Emergency Physicians Group Responds to Abortion Guidance Changes

The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) is facing criticism for its response to the Trump administration’s recent decision to revoke guidance regarding emergency abortions. Critics argue that the group is misleading women about their access to emergency care for pregnancy complications, such as ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages.

In June 2025, the Trump administration rescinded guidance from the Biden administration that stated the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) required hospitals to provide abortions even in states with abortion bans. This change has raised concerns among some medical professionals about the implications for emergency care.

ACEP has expressed alarm over the revocation, asserting that EMTALA ensures emergency health care providers must provide stabilizing care to all patients, including pregnant individuals experiencing 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.”

However, some emergency physicians argue that the conflation of abortion with necessary medical procedures is misleading. Dr. Jared Ross, an emergency room physician in Missouri, criticized ACEP’s stance, saying, “It is shameful that abortion activists at ACEP are intentionally conflating elective abortion of a healthy fetus with life-saving medical and surgical procedures to save a woman with a non-viable ectopic pregnancy or miscarriage.”

The debate intensified following the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade. This ruling has led to varying state laws regarding abortion, creating uncertainty for emergency physicians treating pregnant patients.

Haddock emphasized the challenges posed by conflicting state and federal laws, stating, “We are facing significant uncertainty about situations where it appears that there is a tension between state law and federal law.” Critics argue that this uncertainty could hinder emergency care for patients experiencing complications.

Dr. Kimberly Chernoby, an emergency physician at George Washington University Medical Center, echoed these concerns, stating, “We have all trained and practiced for decades, and we know how to take care of our patients and how to do the right thing, because their lives literally depend on it. But these laws put emergency physicians in an impossible position.”

The Trump administration’s decision has been framed by some as an attempt to limit access to necessary medical care for women facing pregnancy complications. Proponents of the change argue that it clarifies the distinction between elective abortions and emergency medical care, asserting that abortion is not required to treat any pregnancy complications.

As the debate continues, the ACEP and other medical associations are under scrutiny for their positions on abortion and emergency care. Critics maintain that the narrative surrounding abortion as essential to women’s health care is misleading, while supporters argue that access to comprehensive reproductive health care is crucial for patient safety.

The ongoing discussions highlight the complexities of emergency medical care in the context of evolving abortion laws and the need for clear guidelines to protect both patients and medical professionals.