Despite Trump directive, emergency abortion care is still a legal right
'Trump just made it legal for hospitals to let pregnant people die.'
'Emergency rooms can now refuse life-saving abortion care.'
As a clinician, I know that isn't true. As a reproductive health strategist, I know those headlines are dangerous. And we all know what happens next: confusion, delay, and harm. Let's be clear — EMTALA is still in effect.
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act requires hospitals to provide stabilizing emergency care to all patients, regardless of their ability to pay. That includes emergency abortion when it's the necessary treatment to prevent serious harm or death, even in states with abortion bans.
What was rescinded is the Biden-era guidance — a post-Roe clarification that reinforced these obligations and gave clinicians added protections in legally ambiguous states. Without it, hospitals and providers are left to navigate complexity and risk on their own. And in emergency medicine, hesitation can be deadly.
When a provider has to stop and ask, 'Will I get sued or arrested for doing what I know is right?' that delay can cost a life.
Complications can escalate in minutes. And legal fear, not clinical doubt, can make even experienced clinicians pause.
We don't need to wait for another preventable tragedy. We need to act now. We must correct the fear-based narrative and demand clarity and courage from our hospitals.
More opinion: Elon Musk-Trump spat on X is a distraction from the failures of DOGE
Well meaning advocates and organizations have flooded timelines with warnings suggesting emergency abortion care is no longer available. The fear is valid. But the messaging is misleading, and that matters.
When headlines tell the public that hospitals are 'allowed to let women die,' we create a different kind of emergency — one rooted in mistrust. Patients internalize those messages. They begin to doubt the health care system. They wonder if anyone will help them. Some bleed at home instead of going to the ER.
I've already heard from patients who are scared to seek emergency care because they believe hospitals will turn them away. That fear isn't irrational — it's the natural outcome of a system that has failed too many women, including Amber Nicole Thurman, who died in Georgia after being denied abortion care during a miscarriage. Her story is one of several that underscore just how high the stakes are.
And it affects health care providers too. When social media, national news and even advocacy organizations circulate panic without context, our instinct is to pause and wonder if the legal ground has shifted again.
In medicine, uncertainty delays care. And in emergency medicine, that delay can be fatal.
Here's what's still true:
EMTALA is still in effect.
Hospitals are still required to provide abortion when it's the necessary emergency treatment.
Patients still have the right to receive stabilizing care.
But rights only matter if people trust they can use them, and clinicians can only act if they trust their institutions will back them up.
We must sound the alarm, but we cannot afford to fuel panic. Because fear doesn't just spread — it paralyzes. And that paralysis costs lives.
While courts and lawmakers dominate the headlines, we must remember that hospital systems are power players, too. They're institutions with boards, reputations, legal teams and responsibility.
Every hospital in the U.S. — especially those in abortion-restricted states — should be urgently reviewing their EMTALA protocols, issuing clear guidance to staff and publicly affirming that abortion will be provided when medically necessary.
Silence from leadership isn't neutrality. It's complicity — and it's deadly.
Providers need to know they'll be protected for doing their jobs. Patients need to know their care won't be delayed by legal ambiguity. The moment of crisis is not the time to call a lawyer or fumble through a policy binder. Hospitals must act before the next emergency, not after.
We have a constitutional mandate. Let's lead like it.
In 2022, Michigan voters passed Proposal 3 by a wide margin, enshrining the right to reproductive freedom, including abortion, into our state constitution. That makes this moment even easier for our hospitals — a no-brainer, if you will.
We have legal clarity. We have the public mandate. Now we have a responsibility to lead by example for the rest of the country.
We've seen what happens when hospitals fail to lead. A ProPublica investigation in Texas found that after the state's abortion ban took effect, the sepsis rate among pregnant patients in Houston surged by 63%. In Dallas — where hospitals empowered doctors to act — it rose by just 29%. The difference? Hospital policy.
Some institutions supported their clinicians. Others left them to weigh legal risk against patient safety. People suffered. Some died.
Michigan's hospitals don't face the same legal barriers. We've enshrined reproductive rights into our constitution. The only question now is whether our institutions will rise to meet this moment — not just for Michiganders, but as a model for the nation.
We have the opportunity to set a precedent of leadership. Of valor. Of honoring the Hippocratic Oath and protecting half of our population. This is a chance to show that when legal clarity and public support align, health systems don't hesitate — they lead.
To Corewell Health, Henry Ford Health, Trinity Health Michigan, McLaren Health Care, Michigan Medicine and the Detroit Medical Center: this is your moment.
