Two women in Texas have filed federal complaints with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, alleging that two hospitals refused to treat their ectopic pregnancies, resulting in the loss of their fallopian tubes and endangering their future fertility. The women claim that the hospitals' reluctance to perform the necessary procedures stems from the fear of repercussions under the state's stringent abortion laws.

In Texas, doctors are allowed to terminate ectopic pregnancies, which occur when a fertilized egg implants in the fallopian tubes instead of the uterus. Ectopic pregnancies are non-viable and can become life-threatening if left untreated. Despite these protections, the two women assert that they were turned away by separate hospitals, indicating a hesitance by medical professionals to perform even protected abortions due to the severe penalties associated with violating the state's abortion laws.

The complaints were submitted under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal statute that mandates hospitals to provide stabilizing medical care to anyone in need. Although EMTALA has historically been interpreted to include medically necessary abortions, conflicts arise when state bans intersect with this interpretation. The Center for Reproductive Rights, which filed the complaint, has requested that the complaints be handled by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) instead of state health agencies.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently avoided ruling on whether Idaho's abortion ban overrides the EMTALA requirement. However, a federal appeals court in New Orleans has opined that Texas hospitals cannot be compelled under EMTALA to perform life-saving abortions.

One of the complainants, Kyleigh Thurman, visited Ascension Seton Williamson Hospital in Round Rock with a tubal ectopic pregnancy. She claims that the hospital initially discharged her without treating the condition. When she returned three days later with worsening symptoms, the hospital still refused to administer the necessary treatment, methotrexate, which stops the ectopic pregnancy from progressing. Only after Thurman's OB-GYN intervened did the hospital agree to administer the treatment. Unfortunately, it was too late, as the ectopic pregnancy had grown and ruptured, resulting in the removal of Thurman's right fallopian tube.

In a similar incident, Kelsie Norris-De La Cruz went to Texas Health Arlington Memorial Hospital with a tubal ectopic pregnancy. The emergency room physician recommended methotrexate or surgical removal of the pregnancy. However, when the on-call OB/GYNs arrived, the hospital allegedly refused to provide treatment and instructed Norris-De La Cruz to return in 48 hours. Her family questioned whether the hospital's refusal was related to Texas' abortion bans, but received no response. Eventually, Norris-De La Cruz found an OB/GYN who performed an emergency surgery, but due to the delay, she lost half of her fertility and required the removal of her right fallopian tube and a significant portion of her right ovary.

The Center for Reproductive Rights argues that Texas officials have placed doctors in an untenable position, citing the fear of severe punishment as a deterrent to providing necessary care. The outcome of these complaints could reignite the debate over whether hospitals can be held accountable for declining to perform medically necessary abortions when stabilizing a patient. Hospitals found in violation of EMTALA can face disciplinary actions ranging from citations to monetary settlements or losing their eligibility to accept Medicare and Medicaid.

Although Texas law allows doctors to terminate ectopic pregnancies, these cases highlight the need for clarity and enforcement in protecting patients seeking essential reproductive healthcare. The ongoing legal battle over abortion access in Texas will likely continue to spark discussions on the intersection of state laws and federal requirements regarding abortion services.

It remains to be seen how the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the CMS, and other related entities will handle these complaints in the midst of an evolving legal landscape surrounding reproductive rights and access to healthcare.