U.S. hospitals no longer required to perform emergency abortions
The Trump administration announced on Tuesday that it would revoke guidance to the nation's hospitals that directed them to provide emergency abortions for women when they are necessary to stabilize their medical condition.
That guidance was issued to hospitals in 2022, weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court upended national abortion rights in the U.S. It was an effort by the Biden administration to preserve abortion access for extreme cases in which women were experiencing medical emergencies and needed an abortion to prevent organ loss or severe hemorrhaging, among other serious complications.
The Biden administration had argued that hospitals — including ones in states with near-total bans — needed to provide emergency abortions under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. That law requires emergency rooms that receive Medicare dollars to provide an exam and stabilizing treatment for all patients. Nearly all emergency rooms in the U.S. rely on Medicare funds.
Story continues below advertisement
The Trump administration announced on Tuesday that it would no longer enforce that policy.
The move prompted concerns from some doctors and abortion rights advocates that women will not get emergency abortions in states with strict bans.
1:12
Carney says he supports a woman's right to choose abortion
'The Trump Administration would rather women die in emergency rooms than receive life-saving abortions,' Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement. 'In pulling back guidance, this administration is feeding the fear and confusion that already exists at hospitals in every state where abortion is banned. Hospitals need more guidance, not less, to stop them from turning away patients experiencing pregnancy crises.'
Get weekly health news
Receive the latest medical news and health information delivered to you every Sunday. Sign up for weekly health newsletter Sign Up
By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy
Anti-abortion advocates, meanwhile, praised the announcement. Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of SBA Pro-Life America, said in a statement that the Biden-era policy had been a way to expand abortion access in states where it was banned.
Story continues below advertisement
'Democrats have created confusion on this fact to justify their extremely unpopular agenda for all-trimester abortion,' she said. 'In situations where every minute counts, their lies lead to delayed care and put women in needless, unacceptable danger.'
An Associated Press investigation last year found that, even with the Biden administration's guidance, dozens of pregnant women were being turned away from emergency rooms, including some who needed emergency abortions.
2:05
Health Matters: Abortion rights advocates win in 7 states
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which provides oversight of hospitals, said in a statement that it will continue to enforce the federal law that, 'including for identified emergency medical conditions that place the health of a pregnant woman or her unborn child in serious jeopardy.'
But CMS added that it would also 'rectify any perceived legal confusion and instability created by the former administration's actions.'
Story continues below advertisement
The Biden administration sued Idaho over its abortion law that initially only allowed abortions to save the life of the mother. The federal government had argued before the U.S. Supreme Court last year that Idaho's law was in conflict with the federal law, which requires stabilizing treatment that prevents a patient's condition from worsening.
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a procedural ruling in the case last year that left key questions unanswered about whether doctors in abortion-ban states can terminate pregnancies when a woman is at risk of serious infection, organ loss or hemorrhage.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Toronto Sun
43 minutes ago
- Toronto Sun
Court rules Trump can exclude journalists from Oval Office
Published Jun 06, 2025 • Last updated 5 minutes ago • 2 minute read Members of the media during a meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Jonas Gahr Store, Norway's prime minister, not pictured, in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C, on Thursday, April 24, 2025. Photo by Al Drago / Bloomberg A federal appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump can exclude journalists from the Oval Office, Air Force One and other 'restricted' spaces based on their editorial decisions, handing the administration a win in its fight with the Associated Press over access. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account In a 2-1 order on Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit halted a lower-court judge's order that had restored the wire service's ability to participate in a rotating pool of reporters who cover the president's daily movements. The news agency sued the Trump administration in February when the White House press office started limiting the access of AP reporters and photographers after the wire service refused to update its style guide to rename the 'Gulf of Mexico' the 'Gulf of America' following a Trump executive order. A Washington federal judge's order forcing the White House to reinstate the AP's access took effect April 14 after the appeals court didn't immediately intervene. The AP next could ask the full bench of active judges of the D.C. Circuit to reconsider the panel's order or ask the U.S. Supreme Court to immediately intervene. Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 'We are disappointed in the court's decision and are reviewing our options,' AP spokesperson Patrick Maks said. Trump called the ruling a 'Big WIN over AP today' on his Truth Social platform. 'They refused to state the facts or the Truth on the GULF OF AMERICA. FAKE NEWS!!! Judge Neomi Rao wrote in the majority opinion that the lower court's decision 'impinges on the president's independence and control over his private workspaces.' The panel did leave in place part of the original order that required the AP to still have access to the East Room in the White House, which was usually open to a broader group of reporters. 'Throughout our nation's history, presidents have held crucial meetings and made historic decisions in the Oval Office and on Air Force One,' wrote Rao, joined by Judge Greg Katsas. 'On occasion, they have welcomed the press to observe. But these restricted presidential spaces are not First Amendment fora, and the President retains discretion over who has access.' This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Rao and Katsas were nominated by Trump in his first term. Judge Nina Pillard, appointed under former president Barack Obama, dissented. Historically, the AP has been part of a small, rotating pool of media outlets that cover the president's day-to-day activities as well as events open to larger groups of credentialed media outlets. In an April 8 order, U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden ruled that the AP was likely to succeed in arguing that the Trump administration violated the First Amendment of the US Constitution by singling out one media outlet based on its editorial choices. He said that officials remained free to exclude journalists from one-on-one access to Trump, but that they couldn't kick out the AP if it allowed in its peers. The case is Associated Press v. Budowich, 25-5109, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals (Washington) Olympics Toronto & GTA NHL Columnists Toronto & GTA
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Appeals court hands AP an incremental loss in its attempt to regain its access to Trump events
Digging deep into free-speech precedents in recent American history, a federal appeals panel handed The Associated Press an incremental loss on Friday in its continuing battle with the Trump administration over access by its journalists to cover presidential events. By a 2-1 margin, judges on the three-judge U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington granted Trump a stay in enforcement of a lower-court ruling that the administration had improperly punished the AP for the content of its speech — in this case not renaming the Gulf of Mexico to Trump's liking. The news outlet's access to events in the Oval Office and Air Force One was cut back starting in February after the AP said it would continue referring to the Gulf of Mexico in its copy, while noting Trump's wishes that it instead be renamed the Gulf of America. For decades, a reporter and photographer for the AP — a 179-year-old wire service whose material is sent to thousands of news outlets across the world and carried on its own website, reaching billions of people — had been part of a 'pool' that covers a president in places where space is limited. The decision itself was aimed only at whether to continue the stay. But the majority and dissenting opinions together totaled 55 pages and delved deeply into First Amendment precedents and questions about whether places like the Oval Office and Air Force One were, in effect, private spaces. Trump posted about the decision on the Truth Social platform shortly after the decision: 'Big WIN over AP today. They refused to state the facts or the Truth on the GULF OF AMERICA. FAKE NEWS!!!' And White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, one of the defendants in the AP's lawsuit, posted on X after the decision came down that it was a 'VICTORY!' and would allow more media to access the president beyond the 'failing legacy media.' She added: 'And by the way, @AP, it's still the Gulf of America.' An AP spokesman said that 'we are disappointed in the court's decisions and are reviewing our options.' One possibility is seeking an expedited review of the full case on its merits. President given wide latitude by court majority Judges Gregory G. Katsas and Neomi Rao agreed in Friday's ruling with Trump's assertion that it's up to the president to decide who gets into spaces like the Oval Office — and he can take into account the viewpoint of journalists he allows. That's related to AP's assertion that the ban amounts to a legal principle known as 'viewpoint discrimination.' 'If the president sits down for an interview with (Fox News') Laura Ingraham, he is not required to do the same with (MSNBC's) Rachel Maddow,' Rao wrote in the opinion. 