Latest news with #EMTALA
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Texas Hospital Discharged Woman with Untreated Ectopic Pregnancy. Then She Started Bleeding Out: ‘Oh My God, I'm Dying'
Kyleigh Thurman filed a complaint against Ascension Seton Williamson Hospital after suffering an ectopic pregnancy. The medical emergency led to a ruptured fallopian tube that caused heavy bleeding A federal investigation has now found that the hospital broke the law by failing to give Thurman proper medical careA federal investigation has found that a Texas hospital broke the law by failing to give a woman proper medical attention following an emergency pregnancy complication. In August 2024, Kyleigh Thurman filed a complaint against Ascension Seton Williamson Hospital over a February 2023 visit when she suffered an ectopic pregnancy. According to the Mayo Clinic, ectopic pregnancy "occurs when a fertilized egg implants and grows outside the main cavity of the uterus." This type of pregnancy cannot proceed normally because "the fertilized egg can't survive,' and it can lead to 'life-threatening bleeding, if left untreated." Court documents claim the hospital discharged Thurman, 36, without treatment, after allegedly giving her a pamphlet about miscarriage. She later returned due to continuous vaginal bleeding, but was 'denied care' again. 'It was not until her OB/GYN pleaded to hospital staff that she be given care that the hospital provided the necessary care,' the filing states. 'This care was too late, and Ms. Thurman's ectopic pregnancy ruptured due to the hospital's delay in treating her.' It was during this third visit to Ascension Seton Williamson Hospital that Thurman was reportedly told her case was now severe and her life was at risk due to the heavy bleeding. The untreated ectopic pregnancy resulted in one of her fallopian tubes rupturing. '[My OB/GYN] came in and she's like, you're either going to have to have a blood transfusion, or you're going to have to have surgery or you're going to bleed out,' Thurman told the Associated Press, through tears. 'That's when I just kind of was like, 'Oh my God, I'm, I'm dying.'' Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories. Thurman underwent emergency surgery to remove one of her fallopian tubes, ultimately jeopardizing her fertility moving forward. A spokesperson for Ascension Seton Williamson Hospital tells PEOPLE that they cannot comment on Thurman's case, but noted that it 'is committed to providing high-quality care to all who seek our services.' Shortly after Thurman's complaint was filed, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) launched a federal investigation into her case. According to AP, investigators concluded in a report last month that Ascension Seton Williamson Hospital failed to give her a proper medical screening exam, including an evaluation with an OB-GYN. The hospital also reportedly violated the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which requires emergency rooms to provide stabilizing treatment to all patients in medical emergencies. is now available in the Apple App Store! Download it now for the most binge-worthy celeb content, exclusive video clips, astrology updates and more! The report stated, per the outlet, that Thurman was 'at risk for deterioration of her health and wellbeing as a result of an untreated medical condition.' 'We see patients with miscarriages being denied care, bleeding out in parking lots. We see patients with nonviable pregnancies being told to continue those to term,' Molly Duane, an attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights that represented Thurman, told the outlet. 'This is not, maybe, what some people thought abortion bans would look like, but this is the reality.' Abortion is currently banned in Texas after six weeks, which is before most people know they're pregnant. The law does not allow exceptions for women who were impregnated as a result of rape or incest. Under the legislation, private citizens can also sue doctors or abortion clinic workers who perform or help to set up the procedure. The near-total ban has led to numerous claims of delayed pregnancy-related care — even for care that is legal under state law — due to fear of the extreme penalties for physicians who violate the abortion ban. In 2022, the Biden administration released guidance specifying that hospitals must provide an abortion if needed to treat a patient with an emergency condition. States including Texas challenged that guidance, saying it equated an abortion mandate. On June 3, the CMS announced that it would revoke the Biden-era guidance, explaining in a statement that it would 'work to rectify any perceived legal confusion and instability caused by the former administration's actions.' '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,' the agency said. However, Thurman told AP that she had hoped the investigation would lead to a more clear message that ectopic pregnancies must be treated by hospitals despite state abortion bans. 'I didn't want anyone else to have to go through this,' Thurman said. 'I put a lot of the responsibility on the state of Texas and policy makers and the legislators that set this chain of events off.' Read the original article on People
Time of India
13 hours ago
- Health
- Time of India
"This is crazy": Chiefs' Jaylon Moore's wife calls out Donald Trump for putting women's lives at risk with shocking abortion mandate rollback
