- About
-
-
The SBA Pro-Life America Family
-
Issues
-
Events
-
-
- Employment
- About
-
-
The SBA Pro-Life America Family
-
Issues
-
Events
-
-
- Employment
The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in Idaho/Moyle v. United States regarding Biden’s Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) guidance, a transparent attempt to use existing federal laws to force physicians to perform abortions, especially in states with pro-life protections. As a board-certified obstetrician, I have practiced under EMTALA for over 30 years, and it has never been confusing to me or to any of my peers. We know the purpose of the law is to protect the health of mothers and their unborn children, and that is every obstetrician’s mission, as well.
The Biden administration has disregarded EMTALA’s plain text, which intends to prevent “patient dumping” and requires evaluation, stabilization, and (if necessary) transfer to another medical facility when an “emergency medical condition” places the health of the woman or her unborn child in serious jeopardy.
The administration’s guidance never mentions the unborn child, implying the child’s needs are not a priority. It requires a provider to perform an abortion “if it is the stabilizing treatment necessary to resolve the medical emergency,” even though EMTALA does not specify the treatment or stabilization physicians must administer but allows them to use their medical judgment to determine the best course of action. The Charlotte Lozier Institute argued these and other points that undermine the administration’s case with great detail in their amicus brief filed in support of the state of Idaho…
The majority of American voters believe that unborn babies should be protected from being aborted when they can feel pain by as early as 15 weeks. As pro-life Americans, we cannot allow this killing of unborn babies to continue.
Sign your name and put pressure on lawmakers to say “no” to abortion-on-demand.
Add My Name
