Many of you may have read stories about Texas hospitals (allegedly) turning away pregnant people in need of potentially life-saving abortion care, due to confusion over whether the health exception in the new Texas abortion ban (and related bill SB-8) actually allows doctors to administer such care without risk of prosecution.
Here is one of many news stories about the topic:
I am trying to understand the confusion, but have been repeatedly frustrated by the way it’s being reported, and the way it’s being framed by anti-abortion people.
News reports keep saying that doctors are confused, but never provide specifics about exactly why these doctors aren’t sure whether the health exception will protect them from prosecution if they provide life-saving abortion care. It seems like it ought to be easy enough to walk the reader through the process by which a doctor might end up subject to prosecution, but I’ve read dozens of these articles now, and no one will give specifics.
In the meantime, anti-abortion folks are insisting that the law clearly allows abortion to save the life of the pregnant person, and that hospitals are being either ridiculously cautious, or deliberately obtuse in order to push a pro-abortion rights agenda. Many of these people think the hospitals are being influenced by media reports.
So what the fuck is happening? Does anyone on these boards know/understand specifically what doctors and hospitals are afraid of, what aspects of the law are unclear, etc.? Because news reports aren’t getting into those details.
A few notes: I think it is highly unlikely that big hospitals with lawyers are looking to media reports for legal guidance. If the hospitals are confused, the law must be confusing. I just can’t figure out how.
Also, as a relevant side-note, the Biden administration recently released guidance to Texas hospitals receiving Medicare/Medicaid, under a law called EMTALA, reminding them that they are still obligated to provide abortion care when the health of the patient is threatened, or risk losing funding. If that guidance was really needed, then that would indicate that the Texas law really is confusing. But in response, Texas sued the Biden admin for meddling in state affairs, and said this in their brief:
Texas Attorney General:
The EMTALA Guidance explicitly threatens the Medicare provider agreements for any healthcare providers that refuse to abide by the Abortion Mandate.These hospitals are now threatened with having to choose between violating state law under threat of criminal penalty or jeopardizing their ability to participate in Medicaid.
I feel that this would have been an opportunity for Texas to clarify that hospitals and doctors do not risk prosecution for administering life-saving abortion care, but instead the brief seemingly frames that care as “violating state law.”
It seems to me that if hospitals and doctors are safe from prosecution, Texas (and the other states with similar bans) could easily make clarifying statements to that effect. So far they have not.
This is driving me nuts. Any new info would be much appreciated.