🎙️ Voice is AI-generated. Inconsistencies may occur.
For nearly 40 years, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) has protected my patients' access to emergency medical care. The law guarantees that patients in critical condition, including those in active labor, cannot be turned away from emergency departments.
However, the Supreme Court will soon hear a case brought by the state of Idaho—and will determine whether or not hospitals across the country are allowed to provide abortion care to women experiencing emergencies.
No health condition is legislated quite like pregnancy is. When Roe v. Wade fell two years ago, anti-abortion lawmakers in states across the country passed a new wave of laws restricting abortion. Some states, including Idaho, went so far as to make it illegal for doctors to provide abortion care for dangerous pregnancy complications—allowing an exception only when it prevents a pregnant patient from dying.
As a physician, my job is more than simply preventing death—I am responsible for protecting the health of my patients. It's what we do in the emergency department every day, protected by EMTALA.
In the emergency department, we see pregnant patients who are in pain, who are bleeding, or who might have a dangerous infection. Sometimes a pregnancy is no longer viable, and an abortion is the only treatment that can stabilize a patient. If we wait too long, our patient can lose a massive amount of blood, end up with sepsis, or develop lasting damage to her organs and her future fertility. Because of EMTALA, patients are entitled to timely emergency care to prevent all these complications. If the Supreme Court sides with Idaho, doctors will be forced to wait until a patient is at the brink of death before intervening.
At least one-third of pregnant patients will go to the emergency room during the perinatal period. Most pregnancies never develop critical complications, but some do—and it is never easy to tell a patient that their pregnancy has now become a medical emergency.
Some patients break their water too early, and the fetus cannot survive. Anya Cook lost her pregnancy in this way, and because of Florida's strict abortion ban, she almost died from blood loss after being discharged home without treatment. Jaci Statton was diagnosed with a molar pregnancy, which can lead to cancer but never a baby. Because of Oklahoma's confusing abortion laws, she had to visit multiple hospitals and ultimately had to leave the state for medical care. She had delays in her treatment and may need additional surgeries and chemotherapy.
Those urging the Supreme Court to strike down the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act want politicians—who know little about medicine—to make decisions that should be between a patient and their doctor.
Doctors are trained to identify when a patient is in distress. When we see abnormal vital signs, distress on our exam, or an ultrasound that raises concern, we are trained to intervene and provide emergency care. We can't stand by and wait for patients to decline, to reach some imaginary threshold, before we act. Our attention must be at the bedside, not with the legal team.
If Idaho is granted an exception to EMTALA, doctors like me won't be able to provide the standard of care that our patients deserve. Anyone who comes to the emergency department should trust that their doctors are doing everything possible to treat them.
Last month, clinics across Florida were forced to turn away patients as the state's six-week abortion ban took effect. We are navigating a disturbing new reality with more risk and less freedom, and for anti-abortion extremists it's only the beginning.
Restricting access to lifesaving care is not only dangerous—it's deeply unpopular. Recent polling shows a strong majority of folks in Florida and other battleground states believe that emergency abortion care should be protected, including in states with abortion bans. Our communities want doctors to focus on treating patients, not studying the newest laws restricting abortion.
Women shouldn't have to be at the brink of an emergency to receive abortion care. But even this option may not be available in some states without EMTALA's protections.
As a doctor, I took an oath to "do no harm" when treating patients, pregnant or otherwise. The Supreme Court must keep the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) intact so we can protect our patients.
Juhi Varshney is an emergency physician in Miami.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
