Kesiah Beere:
On June 3, the Trump administration rescinded a directive from the former Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary that expanded the scope of Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) services and required abortion to be provided as emergency care in hospitals.
EMTALA, enacted in 1986, is a U.S. federal law that guarantees a person’s access to emergency medical care regardless of their ability to pay. The law requires that hospitals provide medical screening to patients and stabilize emergency situations without any delay.
In 2022, following the overturning of Roe v. Wade by the Dobbs decision, then HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra issued a directive “clarifying” EMTALA concerning the use of abortion to stabilize medical emergencies.
In a letter to healthcare providers, he wrote: “if a physician believes that a pregnant patient presenting at an emergency department is experiencing an emergency medical condition as defined by EMTALA, and that abortion is the stabilizing treatment necessary to resolve that condition, the physician must provide that treatment.”
The memorandum and letter (the “mandate”) to medical professionals established that physicians must carry out an abortion if it is deemed the necessary response to stabilize the patient. This direction was given “irrespective of any state laws or state mandates that apply to specific procedures.”
In January, the Catholic Medical Association (CMA) filed a complaint primarily against the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).
The CMA is an American group of 2500 physicians and healthcare providers. The organization opposes committing and providing referrals for abortion, which comes into conflict with the 2022 mandate. According to their complaint, “EMTALA says nothing about abortion and does not guarantee access to abortion. Instead, EMTALA requires the stabilization of emergency medical conditions posing serious jeopardy to patients, including the ‘unborn child,’ and explicitly refers to the need to protect the ‘unborn child’ four times.”
The Biden administration mandate ‘clarifying’ EMTALA disregards the life of the unborn child and suggests that abortion is a necessary component of emergency care.
CMA explained further that “abortion does not stabilize the unborn child from serious jeopardy faced by an emergency medical condition, nor does it preserve the life or health of an unborn child.” Rather than working to protect the lives of both the mother and the unborn child, CMA said the mandate “takes the legal position that any conflict between stabilizing the mother and stabilizing the unborn child must be resolved through abortion.” In contrast, CMA uses the approach of care for both the mother and unborn child.
Another issue arises as the mandate’s language implies that physicians may be required to complete incomplete abortions, “even where the pregnancy is not itself endangering a woman’s life or health,” according to the complaint.
CMA’s attorneys argued the directive jeopardizes “the rights of doctors under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the First Amendment.”
When the mandate was revoked in June, CMA responded by voluntarily dismissing the lawsuit.
Though this move was a win for the pro-life movement, many abortion advocates have twisted the meaning of the action, including Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of the National Women’s Law Center. She said that “EMTALA has long protected the right to emergency care, including abortion when it is the necessary treatment to stabilize a patient. Stripping away federal guidance affirming what the law requires will put lives at risk.”
