Imagine the following scenario—a pregnant woman enters a Medicare/Medicaid-participating emergency room with preeclampsia,[1] threatening both the safety of the mother-to-be and her fetus. After screening the patient, the emergency room doctor determines that the best and most successful stabilizing treatment would be an abortion. Under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, if the emergency medical situation falls within the purview of the statute, the doctor must stabilize the patient. However, state law prohibits abortions at all stages of pregnancy, unless the mother is at risk of imminent death. Should the doctor follow state law and risk a less successful method of stabilization that could lead to serious injury to both the mother and the fetus? Or should the doctor follow federal law and perform the abortion, risking criminal indictment punishable by two to five years of prison time? The upcoming Supreme Court decision in Idaho v. United States will determine what the legally correct course of action would be.
Continue reading “EMTALA Post-Dobbs: Interpretations Lead to Emergent Issues and Could Lead to Unnecessary Deaths – by Tarra Olfat”
A Blog by the GW Health Law Program