'The First Amendment does not control the president's discretion in choosing with whom to speak or to whom to provide special access.' In deciding on a stay, the judges considered the likelihood of which side would win the case when Trump's full appeal is taken up, probably not for a few months. In that situation, a different panel of appeals court judges will hear it. Katsas and Rao were both appointed to the federal court by Trump in his first term. Judge Cornelia T.L. Pillard, who dissented on Friday, was appointed by former President Barack Obama. Pillard wrote that there's no principled basis for exempting the Oval Office from a requirement that a president not engage in viewpoint discrimination. There's nothing to stop the majority's reasoning from being applied to the press corps as a whole, she wrote. In that case, it's not hard to see future Republican White Houses limiting the press covering them to the likes of Fox News, and Democrats to MSNBC, she wrote. 'More to the point, if the White House were privileged to exclude journalists based on viewpoint, each and every member of the White House press corps would hesitate to publish anything an incumbent administration might dislike,' Pillard wrote. The bumpiness between Trump and the press is longstanding Since the original ruling, the White House has installed a rotation system for access to small events. AP photographers are usually included, but text reporters are allowed in much less frequently. A study earlier this year showed Trump has spoken to the press more often in the first 100 days of his administration than any of his predecessors back to Ronald Reagan. But he's much more likely to speak to a small group of reporters called into the Oval Office than at a formal briefing or press conference — to which AP journalists have been admitted. Through Leavitt, the White House has opened up to many more conservative news outlets with a friendly attitude toward the president. In her dissent, Pillard rejected the assertion by the White House and her colleagues that the president suffers damage if news outlets not aligned with his views are permitted into certain restricted spaces to watch the government function. The majority though, insisted that the president, as the head of the executive branch, has wide latitude in that respect. Wrote Rao: 'The Oval Office is the President's office, over which he has absolute control and discretion to exclude the public or members of the press.' ___ David Bauder writes about media for the AP. Follow him at and
Globe and Mail
2 hours ago
- Globe and Mail
B.C. launches $5-million ad campaign to recruit American doctors, nurses
British Columbia has launched a six-week, $5-million campaign of targeted advertisements to recruit doctors and nurses in the United States, citing 'chaos' under the Trump administration to lure them north. The Ministry of Health said the campaign launched on Monday was being shown on thousands of advertising screens in Washington, Oregon and California, at locations within a 16-kilometre radius of health care facilities, as well as on podcasts and Netflix shows. B.C. Health Minister Josie Osborne said at a news conference it was a step B.C. needed to 'take right now' to attract physicians, nurses and other health care workers, and the province would do everything in its power to ease their transition. 'This will help supercharge our overall recruitment campaign to attract U.S. health care workers to B.C.,' she said. Opinion: How to win a trade war Fentanyl czar focused on combatting opioid trade, despite tariff distraction In one of the ads, a disgruntled-looking woman in hospital scrubs listens to 'more news from Washington' before the scene cuts to outdoor views of British Columbia, and listeners are urged to 'follow your heart' to the province. Osborne said the campaign was expected to reach about 250,000 health care workers. She said B.C. was 'taking advantage of the uncertainty and chaos' in the United States after the election of President Donald Trump by reaching out to health workers who shared the values of the province's health care system. One ad says recruits can 'practice evidence-based care' in B.C., while another promises 'universal health care that puts people first.' Looming over these efforts is the question of whether B.C.'s public single-payer system offers sufficient financial incentives. Osborne said it was difficult to directly compare physician salaries in B.C. with those in the United States. 'But I can say that with some of the recent changes we've made, and how we pay family doctors, we know that we have competitive salaries,' she said. 'We also know that we offer very competitive salaries for nursing. We offer some of the highest nursing wages in Canada. We also know, though, that doctors are not just motivated by dollars and cents.' Osborne said nearly 1,600 health care providers had already expressed an interest in moving to B.C. even before the ads launched. These included 700 doctors and 500 nurses, but she could not say how many had made it to B.C. 'We're going to do everything we can to attract as many physicians and nurses as possible,' she said without giving a specific target number. 'Ultimately, the success is measured by what people experience in their communities,' she added. She said B.C. would eventually expand international recruitment to other jurisdictions, likening the process to hitting a target. 'We've got the U.S. right in the centre, the bull's eye, and then right outside in the next rings, are countries like the United Kingdom,' she said. 'That's where we'll be focusing our efforts next.'
