Trump administration rescinds guidance on emergency abortions in hospitals
The Trump administration announced on Tuesday it is rescinding Biden-era guidance that uses a federal law to require hospitals to stabilize patients in need of emergency care -- including by providing an abortion.
In July 2022, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued guidance that, under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), doctors must perform abortions in emergency departments -- even in states where the procedure is illegal -- particularly if it serves as a "stabilizing medical treatment" for an emergency medical condition.
Emergency medical conditions included, but were not limited to, "ectopic pregnancy, complications of pregnancy loss, or emergent hypertensive disorders, such as preeclampsia with severe features."
MORE: Biden administration announces new steps to protect contraceptives, abortion medication on Roe anniversary
EMTALA, which was passed in 1986, ensures that emergency patients receive services and treatment regardless of ability to pay. Hospitals that refuse to provide "necessary stabilizing care" or "an appropriate transfer" can face civil monetary penalties.
The HHS guidance was one of the attempts of the Biden administration to preserve abortion access after the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade, ending federal protections for abortion rights.
However, HHS and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) rescinded the guidance, as well as an accompanying letter from former HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, saying they "do not reflect the policy of this Administration."
"CMS will continue to enforce EMTALA, which protects all individuals who present to a hospital emergency department seeking examination or treatment, including for identified emergency medical conditions that place the health of a pregnant woman or her unborn child in serious jeopardy," a press release from the agency read.
"CMS will work to rectify any perceived legal confusion and instability created by the former administration's actions," the press release continued.
MORE: Woman sues Kansas hospital over alleged denial of emergency abortion
Abortion rights groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, criticized the administration and accused President Donald Trump of walking back on a campaign promise not to interfere with abortion access.
"By rescinding this guidance, the Trump administration has sent a clear signal that it is siding not with the majority, but with its anti-abortion allies -- and that will come at the expense of women's lives," Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, deputy director of the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project, said in a statement. "The ACLU will use every lever we have to keep President Trump and his administration from endangering our health and lives."
The Biden administration's guidance has faced legal challenges in the past. In January 2024, a federal appeals court ruled that Texas hospitals and doctors are not required to perform emergency abortions despite the guidance.
Meanwhile, earlier this year, the Department of Justice dismissed a lawsuit brought by the Biden administration against the state of Idaho, claiming its near-total abortion ban violated EMTALA.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Government drones used in 'runaway spying operation' to peek into backyards in Sonoma County, lawsuit says
Three residents filed a lawsuit this week against Sonoma County seeking to block code enforcement from using drones to take aerial images of their homes in what the American Civil Liberties Union is calling a "runaway spying operation." The lawsuit, filed by the ACLU Wednesday on behalf of the three residents, alleges that the county began using drones with high-powered cameras and zoom lenses in 2019 to track illegal cannabis cultivation, but in the years since, officials have used the devices more than 700 times to find other code violations on private property without first seeking a warrant. "For too long, Sonoma County code enforcement has used high-powered drones to warrantlessly sift through people's private affairs and initiate charges that upend lives and livelihoods. All the while, the county has hidden these unlawful searches from the people they have spied on, the community, and the media," Matt Cagle, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Foundation of Northern California, said in a statement. A spokesperson for Sonoma County said the county is reviewing the complaint and takes "the allegations very seriously." Read more: Will these drones 'revolutionize' 911 response? L.A. suburb will be first to test The lawsuit comes amid a national debate over the use of drones by government agencies who have increasingly relied on the unmanned aircraft during disasters and for environmental monitoring and responding to emergency calls. More recently, some agencies in California and in other states have explored using drones to investigate code enforcement violations. In 2024, nearly half of Sonoma County's drone flights involved non-cannabis violations, including construction without a permit, junkyard conditions and zoning violations, according to data included in the complaint. "The use of drones over someone's private space raises a question of what is considered private," said Ari Ezra Waldman, a professor of law at UC Irvine. Waldman said if law enforcement on the ground wants to see on the other side of a tall fence or trees into someone's property they have to get the person's consent or they need probable cause for a warrant. "Why shouldn't that apply above ground too?" he said. California doesn't have a law that regulates the use of drones by code enforcement agents. In 2015, lawmakers in the state Assembly approved a measure that would have restricted the use of drones over private property without the owner's permission. Then-Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed the bill saying at the time that it could expose hobbyists or commercial users to "burdensome litigation." The ACLU argues that the county's use of drones as an investigative tool violates the California Constitution which provides people the right to privacy and against unreasonable searches and seizures. "I think that our expectations of privacy are based on social norms and people don't normally expect that someone is going to have a super high powered, detailed ability to capture extraordinary detail with a camera that's just buzzing over their property," Waldman said. "We shouldn't have to walk around life expecting that