Trump-era rewind: US government scrapped emergency abortion rule on Tuesday
U.S. Authorities are ending the emergency abortion program.
In a controversial move, the US government under President Donald Trump has done away with a directive enacted during the administration of his predecessor, Joe Biden. This decision eliminates the mandate that required hospitals, even those in states with strict abortion regulations, to offer emergency abortion services when a woman's health is at stake. The regulation was annulled on Tuesday by the Department of Health and Human Services, helmed by Minister Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
This rule was initiated in July 2022, when Joe Biden was in office - just a few weeks following the Supreme Court's decision to invalidate the right to abortion. The guideline was based on the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a law from 1986, and it retained some protective measures concerning abortions.
The EMTALA, as explained by the US health agency CMS, grants certain rights to individuals who seek emergency medical attention at a hospital. Though abortion restrictions remain in place, the law itself remains in effect.
Critics, such as Lawrence O. Gostin, a health law expert from Georgetown University, argue that the revocation of the rule under Biden empowers hospitals in Republican-governed states to reject pregnant women in distress [1]. Since the invalidation of the nationwide right to abortion by the Supreme Court in 2022, US states have gained leeway in enacting legislation in this area. Since regaining the White House in January, Trump has already revoked two decrees issued by his predecessor that ensured access to abortion pills.
Following the rescission of the rule, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will no longer enforce EMTALA in cases where hospitals do not provide necessary emergency abortion care for a patient's stabilization [2][3]. However, CMS states it will continue to enforce EMTALA in general, including in cases requiring emergency care.
This move is expected to pose health risks, particularly in states with total or near-total abortion bans, such as Arkansas, Idaho, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and South Dakota [2]. The decision presents significant legal and ethical questions for healthcare providers, who may be forced to choose between adhering to state laws and providing essential medical care. Meanwhile, states like California have pledged to safeguard physicians' right to provide medically necessary care, including abortions, regardless of federal changes [2].
References:1. New York Times2. ntv.de3. AFP
Enrichment Data:
Background and Current Status
The US government's revocation of the emergency abortion rule involves the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) rescinding Biden-era guidance that protected access to emergency abortions under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). This guidance reaffirmed that hospitals must provide emergency abortion services when necessary to stabilize a patient's health.
As of May 29, 2025, CMS will no longer enforce EMTALA in cases where hospitals do not provide emergency abortion care necessary to stabilize a patient's health [2][3]. Despite this change, CMS states it will continue to enforce EMTALA in general, including in cases where emergency care is required [3].
Implications
- Health Risks: The revocation of the guidance is expected to endanger lives, particularly in states with total or near-total abortion bans, such as Arkansas, Idaho, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and South Dakota. Hospitals and physicians in these states are legally prohibited from providing abortion as a stabilizing treatment unless the condition becomes life-threatening [2].
- Legal and Ethical Challenges: The decision poses significant legal and ethical dilemmas for healthcare providers, as they may be forced to choose between adhering to state laws and providing necessary medical care.
- State Responses: Some states, like California, have committed to protecting the right of physicians to provide medically necessary care, including abortions, regardless of federal changes [2].
Political and Social Reactions
- Criticisms: The decision has been condemned by various figures, including Senator Wyden and Governor Newsom, who argue that it undermines essential medical care and threatens patient safety [1][2].
- Support: The reversal aligns with efforts by some political groups to restrict access to abortion services, reflecting ongoing divisive debates over reproductive rights in the U.S.
- The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has withdrawn Biden-era guidance, which protected access to emergency abortions under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA).
- This move comes amidst a strong focus on policy-and-legislation, particularly concerning health-and-wellness issues, on both the federal and state levels, given the political landscape under President Donald Trump.
- The withdrawal of this guidance will likely lead to increased controversy and debate within the community policy sphere, as the decision may prompt significant questions about the rights and responsibilities of healthcare providers in relation to employment policy.
