Revoking EMTALA guidance on abortions will only further confuse doctors, experts say
"The rescission of this guidance is, contrary to its own statement, only further lending into the confusion that exists in emergency departments around the country, and it will put women's lives at risk," Alison Tanner, an attorney at the National Women's Law Center, told ABC News.
"There have been countless stories of people across the country being denied emergency care, forced to wait in their cars in parking lots while they are actively bleeding, or being sent to different hospitals with a bucket and told to leave the state that they're in in order to get the care that they need," Tanner said.
Earlier this week, the Trump administration revoked Biden-era federal guidance reminding hospitals that they are required to provide life-saving care, including abortions, in emergency situations under a federal law -- the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act -- regardless of state law.
The guidance was issued after Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022, ending federal protections for abortion rights. At least 13 states have total abortion bans in effect, according to the Guttmacher Institute.
As the administration rolled back the guidance this week, a government agency also found that a Texas hospital "failed to ensure ... [Kyleigh Thurman] received an appropriate medical screening," when she presented to the emergency department in early 2023, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said in a deficiency letter shared with ABC News.
MORE: Trump administration rescinds Biden-era guidance requiring hospitals to perform emergency abortions
Thurman ultimately needed to have a fallopian tube removed after it ruptured due to an ectopic pregnancy.
Thurman said she was turned away twice from a local emergency room, without treatment. Another facility also denied her care twice, before her OB-GYN traveled to the hospital and convinced staff to end the pregnancy. She was rushed to surgery days later after the tube ruptured.
Ectopic pregnancies are a dangerous complication that occurs when a fertilized egg implants and grows outside the uterus, in this case, in her fallopian tube. The treatment for an ectopic pregnancy is an abortion to prevent life-threatening complications.
The hospital "did not appropriately screen [Thurman] for known risks associated with presenting signs, symptoms and test results including those which would constitute an [emergency medical condition], such as, but not limited to, ectopic pregnancy," the deficiency letter stated.
"The hospital's failure to provide an appropriate medical screening examination, within the capability of the hospital's emergency department ... and consistent with the hospital's screening process, placed the patient at risk for deterioration of her health and wellbeing as a result of an untreated medical condition," the letter said.
The determination was made after Thurman submitted an administrative complaint to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, an office within the Department of Health and Human Services, in August 2024.
MORE: Meet 18 women who shared heartbreaking pregnancy journeys in post-Roe world
"I know how incredibly horrible and how hard it was for me, and I didn't want anyone else to ever have to go through what I had to go through," Thurman told ABC News.
Thurman said she did not know how Texas' near-total abortion ban could impact her health or even what an ectopic pregnancy is before she learned she was pregnant.
"I never imagined myself being caught in the crosshairs, but I don't think that many people ever do. It only highlights how this can happen to anyone," Thurman said.
"I really didn't have a thought on it, and it really didn't become evident to me how negatively [abortion bans] would impact women until it was impacting my life," Thurman said. "I didn't know what it all meant."
Thurman said she wants to try for a family despite her experience.
"A lot of people are like 'just move' and I'm like, 'it's not that simple when you have deep roots in a place.' This is my home. I am not leaving. I'd rather fight back than leave," Thurman said.
The new guidance will only create more confusion around what is already "muddy and very confusing," Thurman said. It is now more of an environment where "mistakes can happen," Thurman said.
Despite the rescinding of the guidance, hospitals and physicians are still required to provide stabilizing care, experts said.
"EMTALA is still the law of the land. Hospitals and doctors must still comply with EMTALA," Astrid Ackerman, a staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights who worked on filing EMTALA complaints, told ABC News.
"What we're really concerned about is that this trend of that pregnant people cannot get the care that they need in this country, and more importantly, the care that hospitals and doctors want to provide," Ackerman said.