Issue clear EMTALA guidance. Protect your providers. Affirm your commitment to emergency abortion care loudly and publicly.
And to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer: Michigan has already set a national example by enshrining reproductive freedom into our state constitution. Now, we need your leadership again. Issue state-based guidance that reinforces EMTALA protections and directs hospitals to act swiftly and decisively when patients need life-saving abortion care.
Then go one step further.
Call on your fellow governors, especially in states where abortion is banned. Governors like Andy Beshear in Kentucky. If they said they were 'sending it back to the states,' then let's show them what the states can do. Let's show the country what leadership looks like when it centers care, not politics.
Because silence is not safety, and neutrality is not leadership.
More opinion: Democrats better hope Michigan Gov. Whitmer changes her mind about presidential run
If you're reading this from another state, you're not powerless.
Call your local hospital and ask if they have clear EMTALA guidance for emergency pregnancy care. Push your lawmakers to require transparency and protect providers. Share accurate information — panic spreads fast, but facts save lives. Support front-line providers who are navigating unclear laws with courage.
Even without constitutional protections, your voice can demand clarity, accountability and care. Hospitals everywhere need to hear it.
Nikki Vinckier is an OBGYN physician assistant, reproductive rights advocate and founder of Take Back Trust, a national patient education platform helping people navigate and protect their reproductive health care.
This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Emergency abortion still a legal right despite Trump move | Opinion
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
4 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Whoop there it is: FDA wants to regulate wearable firm's blood pressure tool
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up But in a response sent Aug. 4, Whoop rejected the FDA's assessment, saying the software didn't meet the definition of a medical device and the company would continue to offer the feature to users. The company, which shared the letter with The Boston Globe, also argued the move went against the goals of the Trump administration. Advertisement 'Seeking to regulate the feature as a medical device also runs counter to the stated policy of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., of 'clearing away regulatory barriers so innovation can thrive,'' Whoop said in the letter. Advertisement Whoop's refusal to comply with the FDA's request is uncommon, legal experts said. The FDA, which oversees the safety of medical devices and pharmaceuticals, is usually the ultimate decider of what comes under its jurisdiction and which devices can be sold to help people manage or treat health conditions. Chris Robertson, a Boston University law professor who teaches FDA law, said any communication from the FDA to a company is typically enough to make the company get in line with federal standards. 'You're playing with fire here,' Robertson said. 'That means that Whoop is taking a real calculated gamble.' Wearable technology sits in a grey area when it comes to regulation. The wearables market, estimated by one market intelligence group to be worth $84 billion in 2024, is rapidly expanding, and companies are racing to add new features that give users unique health measurements. Related : Smart wristbands, watches and rings that assess heart rates don't have to get cleared as medical devices. But Whoop competitors, such as Apple and Fitbit, have sought FDA approval for certain software tools in recent years. The crux of Whoop's argument rests on the 21st Century Cures Act, a 2016 law that exempts wellness software features from the definition of a medical device, so long as those features aren't related to the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of a disease. Blood Pressure Insights, Whoop said, is only intended to be used as a way to gauge a person's performance, quality of sleep, and stress levels . The FDA, however, has rejected Whoop's characterization of the blood pressure tool. In its letter, the agency said the product qualifies as a medical device because its measurements are 'inherently associated with the diagnosis of a disease or condition,' such as hypertension, or high blood pressure. Advertisement Whoop has registered one of its products with the FDA, securing medical device approval for its Heart Screener tool. That tool measures the heart's electrical activity to alert users to potentially abnormal heart rates and atrial fibrillation, a common type of abnormal heart rhythm. The FDA said it doesn't comment on 'ongoing investigations, compliance matters or enforcement activities except with the company involved.' Related : The confrontation is reminiscent of the clash more than a decade ago between the FDA and the personal genomics platform 23andMe, said health law expert Frances Miller, who also teaches at Boston University. The FDA and 23andMe went back and forth on whether the company's health test — which the company claimed could tell customers their risk of conditions like gallstones, heart disease, or arthritis — constituted a medical device. In 2013, the FDA sent a warning letter to 23andMe much like the one it sent Whoop, and 23andMe ultimately capitulated. But the landscape looks different today, Miller said. The FDA has experienced significant cuts under President Trump, and federal agencies as a whole have lost power. In addition, Kennedy has publicly stated his vision that 'every American is wearing a wearable within four years.' Whether Whoop will win its fight against regulation is unclear, Miller said. 'I could have given you a very confident answer a year and a half ago,' Miller said. 'Not now. They're pushing the envelope.' Marin Wolf can be reached at