just because this technology exists that we have no privacy from anything anymore, from any direction." The lawsuit also alleges that the county's drone policy has loosened in the past several years. In 2019, the policy required inspectors to receive a complaint about a property before deploying a drone. Now, officials have no such requirement, allowing them instead to launch "discretionary proactive investigations," the complaint states. Residents named in the lawsuit say that the drones hovering above their homes have resulted in ongoing privacy concerns and a loss of enjoyment of their property. One plaintiff, Benjamin Verdusco, decided to sell his home after he learned that the county had been taking pictures of his backyard with a drone in 2021, according to the complaint. Read more: Police drones could soon crisscross the skies. Cities need to be ready, ACLU warns Another plaintiff, Nichola Schmitz, who is deaf, wasn't able to hear the buzz of the drone hovering above her property on Oct.10, 2023. When a worker on her property pointed it out she "became confused and worried," the complaint states. She rushed to her bedroom and closed the curtains, concerned about how long the drone had been there and whether it had seen her naked on her property earlier that day. She alleges the drone made two big loops around her property and, shortly after, a red tag appeared on her gate alleging two violations of the county code — one for illegal grading and another for having on her property an unpermitted dwelling, a small cabin that her father had built on the land in 1981. She spent $25,000 for a contractor to fix the alleged grading issue but still faces $10,000 in fines. ACLU attorneys allege the evidence obtained by the drone was done so unlawfully because officials did not have a search warrant. "This horrible experience has shattered my sense of privacy and security," Schmitz said in a statement. "I'm afraid to open my blinds or go outside to use my hot tub because who knows when the county's drone could be spying on me." A third plaintiff, Suzanne Brock, confronted county officials after she learned that they had taken detailed aerial photos of her outdoor bathtub and shower that she and her daughter used daily. She expressed concern to inspectors that they might have seen her naked in the bathtub. Code Enforcement Inspector Ryan Sharp told her that "when we see something like that, we turn around," according to the complaint. When Brock asked if county officials see people during the flights, Sharp told her yes, according to the complaint, but added that "we don't put that in the camera footage." Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Stocks rally as Trump-Musk feud cools down
Stocks rally as Trump-Musk feud cools down originally appeared on TheStreet. Crypto stocks bounced back on June 7 as both President Donald Trump and Tesla (Nasdaq: TSLA) boss Elon Musk retreated from their big, ugly feud from the previous day. Strategy (Nasdaq: MSTR), which had dipped around 6% yesterday, was trading at $375.01 at press time, up 1.69% a day. Helmed by Michael Saylor, the company is the largest public Bitcoin treasury company. The largest U.S. crypto exchange Coinbase (Nasdaq: COIN) had slipped as much as 10% the day before. The stock, which made it to the much-coveted spot on the S&P 500 in May, was trading at $254.31, up 4% a day. The crypto and stock trading exchange Robinhood (Nasdaq: HOOD) dipped around 8% on the day of the feud. It was trading at $76.24, up 5% a day. The story of Bitcoin miners was no different as the two men engaged in a heated public exchange over social media and press briefings on June 6. MARA Holdings (MARA) fell as much as 7% yesterday but was trading at $15.93, up 7.02% a day. Hut 8 Group (HUT) had similarly slipped by 7% the day before but rallied an impressive 14.83% to trade at $18.74. HIVE Digital (Nasdaq: HIVE) had slid around 9% yesterday and made the same recovery of 9% today to trade at $2.0042. Bitdeer (Nasdaq: BTDR) had also slipped 9% and successfully recovered by 11% to trade at $14.07 today. Notably, the stablecoin issuer Circle Internet Group (NYSE: CRCL) made an impressive debut on the day of the feud. CRCL was trading at $116.07 at press time, up 40% a day. Musk, who quit the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) by the end of May, has been criticizing Trump's "big, beautiful bill" since then. The disagreement escalated into an ugly public exchange the previous day that shook the markets. Stocks rally as Trump-Musk feud cools down first appeared on TheStreet on Jun 6, 2025 This story was originally reported by TheStreet on Jun 6, 2025, where it first appeared. Sign in to access your portfolio
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Trump boasts of ‘big win' over AP as court allows WH to ban access after ‘Gulf of America' spat
President Trump celebrated a 'big win' Friday after a court ruled that his administration can ban the Associated Press from entering the Oval Office and other restricted areas. 'Big WIN over AP today,' Trump posted on Truth Social. 'They refused to state the facts or the Truth on the GULF OF AMERICA. FAKE NEWS!!!' Advertisement The 2-1 ruling in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia comes months after the White House barred an Associated Press reporter from the Oval Office in protest of the outlet's style guidance on the Gulf of America. The outlet manages the 'Associated Press Stylebook,' which is widely used by media publications across the country for guidance on abbreviations, spelling, references and more. The AP has refrained from updating its style guide to rename the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, as mandated by Trump's executive order, arguing that the body of water has been called the Gulf of Mexico for 'more than 400 years' and other international groups have not acknowledged the change. Advertisement 'VICTORY! As we've said all along, the Associated Press is not guaranteed special access to cover President Trump in the Oval Office, aboard Air Force One, and in other sensitive locations,' White House press secretary Karoline Levitt posted to X following the ruling. 'Thousands of other journalists have never been afforded the opportunity to cover the President in these privileged spaces. Moving forward, we will continue to expand access to new media so that more people can cover the most transparent President in American history rather than just the failing legacy media. 'And by the way @AP, it's still the Gulf of America.' 'We are disappointed in the court's decision and are reviewing our options,' a spokesperson for AP told CNN.
