Logo

Log In Sign Up |  An official publication of: American College of Emergency Physicians
Navigation
  • Home
  • Multimedia
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
  • Clinical
    • Airway Managment
    • Case Reports
    • Critical Care
    • Guidelines
    • Imaging & Ultrasound
    • Pain & Palliative Care
    • Pediatrics
    • Resuscitation
    • Trauma & Injury
  • Resource Centers
    • mTBI Resource Center
  • Career
    • Practice Management
      • Benchmarking
      • Reimbursement & Coding
      • Care Team
      • Legal
      • Operations
      • Quality & Safety
    • Awards
    • Certification
    • Compensation
    • Early Career
    • Education
    • Leadership
    • Profiles
    • Retirement
    • Work-Life Balance
  • Columns
    • ACEP4U
    • Airway
    • Benchmarking
    • Brief19
    • By the Numbers
    • Coding Wizard
    • EM Cases
    • End of the Rainbow
    • Equity Equation
    • FACEPs in the Crowd
    • Forensic Facts
    • From the College
    • Images in EM
    • Kids Korner
    • Medicolegal Mind
    • Opinion
      • Break Room
      • New Spin
      • Pro-Con
    • Pearls From EM Literature
    • Policy Rx
    • Practice Changers
    • Problem Solvers
    • Residency Spotlight
    • Resident Voice
    • Skeptics’ Guide to Emergency Medicine
    • Sound Advice
    • Special OPs
    • Toxicology Q&A
    • WorldTravelERs
  • Resources
    • ACEP.org
    • ACEP Knowledge Quiz
    • Issue Archives
    • CME Now
    • Annual Scientific Assembly
      • ACEP14
      • ACEP15
      • ACEP16
      • ACEP17
      • ACEP18
      • ACEP19
    • Annals of Emergency Medicine
    • JACEP Open
    • Emergency Medicine Foundation
  • About
    • Our Mission
    • Medical Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Awards
    • Authors
    • Article Submission
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Privacy Policy
    • Copyright Information

Advocating for Patients

By Karen Hou Chung, MD; Neha Gupta, MD; Breanne Jacobs, MD | on September 10, 2024 | 0 Comment
Features New Spin
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
Print-Friendly Version

The Supreme Court has since dismissed these cases as improvidently granted – meaning that the Court should not have accepted the cases in the first place, but made no comment on the subject of the case itself. This decision means that while the case goes back to the lower courts, emergency abortions to protect a pregnant person’s health will be allowed in the state of Idaho; however it does not unequivocally affirm that emergency abortion care across the nation is protected by federal law, and thus keeps the door open for other states to enact similar laws. In fact, there is already another case raised by the state of Texas regarding the validity of EMTALA in protecting emergency abortion care.   

You Might Also Like
  • ACEP Submits Amicus Briefs Regarding Post-Roe State Laws
  • U. S. Supreme Court to Hear Texas Abortion Case
  • ACEP Virtual Day on the Hill: Advocating From the Front Line
Explore This Issue
ACEP Now: Vol 43 – No 10 – October 2024

Training in the nation’s capital gives us front row seats to national health care policy making and discourse while we, at the same time, see individual patients who are impacted directly by these critical government decisions. Participating in the demonstration on April 24th allowed us to join local and national organizations, a refreshing break from long hours in the hospital, to declare that abortion is healthcare and reproductive rights are human rights. This aligns with the American College of Emergency Physicians policy that supports the development of clinical practices that protect medical care services for pregnancy-related concerns, including abortions, and that protect emergency physicians in cases of conflict between state and federal laws, such as EMTALA. They also encourage hospitals and residency programs to provide education, training, and resources on abortions.  

It is even more urgent now to support the lawyers, physicians, and nonprofit leaders who work tirelessly to enable access to care at both the micro and macro levels. As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stated in her dissent, this decision is “not a victory for pregnant patients; it is a delay. Pregnant people experiencing medical complications remain in a precarious position, as their doctors are kept in the dark about what the law requires.”  

Directly or indirectly, all of us providers in the country are being affected. As physicians, even as resident physicians in training, our white coats and degrees hold weight, and our responsibility should not be limited to the walls of an emergency department. This case and the rally we participated in remind us that our patients are depending on us to advocate on their behalf, and we cannot afford to be silent on this issue; we cannot wait until our patients are near death before our nation’s lawmakers take action.  

Pages: 1 2 3 | Single Page

Topics: AbortionEmergency Carenew spin

Related

  • Emergency Physicians Step Up for Women

    October 15, 2025 - 4 Comments
  • New Recommendations for Administering RhD IG at Less than 12 Weeks

    May 7, 2025 - 0 Comment
  • Navigating Strict State Abortion Laws

    January 5, 2025 - 1 Comment

Current Issue

ACEP Now: November 2025

Download PDF

Read More

No Responses to “Advocating for Patients”

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*
*


Wiley
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy
  • Terms of Use
  • Advertise
  • Cookie Preferences
Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 2333-2603