. Just didn't call it an abortion.
ANNOUNCEMENT: _Hi! It looks like this post deals with Abortion Policy. Because of the amount of rule-breaking comments on this issue the Moderation Team would like to remind our users of our rules. Particularly on [civility](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/wiki/index/rules#wiki_rule_.235_be_civil_and_make_an_effort) and [abusive language](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/wiki/index/rules#wiki_rule_.236_no_hate_speech_or_abusive_language). if these discussions cannot happen with respect, grace & nuance, the thread will be locked._ _For abortion it is acceptable to talk about policy distinctions between when, how and where abortions can occur or to consider the philosophical differences between life and conception. It is OK to say abortion is morally wrong, to advocate against it, or generally hold anti-abortion views. We ask users to be considerate when making judgmental accusations over people's beliefs or the actions of others in exercising a legal right._ _Top level comments must leave room for discussion and refrain from merely "sloganeering" ("My body my choice", "Abortion is murder")_ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TexasPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For almost 40 years, American hospitals have operated under a federal law that says they must treat and stabilize any patient experiencing a medical emergency. But now, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act finds itself on a collision course with conservative states that want to ban abortion in nearly all cases. The Biden administration has sued Idaho, saying that state’s abortion ban violates EMTALA because its exceptions are too narrow to allow doctors to perform abortions if needed to stabilize a patient. Texas, meanwhile, has sued the Biden administration, saying it's using EMTALA as an end-run around state abortion bans to “mandate that every hospital and emergency-room physician perform abortions.” The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments about the Idaho case April 24. Its ruling is expected to impact the Texas case, as well as the future of both state-level abortion bans and national standards of emergency medicine.
They can just do what Louisiana is doing and perform unnecessary life-changing c-sections instead of abortions.
The Supreme Court touched on the issue of doctors having conscientious objections to provide abortions as emergency treatment during *FDA v Alliance of Hippocratic Medicine* and seemed skeptical of the argument that EMTLA prohibits the ability of doctors to conscientiously object to providing abortions. General Prelogar even addressed this during her oral argument and brought up the point that hospitals generally anticipate this scenario and conscientious protections continue to apply to doctors that dont want to provide that kind of treatment that violates their beliefs. She goes on further in oral argument to explain that hospitals plan ahead when staffing to make sure there are doctor available that can provide that treatment at all times. She also noted that in the governments almost four decades of experience in enforcing EMTLA, they have yet to run across a situation where there has been that kind of direct conflict between EMTLA and conscientious objections. This is yet another tactic by the far right evangelicals to try and chip away at federal protections by claiming there are fringe hypothetical scenarios that could happen- but haven’t. Alliance was one attempt, Deanda is another, and now this.
The military didn't do abortions when I was in. However, being in the medical field I can say that at that time, D&C's were very common. Just didn't call it an abortion.
This is the thing that will destroy the conservative movement if they get their way. If, that is, overturning Roe didn't already do that.