Emergency Physicians Group Responds to Abortion Guidance Changes Amid Miscarriage Care Concerns

The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) has raised concerns following the Trump administration’s revocation of guidance that mandated hospitals to provide emergency abortions under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). This change has sparked debate over the implications for women seeking emergency care for pregnancy complications such as ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages.

In early June 2025, the Trump administration rescinded the Biden administration’s interpretation of EMTALA, which had asserted that the 1986 law required hospitals to perform abortions even in states with restrictive abortion laws. ACEP has expressed alarm over this decision, suggesting that it could hinder access to necessary emergency care for women experiencing life-threatening pregnancy complications.

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 legal backing for evidence-based medical decisions in emergency situations.

Critics, however, argue that ACEP’s messaging conflates elective abortion with essential medical care. Dr. Jared Ross, an emergency room physician in Missouri, remarked, “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 noted that emergency physicians face challenges when pregnancy termination is necessary for treatment, as they may fear legal repercussions under state laws.

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.”

Chernoby highlighted the potential complications of needing legal approval for emergency care, stating, “No one wants to be calling your hospital general counsel or a magistrate judge at 2 a.m. to get an order to provide emergency care.” She called for established care plans for common pregnancy complications to ensure that patients receive appropriate treatment without delay.

Supporters of the Trump administration’s decision argue that it clarifies the legal landscape regarding abortion and reinforces the notion that abortion is an elective procedure, not a necessary component of emergency medical care. They assert that the focus should remain on treating genuine medical emergencies without conflating them with abortion.

As the discussion continues, ACEP and other medical organizations are advocating for clarity in the legal obligations of emergency care providers. The ongoing debate reflects broader tensions surrounding reproductive health care access in the United States, particularly in the wake of significant legal changes.

The implications of these changes remain to be seen as emergency physicians navigate the evolving landscape of reproductive health care laws and their responsibilities under EMTALA.