ACEP Responds to Concerns Over Emergency Care Access After Trump Administration Policy Change

The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) has expressed concerns regarding access to emergency care for pregnancy complications following the Trump administration’s decision to revoke guidance that mandated hospitals provide emergency abortions under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). This policy change has sparked a debate over the implications for women experiencing ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages.

In early June 2025, the Trump administration rescinded the Biden administration’s guidance, which had interpreted EMTALA as requiring emergency abortions even in states with abortion bans. ACEP has argued that this revocation creates uncertainty for emergency physicians and could hinder their ability to provide necessary care to pregnant patients facing medical emergencies.

ACEP President Alison Haddock stated, “EMTALA ensures that we can provide stabilizing care to any patient who needs it, including pregnant patients experiencing medical emergencies.” She emphasized the importance of having a framework that supports evidence-based medical decisions.

Critics of ACEP’s stance argue that the conflation of abortion with necessary medical procedures may mislead the public. Dr. Jared Ross, an emergency room physician in Missouri, criticized the organization for suggesting that abortion is a treatment for life-threatening conditions. “Abortion is never a treatment for any life-threatening condition,” Ross said. He explained that ectopic pregnancies are treated with a salpingostomy, while miscarriages are addressed through dilation and curettage (D&C).

The controversy intensified after the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade. Following this ruling, ACEP expressed alarm over potential legal conflicts between state laws banning abortion and federal EMTALA requirements. In late July, Haddock remarked on the challenges faced by emergency physicians, stating, “We are facing significant uncertainty about situations where it appears that there is a tension between state law and federal law.”

Supporters of the Trump administration’s policy change argue that it clarifies the legal landscape regarding abortion and emphasizes that elective procedures should not be conflated with emergency medical care. They contend that abortion is not necessary to treat complications arising from pregnancy.

Dr. Kimberly Chernoby, an emergency physician at George Washington University Medical Center, echoed concerns about the potential implications of the policy change. “These laws put emergency physicians in an impossible position,” she said, highlighting the fear that doctors may face legal repercussions for providing care that aligns with their medical judgment.

The debate continues as medical professionals navigate the complexities of providing care in an evolving legal environment. While ACEP and other organizations advocate for the protection of emergency care access, critics maintain that the focus should remain on distinguishing between necessary medical interventions and elective procedures.

As the situation develops, the implications for emergency care and women’s health remain a focal point of discussion among healthcare providers, policymakers, and advocates on both sides of the abortion debate.