Do you want to see angry? This made us angry. It’s a good thing I’m not allowed to drive anymore.
In a move that has sent shockwaves through the medical and reproductive rights communities, President Felonious Punk’s administration on Tuesday rescinded crucial Biden-era guidance that affirmed hospitals’ obligations under federal law to provide emergency abortions necessary to stabilize a patient’s health, even in states with stringent abortion bans. The decision, announced by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and foreshadowed by the administration’s earlier withdrawal from a key legal case in Idaho, has ignited a firestorm of condemnation from medical professionals and advocates who warn it will endanger women’s lives. Anti-abortion groups, however, have lauded the reversal.
The now-defunct guidance was issued by the Biden administration in July 2022, just weeks after the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade. It sought to clarify that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA)—a 1986 law requiring nearly all U.S. hospitals receiving Medicare funds to provide stabilizing treatment to patients experiencing medical emergencies—took precedence over state abortion bans when a pregnant patient faced conditions like ectopic pregnancy, severe hemorrhage, or life-threatening hypertensive disorders.
In rescinding the guidance, CMS stated the previous directive did not “reflect the policy of this Administration” and that the agency would “work to rectify any perceived legal confusion and instability created by the former administration’s actions.” CMS added it would continue to enforce EMTALA, including “for identified emergency medical conditions that place the health of a pregnant woman or her unborn child in serious jeopardy.”
However, critics argue that revoking the clarifying guidance does precisely the opposite of rectifying confusion, instead plunging healthcare providers into a state of heightened uncertainty and legal peril. This fear is compounded by the devastating reality on the ground: since Roe’s collapse, dozens of women have reported being denied necessary medical treatment due to abortion bans, and according to The Guardian, a reported five pregnant women have died after having their care denied or delayed, or being unable to access legal abortions.
“This action sends a clear message: the lives and health of pregnant people are not worth protecting,” declared Dr. Jamila Perritt, an OB-GYN and president of Physicians for Reproductive Health. “Complying with this law can mean the difference between life and death for pregnant people, forcing providers like me to choose between caring for someone in their time of need and turning my back on them to comply with cruel and dangerous laws.”
Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, was equally scathing: “The Trump Administration would rather women die in emergency rooms than receive life-saving abortions. In pulling back guidance, this administration is feeding the fear and confusion that already exists at hospitals in every state where abortion is banned.” An Associated Press investigation in 2024 had already found that even with the Biden guidance, dozens of pregnant women were turned away from ERs, indicating the rescission could worsen an already perilous situation.
The legal landscape remains fraught. The Biden administration had sued Idaho over its restrictive law, arguing it conflicted with EMTALA. While the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case, it ultimately “punted on the issue,” as The Guardian described it, ruling 6-3 on procedural grounds in June 2024 that the case had been “improvidently granted.” This decision, while allowing a lower court injunction temporarily favoring the Biden administration’s interpretation in Idaho to be reinstated, failed to provide definitive national clarity. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson lamented at the time, “This court had a chance to bring clarity and certainty to this tragic situation, and we have squandered it… And for as long as we refuse to declare what the law requires, pregnant patients in Idaho, Texas, and elsewhere will be paying the price.”
The “Felonious Punk” administration’s move to rescind the guidance was seen as predictable by some, especially after its Department of Justice dropped the federal government’s challenge to Idaho’s law in March 2025.
Anti-abortion advocates praised the administration’s decision. Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of SBA Pro-Life America, asserted that the Biden-era policy was an attempt to “expand abortion access in states where it was banned” and that Democrats had “created confusion…[leading] to delayed care and putting women in needless, unacceptable danger.”
The rescission by Felonious Punk’s administration is viewed by many as a direct blow to women’s health, prioritizing political ideology over a nearly 40-year-old federal law designed to ensure emergency medical care. As healthcare providers in states with severe abortion restrictions now face an even murkier legal and ethical terrain, the lives and health of pregnant patients in crisis hang dangerously in the balance. For many, like myself, this action represents not just a policy reversal, but a profound betrayal of the fundamental right to lifesaving care.
Discover more from Chronicle-Ledger-Tribune-Globe-Times-FreePress-News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