Tanner said there is a real concern about whether the Trump administration will enforce EMTALA, especially after it dropped a federal lawsuit over Idaho's abortion ban, which does not allow abortions to save the life of the mother.
An injunction in a separate EMTALA lawsuit by a hospital system in the state has blocked the ban.
Doctors and hospitals are now stuck between "a rock and a hard place," trying to figure out what care they can provide, Tanner said.
"Doctors and hospitals are being put in an untenable position. On the one hand, they are faced with state laws that would potentially impose severe criminal sanctions for providing necessary emergency abortion care," Tanner said.
"And on the other hand, they have the federal law, EMTALA, which provides that both the federal government and individual patients can sue the hospital if they do not provide the necessary stabilizing care required under federal law," Tanner said.
Revoking EMTALA guidance on abortions will only further confuse doctors, experts say originally appeared on abcnews.go.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Labcorp Holdings Second Quarter 2025 Earnings: Revenues Beat Expectations, EPS Lags
Labcorp Holdings (NYSE:LH) Second Quarter 2025 Results Key Financial Results Revenue: US$3.53b (up 9.5% from 2Q 2024). Net income: US$237.9m (up 16% from 2Q 2024). Profit margin: 6.7% (up from 6.4% in 2Q 2024). The increase in margin was driven by higher revenue. EPS: US$2.85 (up from US$2.44 in 2Q 2024). Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. All figures shown in the chart above are for the trailing 12 month (TTM) period Labcorp Holdings Revenues Beat Expectations, EPS Falls Short Revenue exceeded analyst estimates by 1.2%. Earnings per share (EPS) missed analyst estimates by 12%. Looking ahead, revenue is forecast to grow 4.5% p.a. on average during the next 3 years, compared to a 6.3% growth forecast for the Healthcare industry in the US. Performance of the American Healthcare industry. The company's shares are up 8.7% from a week ago. Risk Analysis You should learn about the 2 warning signs we've spotted with Labcorp Holdings. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
NIH cuts spotlight a hidden crisis facing patients with experimental brain implants
Carol Seeger finally escaped her debilitating depression with an experimental treatment that placed electrodes in her brain and a pacemaker-like device in her chest. But when its batteries stopped working, insurance wouldn't pay to fix the problem and she sank back into a dangerous darkness. She worried for her life, asking herself: 'Why am I putting myself through this?' Seeger's predicament highlights a growing problem for hundreds of people with experimental neural implants, including those for depression, quadriplegia and other conditions. Although these patients take big risks to advance science, there's no guarantee that their devices will be maintained — particularly after they finish participating in clinical trials — and no mechanism requiring companies or insurers to do so. A research project led by Gabriel Lázaro-Muñoz, a Harvard University scientist, aimed to change that by creating partnerships between players in the burgeoning implant field to overcome barriers to device access and follow-up care. But the cancellation of hundreds of National Institutes of Health grants by the Trump administration this year left the project in limbo, dimming hope for Seeger and others like her who wonder what will happen to their health and progress. An ethical quagmire Unlike medications, implanted devices often require parts, maintenance, batteries and surgeries when changes are needed. Insurance typically covers such expenses for federally approved devices considered medically necessary, but not experimental ones. A procedure to replace a battery alone can cost more than $15,000 without insurance, Lázaro-Muñoz said. While companies stand to profit from research, 'there's really nothing that helps ensure that device manufacturers have to provide any of these parts or cover any kind of maintenance,' said Lázaro-Muñoz. Some companies also move on to newer versions of devices or abandon the research altogether, which can leave patients in an uncertain place. Medtronic, the company that made the deep brain stimulation, or DBS, technology Seeger used, said in a statement that every study is different and that the company puts patient safety first when considering care after studies end. People consider various possibilities when they join a clinical trial. The Food and Drug Administration requires the informed consent process to include a description of 'reasonably foreseeable risks and discomforts to the participant,' a spokesperson said. However, the FDA doesn't require trial plans to include procedures for long-term device follow-up and maintenance, although the spokesperson stated that the agency has requested those in the past. While some informed consent forms say devices will be removed at a study's end, Lázaro-Muñoz said removal is ethically problematic when a device is helping a patient. Plus, he said, some trial participants told him and his colleagues that they didn't remember everything discussed during the consent process, partly because they were so focused on getting better. Brandy Ellis, a 49-year-old in Boynton Beach, Florida, said she was desperate for healing when she joined a trial testing the same treatment Seeger got, which delivers an electrical current into the brain to treat severe depression. She was willing to sign whatever forms were necessary to get help after nothing else had worked. 