Latest news with #EmergencyMedicalTreatmentandLaborAct
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Despite Trump directive, emergency abortion care is still a legal right
In the days since the Trump administration rescinded federal guidance tied to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, EMTALA, a wave of alarming headlines has swept across social media: 'Trump just made it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 What was rescinded is the Biden-era guidance — a post-Roe clarification that reinforced these obligations and gave clinicians added protections in legally ambiguous states.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
The Hill
3 days ago
- Health
- The Hill
Trump stokes fear, confusion with pulled emergency abortion guidance
The Trump administration sowed confusion and fear among physicians with its move this past week to rescind Biden-era guidelines to hospitals that provide life-saving abortions. While the move doesn't change the law, doctors and reproductive-rights advocates fear it will have a chilling effect on health care workers in states with abortion bans, ultimately harming pregnant women. Earlier this past week, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced they would rescind guidance issued during the Biden administration, which reinforced to hospitals that under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA,) abortions qualify as stabilizing care in medical emergencies. Emergency rooms in states with abortion bans have been struggling since the 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade to understand when they can legally provide emergency abortions. After President Trump pulled the Biden-era guidance seeking to clarify that question, emergency room doctors will experience 'more confusion' and 'more fear,' according to health and legal experts who spoke with The Hill. 'Clinicians are scared to provide basic medical care, and this care is clearly in line with medical ethics … medical standards of care, and they're being put in this situation where they can't win,' said Payal Shah, director of research, legal and advocacy at Physicians for Human Rights. Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, at least 13 states have enacted near-total abortion bans, according to data from the Guttmacher Institute. There are exceptions in these states when continuing a pregnancy poses a threat to the health or life of the mother. However, most of the language in state laws is unclear on how that determination is made, resulting in instances of emergency rooms denying care. Doctors in states like Idaho, Texas and Tennessee have filed lawsuits requesting that lawmakers clarify when an abortion is allowed to save the life of a pregnant person. The doctors and patients involved in the lawsuits argue that state laws do not adequately protect pregnant patients in emergencies. Many of these states have severe punishments for doctors who violate abortion bans, like steep fines and prison time. 'For clinicians, there is actually no safe way to navigate this in this moment, and ultimately, that's how these laws are designed,' Shah said. 'They're designed to cause chaos and confusion. They're often written in ways that don't use medical terminology.' Without clear guidance, pregnant women suffer and sometimes die, as ProPublica has reported. One striking example of this is the 2023 case of Kyleigh Thurman, a Texas woman who was repeatedly denied care for a nonviable pregnancy after days of experiencing bleeding and pain. Health care workers discovered that she had an ectopic pregnancy, which is when a fertilized egg implants and begins to grow outside of the uterus, usually in a fallopian tube. Ectopic pregnancies are never viable and are life-threatening if not treated properly. It wasn't until her OB/GYN 'pleaded to hospital staff that she be given care,' that the hospital administered a shot ending her pregnancy, according to a complaint filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of Thurman. The shot came too late, and the ectopic pregnancy ruptured Thurman's right fallopian tube, which was then removed. 'If a patient is actively hemorrhaging or experiencing an ectopic pregnancy which is also life-threatening, doctors need that clear guidance that yes, EMTALA applied,' said Autumn Katz, associate director of U.S. litigation at the Center for Reproductive Rights. A federal investigation into Thurman's case found that the Texas hospital violated EMTALA, according to a recent letter from the CMS. 'I finally got some justice,' Thurman said in a statement. 'I hope this decision will do some good in encouraging hospitals to help women in situations like mine.' Hospitals that violate EMTALA are subject to heavy fines and, in some extreme cases, risk losing a portion of their Medicare and Medicaid hospital funding, according to the National Institutes of Health. Former President Biden leaned on the law to preserve access to emergency abortion across the country, leading to a legal fight with Idaho, which has a strict abortion ban. The Supreme Court last year dismissed the case, declining to rule on the merits of a politically charged case. The rescinding of these guidelines also means hospitals that violate the law will likely not be investigated as often as they were under previous administrations, according to Shah. That lack of punitive risk means that hospitals could be incentivized to deny life-saving care for patients. 'The standard of EMTALA is pretty high,' said Katherine Hempstead, senior policy adviser at Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. 'This kind of takes that layer of reassurance away, and it will make a lot of providers feel very vulnerable.'
Yahoo
4 days 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
4 days 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
5 days 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