Boston Globe
5 hours ago
- Boston Globe
At UMass Memorial Health, a worrisome diagnosis on the future of health care
With more than half of the hospitals in Massachusetts currently in the red, Alan Sager, a Boston University professor of health law, policy, and management, said the Medicaid cuts will only compound the difficult financial decisions many are already facing. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'There will be program closures,' Sager said. 'There will be individual patients who don't get care because they lost coverage or because the program that served them was eliminated.' Advertisement The dominant provider of medical care in Central Massachusetts, UMass Memorial treats some 500,000 patients a year, more than a quarter of them covered by Medicaid, the government health insurance for the poor and disabled. About one in 20 UMass Memorial patients are uninsured, which means the health system often has to absorb the costs of treatment, adding to the financial strain. Dr. Eric Dickson, the UMass Memorial chief executive, said the recent program closures were made in part to offset recent financial shortfalls, but also were driven by the impending cuts to Medicaid. Advertisement President Trump's signature legislation, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, will slash nearly $1 trillion from Medicaid over the next 10 years, tossing up to 16 million Americans from health insurance program, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. UMass Memorial estimates that 100,000 of its patients are at risk of losing Medicaid coverage because of new eligibility and work requirements. President Trump signed his signature bill of tax breaks and spending cuts at the White House on July 4. Evan Vucci/Associated Press Prior to enactment of the law, Dickson said he believed he could manage the operating losses and return to profitability 'in a slow, thoughtful manner.' But the massive cuts to Medicaid mean UMass Memorial could no longer take a gradual approach. 'I went back to my board' of directors, Dickson recalled, 'and said. 'I've got to move hard and fast.'' The financial outlook has undoubtedly become darker for hospital systems such as UMass Memorial that care for high numbers of low-income and uninsured patients, said Karen Errichetti, an assistant professor of public health and community medicine at Tufts School of Medicine. But Medicaid cuts are only one source of the instability. Costs of labor, drugs, and medical supplies are up, while hospitals serving large low-income populations tend to operate on razor-thin margins. Total expenses for hospitals in 2024 grew by 5.1 percent, well above outpacing the overall rate of inflation of 2.9 percent , according to the American Hospital Association's Advertisement 'UMass is a very important safety net hospital system within our state and has an important role to play in that larger community that needs a safety net,' said Errichetti. 'The things going on right now are a sign of broad pressures on safety net hospitals in general.' Across the state, health systems have shuttered clinics offering mental health services, obstetrics, and primary care as they attempted to balance their budgets. Between 2014 and 2023, Protesters rallied against the planned closure of the labor and delivery unit at the UMass Memorial HealthAlliance-Clinton Hospital in Leominster on May 30, 2023. Nathan Klima for The Boston Globe Dickson said UMass Memorial as a whole is 'too big to fail,' because it treats so many people in Central Massachusetts. But non-emergency services, such as primary care or mental health programs, could be at risk if its finances worsen. Most recently, UMass Memorial said it will shut down a psychiatric day program for adults in Fitchburg as of Oct. 23. The program, call BUDD, for Builds Understanding and Develops Direction, serves about 30 patients, treating them for psychosocial, emotional, or behavioral issues and connecting them with social workers, psychiatrists, and rehabilitation counselors. The BUDD program is operated by UMass Memorial affiliate Community Healthlink, which provides a range of services addressing mental health, substance abuse, and homelessness. CHL has served more than 14,000 people since since January 2024. It also lost $10.4 million between October and March. If losses continue to grow, Dickson said, he might be forced to shutter Community Healthlink outright. It is among the most comprehensive providers of community-based mental health and substance use treatment in Worcester County, and its closure would ripple across the health care system. Advertisement 'What happens when you stop seeing behavioral health patients at CHL, you stop doing detox, you stop housing people with substance use disorder or working with families in crisis? Where do they end up going for care? The emergency department,' Dickson said. 'And my emergency departments are completely overwhelmed right now.' Marin Wolf can be reached at
USA Today
6 hours ago
- USA Today
New EPA data show more towns have PFAS in their water. Is yours one?
