The Center for Reproductive Rights last week called on the Department of Health to investigate two Texas hospitals because the doctors initially refused to treat two women with ectopic pregnancies. CRR, which advocates for abortion policy, called on the Department of Health to investigate the hospitals for violations of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). One of the hospitals flatly denied the allegations made by CRR and the women. WORLD also reached out to the other hospital for comment but did not receive an immediate response.
Following the complaints, WORLD reached out to the National Right to Life Council and Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America for information about ectopic pregnancies, the laws in such situations and the women’s allegations.
Are the treatments for an ectopic pregnancy like normal abortions? Although unborn babies in ectopic pregnancies are still human beings, there is a 100 percent chance they will die before they are born, said John Seago, spokesman for Texas Right to Life. Ectopic pregnancies are tragedies, similar to miscarriages, and the only life doctors can save is that of the mother, Seago said.
Pro-life states have always made it clear that ectopic pregnancies are situations in which medical intervention is acceptable, Seago explained. Even Planned Parenthood has acknowledged that interventions in ectopic pregnancies are not normal abortions, according to Dr. Ingrid Skop, who is vice president and director of medical affairs at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, the research arm of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America. Both Seago and Skop explained that Texas laws designed to protect unborn babies make exceptions for ectopic pregnancies.
Would a doctor turn away a patient with an ectopic pregnancy? Doctors in Texas rarely refuse to treat ectopic pregnancies, Seago said. He said the doctors may have been poorly advised by lawyers or ethics committees, but the decision to deny women treatment would be medical malpractice, in his view.
Why is CRR bringing these actions under EMTALA rather than under state law? The Center for Reproductive Rights is currently overseeing an EMTALA-based lawsuit in Idaho that reached the Supreme Court earlier this year, Seago said. The organization likely chose EMTALA as the basis for its Texas lawsuit to bolster its argument that doctors are confused about the intersection of state and federal abortion laws, Seago said. WORLD reached out to the Center for Reproductive Rights for comment on that analysis but did not receive a response.
Dig deeper: Read Erin Hawley’s column in WORLD Opinions analyzing the Supreme Court’s decision earlier this year in the Idaho EMTALA case.