Sidney Moore has condemned the Donald Trump administration's to perform emergency abortions (Images via IG and Getty) Kansas City Chiefs offensive tackle Jaylon Moore's wife, Sidney Moore, has publicly expressed outrage over the Trump administration's decision to roll back a critical federal abortion mandate. The rule, originally implemented during President Joe Biden's term, required hospitals—regardless of state abortion laws—to perform emergency abortions if a woman's life or health was at risk. That rule is now being rescinded, sparking national backlash, especially from healthcare professionals like Sidney. Sidney Moore reacts with outrage to rollback of emergency care protections Sidney Moore, a registered nurse and mother of two, took to Instagram to voice her frustration. Referring to the policy reversal, she wrote, 'I have no words. This is crazy.' Her response followed a report by The Washington Post detailing how the Trump administration scrapped the Biden-era interpretation of EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act). That interpretation ensured that federally funded hospitals provided emergency abortions when medically necessary—even in states with strict abortion bans. Sidney Moore's IG story The Trump administration argued that this created legal 'confusion' and opted to eliminate the requirement, claiming EMTALA still applied—but without a mandate for emergency abortions. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like You Can Make Massive Side Income By Learning Order Flow Analysis TradeWise Learn More Undo A voice from both the medical field and motherhood Sidney Moore isn't just speaking out as a concerned citizen. As a nurse who earned her degree in 2020 from Kankakee Community College, she brings frontline healthcare experience to the conversation. Her frustration is informed by firsthand knowledge of what it means to care for women in life-threatening medical emergencies. Her voice also carries the weight of personal experience. Sidney and Jaylon Moore are parents to two sons—the youngest, Bronsen Emmett Moore, was born in February 2024. As a mother and healthcare professional, Sidney's alarm over the policy reversal reflects deeper concerns about patient safety and women's rights. In March 2025, just after Jaylon Moore signed a $30 million deal with the Kansas City Chiefs, the couple tied the knot. Sidney shared photos of their wedding on Instagram, captioned: 'Forever Moore.' While she often posts about family milestones, her recent Instagram story marks a powerful shift into advocacy—using her platform to call out policies that could put women's lives at risk. Also Read: 'Somebody died in Trump's place': Social media erupts after Donald Trump is named honorary Steeler by NFL legend As debates over abortion rights intensify, Sidney Moore's voice underscores how deeply personal and political these healthcare issues are—especially for those on the frontlines.
Yahoo
13 hours ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me.
Despite declarations that something needs to be done about the declining birth rate in the United States, neither President Donald Trump nor the Republican Party has the desire to protect pregnant people. If they did, the Trump administration wouldn't have made its latest move to restrict abortion nationwide. On Tuesday, June 3, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services rescinded a Biden-era policy that directed hospitals to provide emergency abortions if it was needed to stabilize a pregnant patient. The guidance and communications on it apparently 'do not reflect the policy of this Administration.' I, like many people who support abortion rights, know what this will lead to. It means more pregnant people will die. Does that reflect the policy of the administration? The Biden policy was implemented in 2022, following the fall of Roe v. Wade, and argued that hospitals receiving Medicare funding had to comply with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). The former administration argued that this included providing emergency abortions when they were needed to stabilize a patient, even in states that had severe abortion restrictions. Opinion: A brain dead pregnant Georgia woman is a horror story. It's Republicans' fault. This wasn't entirely a surprise. In 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas could ban virtually all abortions in the state, including abortions that would have occurred under the old EMTALA guidelines. Still, it's terrifying to see this crucial policy eliminated. It's already dangerous to be pregnant in the United States. Our maternal mortality rate is much higher than in other wealthy countries. Same with our infant mortality rate. This will only exacerbate these tragedies. In states with abortion bans, the risks are even greater. A study from the Gender Equity Policy Institute found that people living in states with abortion bans were twice as likely to die during or shortly after childbirth. This is also backed by anecdotal evidence, including the 2022 deaths of two women in Georgia after the state passed a six-week ban. A different study found that infant mortality rates increased in states with severe restrictions on abortion, including an increase in deaths due to congenital anomalies. The Trump administration does not care about what is medically necessary to save someone's life. They don't care about whether the children supposedly saved by rescinding this policy will grow up without their mother. They care about their perceived moral superiority. They care about controlling women. Why would anybody want to have a child under that Republican way of thinking? Opinion: We're worrying about the wrong thing. Low birth rate isn't the crisis: Child care is. I want to say I'm surprised that the Trump administration would allow women in need of emergency care to die. Yet this is clearly aligned with the Republican stance on abortion, just like it's aligned with the actions that the party has taken to make it harder for women to access necessary care. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Whether you like it or not, abortion is a necessary part of health care. It saves lives. Alexis McGill Johnson, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood, laid it out plainly. 'Women have died because they couldn't get the lifesaving abortion care they needed,' she said in a statement. 'The Trump administration is willing to let pregnant people die, and that is exactly what we can expect." Again, this is the administration that wants young women like me to have children and improve the country's birth rate. This is an administration that claims to care about women and children. I know I wouldn't want to have a child while Trump continues to make it unsafe to be pregnant and give birth. I hate that this is the reality. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter, @sara__pequeno You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump just made healthcare more dangerous for pregnant women | Opinion
USA Today
14 hours ago
- Health
- USA Today
Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me.
Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me. | Opinion The Trump administration does not care about what is medically necessary to save someone's life. They care about controlling women. Why would anybody want to have a child under that way of thinking? Show Caption Hide Caption Trump rescinds Biden-era emergency abortion care guidance The Trump administration rescinded guidance clarifying that hospitals in abortion-ban states must treat pregnant patients during medical emergencies. unbranded - Newsworthy Despite declarations that something needs to be done about the declining birth rate in the United States, neither President Donald Trump nor the Republican Party has the desire to protect pregnant people. If they did, the Trump administration wouldn't have made its latest move to restrict abortion nationwide. On Tuesday, June 3, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services rescinded a Biden-era policy that directed hospitals to provide emergency abortions if it was needed to stabilize a pregnant patient. The guidance and communications on it apparently 'do not reflect the policy of this Administration.' I, like many people who support abortion rights, know what this will lead to. It means more pregnant people will die. Does that reflect the policy of the administration? Having a baby in America is dangerous. Republicans aren't helping. The Biden policy was implemented in 2022, following the fall of Roe v. Wade, and argued that hospitals receiving Medicare funding had to comply with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). The former administration argued that this included providing emergency abortions when they were needed to stabilize a patient, even in states that had severe abortion restrictions. Opinion: A brain dead pregnant Georgia woman is a horror story. It's Republicans' fault. This wasn't entirely a surprise. In 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas could ban virtually all abortions in the state, including abortions that would have occurred under the old EMTALA guidelines. Still, it's terrifying to see this crucial policy eliminated. It's already dangerous to be pregnant in the United States. Our maternal mortality rate is much higher than in other wealthy countries. Same with our infant mortality rate. This will only exacerbate these tragedies. In states with abortion bans, the risks are even greater. A study from the Gender Equity Policy Institute found that people living in states with abortion bans were twice as likely to die during or shortly after childbirth. This is also backed by anecdotal evidence, including the 2022 deaths of two women in Georgia after the state passed a six-week ban. A different study found that infant mortality rates increased in states with severe restrictions on abortion, including an increase in deaths due to congenital anomalies. The Trump administration does not care about what is medically necessary to save someone's life. They don't care about whether the children supposedly saved by rescinding this policy will grow up without their mother. They care about their perceived moral superiority. They care about controlling women. Why would anybody want to have a child under that Republican way of thinking? Opinion: We're worrying about the wrong thing. Low birth rate isn't the crisis: Child care is. None of this is surprising from Republicans. It's just sad. I want to say I'm surprised that the Trump administration would allow women in need of emergency care to die. Yet this is clearly aligned with the Republican stance on abortion, just like it's aligned with the actions that the party has taken to make it harder for women to access necessary care. Whether you like it or not, abortion is a necessary part of health care. It saves lives. Alexis McGill Johnson, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood, laid it out plainly. 'Women have died because they couldn't get the lifesaving abortion care they needed,' she said in a statement. 'The Trump administration is willing to let pregnant people die, and that is exactly what we can expect." Again, this is the administration that wants young women like me to have children and improve the country's birth rate. This is an administration that claims to care about women and children. I know I wouldn't want to have a child while Trump continues to make it unsafe to be pregnant and give birth. I hate that this is the reality. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter, @sara__pequeno
Yahoo
a day ago
- Health
- Yahoo
The most worrying words in Trump's move on emergency abortions