Shane Pepe knows exactly how his town's drinking water came to be polluted with the "forever chemicals" it recently reported to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The borough manager in Emmaus, Pennsylvania, points to a firefighter training facility as the source of contamination that averaged 32 times the federal limit over the past year. For decades, fire-extinguishing foams containing PFAS seeped into the local aquifer during training exercises. "While our firefighters are practicing to save your life, they had no idea that at the same time the water system was getting poisoned," he said. Emmaus was among 839 water systems whose yearly average exceeded EPA limits for two types of forever chemicals, according to a USA TODAY analysis of new test results the EPA released last week. Together, these utilities serve 46 million Americans. These PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are part of a family of chemicals engineered to repel liquids and heat, making them nearly indestructible. They can build up in nature and in human bodies, increasing the risk of certain types of cancer and other health problems. The EPA is nearing the end of the largest PFAS testing initiative it's undertaken – a three-year effort that requires most public drinking water systems serving at least 3,300 customers to sample and report measurements for several types of forever chemicals. Places that have found contamination now need to find other sources of drinking water or install filtration systems that can remove the PFAS within the next few years. That deadline was originally set for 2029, but in May, the EPA announced plans for an extension. The agency also rescinded limits on four other types of PFAS set under the Biden administration in 2024. MAP: Where water systems reported PFAS contamination Click on a system in the map below to review its PFAS measurements. You may also enter an address in the search box to locate the nearest water systems. Don't see a map? Click here. USA TODAY's analysis shows larger water utilities more frequently fail to meet the EPA's standards for the two chemicals it still plans to limit: PFOA and PFOS. Nearly a quarter of systems serving over 100,000 people had average results exceeding the limit, compared to about 8% of those with fewer than 10,000 customers. But in the latest data release, it's some of the smaller communities that have reported the most eye-popping concentrations of forever chemicals in their drinking water. Nashville, North Carolina, a town of 6,000 east of Raleigh, reported one well that measured PFOS at 490 parts per trillion (ppt) last fall and then at 200 ppt in March. The EPA limit is 4 ppt, which puts the average of those samples 86 times over the limit. The city's director of public works did not return USA TODAY's calls requesting comment. The borough of Emmaus, which is home to about 12,000 people just outside Allentown, Pennsylvania, reported several wells over EPA limits – most notably at its waterworks building, where PFOS averaged 32 times over the limit. PFOA also measured high, averaging about five times above the limit. 'These firefighting foam companies knew what was in the water and never notified anybody,' Pepe said. He added that Emmaus declined a $4 million settlement from a class-action lawsuit against PFAS manufacturers and is instead pursuing its own lawsuit to recover damages. A spokesperson from the 3M Co. didn't respond directly to Pepe's allegation, but said they've committed $12 billion to public water suppliers as part of the settlement Emmaus declined. The company plans to stop manufacturing PFAS by the end of 2025. Spokesman Dan Turner of the DuPont Co., another manufacturer that Emmaus named in its lawsuit, declined to comment since the litigation is ongoing. Emmaus discovered the contamination through state-mandated testing in late-2021, Pepe said. The utility immediately shut down one well and studied how to remedy another well. Residents of Emmaus made it clear they wanted to fix Emmaus' water, Pepe said, rather than becoming dependent by buying water from elsewhere. Earlier this year, the town won over $9 million in grant funding and a nearly $2-million loan from the state to install four enormous treatment tanks filled with granular-activated carbon able to filter out PFAS. Pepe said construction should finish by June 2026. Emmaus will need to raise water rates slightly to pay for ongoing maintenance to the new tanks, Pepe said, since it costs about $100,000 per year to replace the carbon filters. But, he's thankful the Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority's grant will bear the brunt of costs. 'Had we not gotten the grant,' Pepe said, 'instantly our folks would have been paying four times what they pay today. Instantly. And that would have been for the next 20 to 30 years.' Hundreds of other small water systems face Emmaus' predicament, where local budgets may not suffice to cover the cost to remove PFAS without raising water rates. Several water utility officials have told USA TODAY it's not fair to pass these costs on their customers rather than the manufacturers and processors that created the PFAS contamination. Because of this, industry groups representing water utilities sued the EPA last year, claiming the agency did not follow proper procedures when approving the new PFAS limits. The lawsuit has been on hold since shortly after President Donald Trump took office, to allow the new administration time to review the limits. After the EPA announced plans to rescind some PFAS limits in May, a federal judge said the agency now has until Sept. 10 to clarify its position in the lawsuit, according to the latest court filing. Regardless of the lawsuit's outcome, Pepe said his customers' lives and safety must come first. 'We are being told by environmental agencies that these chemicals in the water are bad and have the potential to cause cancer and other illnesses,' Pepe said. 'We have a duty to mitigate this as quickly as possible, and so that's exactly what we're doing.'