'I was facing death,' she said. 'So it was most definitely consent at the barrel of a gun, which is true for a lot of people who are in a terminal condition.' Patients risk losing a treatment of last resort Ellis and Seeger, 64, both turned to DBS as a last resort after trying many approved medications and treatments. 'I got in the trial fully expecting it not to work because nothing else had. So I was kind of surprised when it did,' said Ellis, whose device was implanted in 2011 at Emory University in Atlanta. 'I am celebrating every single milestone because I'm like: This is all bonus life for me.' She's now on her third battery. She needed surgery to replace two single-use ones, and the one she has now is rechargeable. She's lucky her insurance has covered the procedures, she said, but she worries it may not in the future. 'I can't count on any coverage because there's nothing that says even though I've had this and it works, that it has to be covered under my commercial or any other insurance,' said Ellis, who advocates for other former trial participants. Even if companies still make replacement parts for older devices, she added, 'availability and accessibility are entirely different things,' given most people can't afford continued care without insurance coverage. Seeger, whose device was implanted in 2012 at Emory, said she went without a working device for around four months when the insurance coverage her wife's job at Emory provided wouldn't pay for battery replacement surgery. Neither would Medicare, which generally only covers DBS for FDA-approved uses. With her research team at Emory advocating for her, Seeger ultimately got financial help from the hospital's indigent care program and paid a few thousand dollars out of pocket. She now has a rechargeable battery, and the device has been working well. But at any point, she said, that could change. Federal cuts stall solutions Lázaro-Muñoz hoped his work would protect people like Seeger and Ellis. 'We should do whatever we can as a society to be able to help them maintain their health,' he said. Lázaro-Muñoz's project received about $987,800 from the National Institute of Mental Health in the 2023 and 2024 fiscal years and was already underway when he was notified of the NIH funding cut in May. He declined to answer questions about it. Ellis said any delay in addressing the thorny issues around experimental brain devices hurts patients. Planning at the beginning of a clinical trial about how to continue treatment and maintain devices, she said, would be much better than depending on the kindness of researchers and the whims of insurers. 'If this turns off, I get sick again. Like, I'm not cured,' she said. 'This is a treatment that absolutely works, but only as long as I've got a working device.' ____ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Solve the daily Crossword
Associated Press
4 hours ago
- Associated Press
NIH cuts spotlight a hidden crisis facing patients with experimental brain implants
Carol Seeger finally escaped her debilitating depression with an experimental treatment that placed electrodes in her brain and a pacemaker-like device in her chest. But when its batteries stopped working, insurance wouldn't pay to fix the problem and she sank back into a dangerous darkness. She worried for her life, asking herself: 'Why am I putting myself through this?' Seeger's predicament highlights a growing problem for hundreds of people with experimental neural implants, including those for depression, quadriplegia and other conditions. Although these patients take big risks to advance science, there's no guarantee that their devices will be maintained — particularly after they finish participating in clinical trials — and no mechanism requiring companies or insurers to do so. A research project led by Gabriel Lázaro-Muñoz, a Harvard University scientist, aimed to change that by creating partnerships between players in the burgeoning implant field to overcome barriers to device access and follow-up care. But the cancellation of hundreds of National Institutes of Health grants by the Trump administration this year left the project in limbo, dimming hope for Seeger and others like her who wonder what will happen to their health and