EMTALA: Life Saving Care
The Stakes
For nearly 40 years, patients have been guaranteed that hospitals will treat them when they go to the emergency room in crisis – regardless of who they are or their insurance status. Now the Trump administration is putting that guarantee at risk via an under-the-radar attack on abortion rights.
Last year, conservatives argued before the Supreme Court that this national law – in this case, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act [EMTALA] – is superseded by state-level abortion bans, and that when pregnant patients are facing life-threatening emergencies, hospitals are not required to treat them. The case was punted by the Court, and on Wednesday, March 5th, Trump’s Department of Justice has decided to abandon the case altogether, which may put patients in Idaho at risk once again.
Given at least one-third of women will go to the emergency room during their pregnancies, the consequences of this decision can be seen at the macro- and micro-levels – and increasingly so in the post-Dobbs landscape. As one example of how this has played out in reality, only one patient was airlifted out of an Idaho hospital to receive emergency maternal care in 2023 before this state-level law went into effect; but in the three months that this ruling went into effect last Spring, it happened six times.
Protecting abortion rights and expanding abortion access has never been more critical or more universally popular, uniting Americans of all race, gender, socio-economic status, geography, and political affiliation against the extreme, dangerous, anti-freedom agenda of Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration. And we, as a progressive movement, have an opportunity to define this fight on our terms.
Strategic Goals and Topline Messages
GOAL: Concisely define this move by the Trump administration on our terms and then pivot to the real life consequences for everyday people if anti-abortion advocates get their way
TOPLINE MESSAGE: This is about lifesaving medical care. This law guarantees that, in an emergency, patients receive the lifesaving care they need, including abortion care. But now that the Trump administration has abandoned this case, if the Courts strikes down this law…
There is no guarantee that you or your loved one will receive the medical care you need in an emergency.
And in fact, a pregnant woman whose organs are shutting down due to a ruptured membrane will be denied the abortion care she needs to live. [Or another life-threatening, detailed, and vivid example of pregnant women facing serious medical emergencies].
Politicians will be in charge of whether women live or die.
GOAL: Make sure messengers center patient narratives – especially if those messengers are emergency care physicians.
TOPLINE MESSAGE: The consequences of banning lifesaving care have already created dire situations for too many Americans:
In the entire calendar year 2023 in an Idaho hospital, only one patient needing life saving maternal care was airlifted out of state. In the three months that this ruling went into effect, six patients were airlifted from that same hospital.
A woman in Texas miscarried in a lobby bathroom of an emergency room after being denied medical care.
Pregnant women will be denied care, even if they are suffering from an ectopic pregnancy that threatens both their lives and future fertility, if their organs are shutting down due to a ruptured membrane, if they are miscarrying, etc…
A woman who is miscarrying will be forced to sit on the exam table, bleeding out profusely while doctors wait for the fetal heartbeat to stop before treating her.
Patients suffering from a medical emergency will be denied care because they can’t pay.
GOAL: Remove uncertainty from our language to be crystal clear about the stakes.
TOPLINE MESSAGE 1: This law guarantees that a pregnant woman can receive an abortion if her life is threatened.
Instead of … “if a doctor believes her life is threatened”
TOPLINE MESSAGE 2: If anti-abortion extremists get their way, pregnant women will be denied life-saving care.
Instead of … receive “delayed” care, or “limited” care
