GOP Senator Stalls Resolution Affirming Emergency Care Rights for Abortion

WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats faced a setback Tuesday when their resolution aimed at clarifying abortion access in emergency medical situations was blocked by Republicans. This action comes after months of unsuccessful attempts by congressional Democrats to advance various reproductive rights measures, including those related to birth control and in vitro fertilization.

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., introduced the resolution to reaffirm Congress’s original intent behind the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) established decades ago. “We want to make it clear that Congress’s intent is that women can get life-saving care when they go to an emergency room anywhere in this country,” Murray stated.

However, Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Lankford objected to the request for unanimous consent to pass the resolution. He insisted that emergency department physicians can provide care for miscarriage, ectopic pregnancies, and other life-threatening situations. Lankford dismissed claims that recent legal changes have restricted this capability, attributing fears to political rhetoric rather than the laws themselves.

Unanimous consent is a legislative procedure allowing any senator to request rapid approval of a bill or resolution, which can be blocked by a single objection without requiring a recorded vote. Murray’s resolution, supported by 40 cosponsors, aimed to express that every person has the basic right to emergency healthcare, including abortion services.

The resolution articulated that state laws banning abortion in emergencies force medical providers into a precarious position where they must choose between withholding urgent care or facing legal consequences, thereby endangering patients’ lives and health.

This resolution would not have amended EMTALA, which mandates that hospital emergency departments treat patients with emergency medical conditions regardless of their insurance status. The law defines an emergency medical condition as one that could put the patient’s health in “serious jeopardy.”

The significance of EMTALA has been under scrutiny since the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned the constitutional right to abortion. Following that ruling, the Biden administration asserted that EMTALA protects healthcare providers who terminate pregnancies to stabilize patients when their health or lives are endangered.

Several Republican attorneys general have challenged this interpretation, leading to a U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit against Idaho over its abortion laws. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, opting to wait for a decision from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

At the crux of the dispute is the application of federal law concerning when a pregnant patient’s health is at risk. Many conservative state laws only permit abortions under specific gestational conditions, creating tension and confusion. Reports have emerged of women needing urgent medical intervention being denied treatment or facing delays, resulting in dangerous health outcomes.

Data from August indicated that over 100 women suffering medical distress during pregnancy were either turned away or inadequately treated by hospitals during the past two years. Furthermore, investigations have revealed that at least two women lost their lives after being unable to access timely abortions and necessary medical care in their states.

Murray emphasized the lasting impact of denied medical care due to restrictive abortion laws pushed by Republican legislators. She lamented, “No woman will ever forget when she was sent off to miscarry alone after her doctor said, ‘I know your life is in danger, but I’m not sure I’m allowed to save you right now.’” She called the situation “cruelty” that is “unforgivable and unacceptable,” asserting that Democrats will not allow these restrictions to become the norm.