progress. An ethical quagmire Unlike medications, implanted devices often require parts, maintenance, batteries and surgeries when changes are needed. Insurance typically covers such expenses for federally approved devices considered medically necessary, but not experimental ones. A procedure to replace a battery alone can cost more than $15,000 without insurance, Lázaro-Muñoz said. While companies stand to profit from research, 'there's really nothing that helps ensure that device manufacturers have to provide any of these parts or cover any kind of maintenance,' said Lázaro-Muñoz. Some companies also move on to newer versions of devices or abandon the research altogether, which can leave patients in an uncertain place. Medtronic, the company that made the deep brain stimulation, or DBS, technology Seeger used, said in a statement that every study is different and that the company puts patient safety first when considering care after studies end. People consider various possibilities when they join a clinical trial. The Food and Drug Administration requires the informed consent process to include a description of 'reasonably foreseeable risks and discomforts to the participant,' a spokesperson said. However, the FDA doesn't require trial plans to include procedures for long-term device follow-up and maintenance, although the spokesperson stated that the agency has requested those in the past. While some informed consent forms say devices will be removed at a study's end, Lázaro-Muñoz said removal is ethically problematic when a device is helping a patient. Plus, he said, some trial participants told him and his colleagues that they didn't remember everything discussed during the consent process, partly because they were so focused on getting better. Brandy Ellis, a 49-year-old in Boynton Beach, Florida, said she was desperate for healing when she joined a trial testing the same treatment Seeger got, which delivers an electrical current into the brain to treat severe depression. She was willing to sign whatever forms were necessary to get help after nothing else had worked. 'I was facing death,' she said. 'So it was most definitely consent at the barrel of a gun, which is true for a lot of people who are in a terminal condition.' Patients risk losing a treatment of last resort Ellis and Seeger, 64, both turned to DBS as a last resort after trying many approved medications and treatments. 'I got in the trial fully expecting it not to work because nothing else had. So I was kind of surprised when it did,' said Ellis, whose device was implanted in 2011 at Emory University in Atlanta. 'I am celebrating every single milestone because I'm like: This is all bonus life for me.' She's now on her third battery. She needed surgery to replace two single-use ones, and the one she has now is rechargeable. She's lucky her insurance has covered the procedures, she said, but she worries it may not in the future. 'I can't count on any coverage because there's nothing that says even though I've had this and it works, that it has to be covered under my commercial or any other insurance,' said Ellis, who advocates for other former trial participants. Even if companies still make replacement parts for older devices, she added, 'availability and accessibility are entirely different things,' given most people can't afford continued care without insurance coverage. Seeger, whose device was implanted in 2012 at Emory, said she went without a working device for around four months when the insurance coverage her wife's job at Emory provided wouldn't pay for battery replacement surgery. Neither would Medicare, which generally only covers DBS for FDA-approved uses. With her research team at Emory advocating for her, Seeger ultimately got financial help from the hospital's indigent care program and paid a few thousand dollars out of pocket. She now has a rechargeable battery, and the device has been working well. But at any point, she said, that could change. Federal cuts stall solutions Lázaro-Muñoz hoped his work would protect people like Seeger and Ellis. 'We should do whatever we can as a society to be able to help them maintain their health,' he said. Lázaro-Muñoz's project received about $987,800 from the National Institute of Mental Health in the 2023 and 2024 fiscal years and was already underway when he was notified of the NIH funding cut in May. He declined to answer questions about it. Ellis said any delay in addressing the thorny issues around experimental brain devices hurts patients. Planning at the beginning of a clinical trial about how to continue treatment and maintain devices, she said, would be much better than depending on the kindness of researchers and the whims of insurers. 'If this turns off, I get sick again. Like, I'm not cured,' she said. 'This is a treatment that absolutely works, but only as long as I've got a working device.' ____ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
