Overriding EMTALA

June 25, 2025

Imagine you’re pregnant and experience sudden complications that cause you to rush to the emergency room. Your life is at risk and the only way to save you is for the emergency medicine team to terminate your pregnancy. You certainly never want to face this kind of situation, but if you do, don’t you want to be confident that the people responding will do what is necessary to save your life?

That’s what EMTALA, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act was intended to ensure. But now, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has announced it would rescind a directive that previously interpreted EMTALA to require doctors to provide abortion care when necessary to address medical emergencies, such as organ loss and severe hemorrhaging.

The past few years have involved a push and pull between EMTALA, a federal law, and state abortion bans. As we explained back in January 2024, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Texas hospitals can refuse to provide life-saving abortions despite EMTALA. In other words, the court ruled that Texas’ state abortion ban overrides federal law. Then came Idaho, which was sued by the Biden administration for having an abortion ban in conflict with EMTALA. Thankfully, the Supreme Court ordered Idaho to resume providing emergency abortions.

Imani Gandy, Catesby Holmes, and Jessica Mason Pieklo note that in light of HHS’s announcement, some pending EMTALA-related cases have been dropped. The future is uncertain, but it isn’t looking good. Changing the federal approach to emergency abortion care means that state abortion bans will likely carry all the more power. The consequences will be devastating. We at the Woodhull Freedom Foundation are outraged at the callous disregard for pregnant people’s health, safety, and wellbeing. Abortion care saves lives.