On Tuesday, a federal appeals court declared that the Biden administration is not permitted to utilize a 1986 law regarding emergency care in order to mandate that Texas hospitals offer abortion services to women who are facing life-threatening circumstances during pregnancy.

This is one of many instances where limitations on abortion have been debated in state and federal courts following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to revoke abortion rights in 2022. In that same year, the government released a statement stating that hospitals are obligated to offer abortion services if the mother’s life is in danger. This is based on the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act of 1986, which mandates that emergency rooms must provide necessary treatment to anyone who seeks medical assistance.

The state courts in Texas have dealt with individual cases regarding when abortions can be performed, despite restrictions prohibiting it in most situations. In the previous month, the Texas Supreme Court denied a woman’s request to terminate a pregnancy due to a fatal diagnosis. In November, the court heard arguments from women who were denied abortions despite potential harm to their health if they carried their pregnancies to term; a decision has not yet been made in this case.

Opponents of abortion have contested the emergency care law guidance in various regions. In Texas, the state partnered with abortion opponents in a legal case to prevent the guidance from being enacted and succeeded at the district court level. The Biden administration appealed to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has authority in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. However, the appeal was denied in the ruling on Tuesday by a united three-judge panel.

The decision stated that the instructions cannot be enforced to mandate emergency care abortions in Texas or by two groups that oppose abortion and have taken legal action – the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists and the Christian Medical & Dental Associations. The 9th Circuit, located in California, has permitted the use of these instructions to proceed in a case in Idaho, which is currently being reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Those against the guidance argued that Texas law already permits abortions in cases where the mother’s life is at risk. However, they believe the federal guidance overstepped boundaries by advocating for abortions even when there is no emergency and removing responsibilities to care for the unborn child.

The panel of the 5th Circuit ruled in favor of Texas. The statement stated that the 1986 law on emergency care mandates hospitals to stabilize both the pregnant woman and her unborn child.

Judge Kurt Engelhardt stated in the opinion that the district court’s decision was correct in determining that EMTALA does not grant an unconditional right for a pregnant woman to terminate her pregnancy, especially since EMTALA requires equal obligations for stabilization.

During the November appellate hearing, a lawyer from the U.S. Justice Department representing the administration stated that the guidance offers necessary protection for women. The lawyer argued that the district court’s decision to block the guidance was a mistake and could have harmful effects on pregnant women in Texas.

On Tuesday, the group that made the decision consisted of Engelhardt and Cory Wilson, who were chosen for the court by ex-President Donald Trump, and Leslie Southwick, selected by ex-President George W. Bush.