In a major move on abortion policy, the Trump administration just withdrew Biden-era guidance on emergency abortions. The guidance had interpreted the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) as requiring access to abortion in certain medical emergencies, even in places where abortion is a crime. The revocation by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid is unlikely to help hospitals and doctors who were already unsure how EMTALA would be interpreted or enforced. But an accompanying statement from CMS hinted at a broader change, stating that EMTALA required hospitals to prevent serious risks to 'the health of a pregnant woman or her unborn child.' Understood in this way, EMTALA under the Trump administration could further restrict how doctors address emergencies, regardless of states' abortion laws. Congress passed EMTALA in 1986 to stop hospitals from turning away patients who couldn't afford to pay, especially women in labor. In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision overturning abortion rights, the Biden administration issued guidance on EMTALA requiring hospitals and physicians participating in Medicare to provide abortions in certain medical emergencies, even in states that ban abortion. In theory, EMTALA could be a powerful check on state bans; violators could face fines and even exclusion from the Medicare program. What's more, EMTALA, a federal law, could trump conflicting state laws. In practice, it wasn't clear how much of a difference the Biden administration's guidance was making. A congressional investigation in December 2024 found that hospital lawyers were often inaccessible and offered confusing advice to doctors, even with the Biden guidelines in place. It wasn't clear how strongly the federal government would come after offenders, and hospitals had to weigh that risk against the threat of prosecution and fines in states where abortion is banned. The courts didn't help clear things up either. The two most prominent lawsuits involved the Biden administration suing Idaho over its ban (which only has an exception for the life of the mother) and Texas suing the federal government over its guidance. In both cases, abortion opponents seized on language in the statute referring to the health of 'the health of the woman or her unborn child.' Anti-abortion lawyers insisted that, under this wording, EMTALA imposed equal obligations toward pregnant women and unborn patients. When those obligations conflicted, the argument went, individual physicians would have to decide what to do, and state laws criminalizing abortion would break the tie. While the conservative Fifth Circuit sided with Texas on this question, lower courts blocked enforcement of Idaho's law. The Supreme Court agreed to step in, but ultimately dismissed the petition as improvidently granted. In an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, however, three of the court's most conservative justices dissented, echoing the argument that EMTALA created obligations toward fetal patients and thus couldn't require hospitals to allow any abortion. There's just one problem with this theory: EMTALA's text. The original bill did not reference unborn patients. In 1989, Congress passed amendments meant to clarify the law's scope. Those amendments created two categories of emergency condition, those that did not involve labor and those that did. Almost all of EMTALA's references to the 'unborn child' fall in the latter category, where the appropriate way to stabilize a patient is to successfully deliver a baby. Only once is the term mentioned around non-labor emergencies — the category of emergencies where abortion would be considered. Simply mentioning the term 'unborn child' doesn't necessarily mean that Congress wanted to recognize fetal patients' rights. In fact, limiting mentions of the 'unborn child' almost entirely to scenarios where labor has already begun suggests the contrary. Furthermore, the use of the term hardly answers what should happen when a pregnant woman's life or health are clearly imperiled. Though the Trump administration has reinforced that hospitals have duties to fetal patients too, it has not explained how hospitals should carry out those duties. Will the administration act if a hospital doesn't prioritize the needs of the unborn patient, or strike the right balance between the fetus and pregnant woman? Anti-abortion medical organizations like the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists have issued guidelines requiring hospitals to use 'humane medical interventions that aim for both mother and her unborn child to live when possible and do not inflict direct violence on the unborn child.' Will the Trump administration require hospitals to use these methods when addressing emergencies? Much of the debate about EMTALA so far has focused on states where abortion is banned. But if the Trump administration does enforce EMTALA to protect fetal patients, will it impose penalties on hospitals in states that protect abortion as a right? After all, though anti-abortion forces' reading of EMTALA focuses on the text of the law, that interpretation is consistent with their broader ambition: to confer constitutional rights of fetuses from the moment of fertilization. The 2024 GOP platform nodded to this theory, implying that the Fourteenth Amendment, which addresses due process and equal protection, already protects the unborn child. In Minnesota, an anti-abortion lawyer is challenging the constitutionality of the state's liberal abortion law by arguing that it violates the rights of the unborn child. Another fetal personhood suit just reached the 2nd Circuit Court, where a panel of judges appointed by George W. Bush and Donald Trump rejected the plaintiffs' claims on a technicality. At the moment, the primary effect of the administration's move on EMTALA will be more confusion for hospitals and physicians. But the administration's references to the unborn child can't be ignored. In the longer term, the end of the Biden-era guidance may be the tip of the sword further carving up abortion protections, even in states where that right is still protected. This article was originally published on
