Tell Congress to Protect Lifesaving Care
On April 24th, The Supreme Court is hearing arguments on a case that will decide whether or not patients can receive life-saving care when they go to the emergency room.
How did we get here?
Currently, hospitals have three obligations when any patient enters the Emergency Department, regardless of who they are, what their insurance status is, or if they can afford treatment:
The hospital must give the patient an appropriate medical screening examination to determine whether or not an emergency condition exists.
If an emergency condition exists, the hospital must provide life-saving care within its facilities or initiate an appropriate transfer to a facility capable of providing life-saving care to the patient.
Hospitals with the capability to provide the life-saving care the patient needs are required to accept the patient transfer.
But a case before the Supreme Court is trying to argue that state-level abortion bans supersede this national law, and that when pregnant patients come into the emergency room for things like a ruptured membrane or an ectopic pregnancy, the hospital is not required to treat them.
What’s at stake?
Studies have shown at least one-third of pregnant women go to the emergency room at some point during their pregnancy.
In Idaho, where this case originated, last year only one patient was airlifted out of the state in order to be transferred to a facility that could provide adequate care. Since January, when the Supreme Court lifted these life-saving care protections, it has already happened six times. In Texas, one patient miscarried in a lobby restroom.
In states where abortion bans have so-called “exceptions” for cases where the life of the patient is at risk, these laws are deliberately vague and confusing, doctors still fear criminalization, and may be forced to delay or deny care. If the Supreme Court carves out protections for pregnant patients, it will be even harder for patients to receive life-saving care in an emergency in states with abortion bans.
Beyond pregnancy, this case could open up states to carve out HIV care, or mental health care, or care for serious and chronic conditions that they deem not worth the time and energy of an emergency department.