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

Navigating Strict State Abortion Laws

By John Bedolla, MD, FACEP | on January 5, 2025 | 1 Comment
Medicolegal Mind
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
Print-Friendly Version

Exemptions: Conditions where it is necessary to avoid serious risk for death or a serious risk of a life-threatening physical impairment of a major body function (not including psychological or emotional conditions). Excludes procedures aimed at live birth, treating ectopic pregnancies, or removing a deceased fetus.

You Might Also Like
  • The Emergency Department After the Fall of Roe: Are You Prepared?
  • Point/Counterpoint: Abortion in the Emergency Department
  • Self-Managed Abortion: Legal Considerations for Emergency Physicians
Explore This Issue
ACEP Now: Jan 01

Suggestions: Document treatment for ectopic pregnancy as exempt. For spontaneous abortion cases like sepsis or severe bleeding, document health or reproductive risks.

South Dakota

Statute: S.D. Codified Laws § 22-17-5.1, et seq.

Exemptions: Treatment necessary to preserve the pregnant person’s life.

Suggestions: Document the life threat. For ectopic pregnancy, mention the life threat and evidence supporting that medical treatment may prevent surgery and enhance future fertility.

Tennessee

Statute: Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-15-213, et seq.

Exemptions: Ectopic pregnancy, molar pregnancy, deceased fetus, and substantial risk for death or serious risk of an irreversible impairment of a bodily function to the pregnant person.

Suggestions: Document that ectopic pregnancy treatment is exempt. For spontaneous miscarriage posing health risks, document the life/health threat and when continuation is more likely to harm the pregnant person.

Texas

Statute: Tex. Health and Safety Code § 170A.001, et seq.; § 245.002

Exemptions: Excludes procedures for removing a deceased fetus caused by spontaneous abortion, ectopic pregnancies, and life-threatening physical condition or serious risk for an irreversible impairment of a bodily function to the pregnant person.

Suggestions: Document ectopic pregnancies and nonviable miscarriages as exempt, explicitly noting any life/reproductive health threats.

West Virginia

Statute: W. VA Code § 16-2R-1, et seq.

Exemptions: Nonviable embryo/fetus, ectopic pregnancy, or medical emergencies where it is necessary to avoid serious risk for death or a serious risk for a life-threatening physical impairment of a major body function (not including psychological or emotional conditions).

Suggestions: Document fetal nonviability, ectopic pregnancy, or the need for emergency treatment potentially ending the pregnancy.


Dr. Bedolla is assistant professor at the University of Texas Dell Medical School and national director of risk science at US Acute Care Solutions.

 

 

References

  1. Davis MF. The state of abortion rights in the US. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2022;159(1):324-329.
  2. Gostin LO, Wetter S, Reingold RB. One year after Dobbs-Vast changes to the abortion legal landscape. JAMA Health Forum. 2023;4(8):e233091.
  3. Manninen BA. A critical analysis of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and the consequences of fetal personhood. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2023;32(3):357-367.
  4. Fox D. The abortion double bind. Am J Public Health. 2023;113(10):1068-1073.
  5. Lilly AG, Newman IP, Bjork-James S. Our hands are tied: abortion bans and hesitant medicine. Soc Sci Med. 2024;350:116912.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 | Single Page

Topics: AbortionClinicalCritical CareLegal

Related

  • Why the Nonrebreather Should be Abandoned

    December 3, 2025 - 0 Comment
  • Emergency Physicians Step Up for Women

    October 15, 2025 - 4 Comments
  • Non-Invasive Positive Pressure Ventilation in the Emergency Department

    October 1, 2025 - 0 Comment

Current Issue

ACEP Now: November 2025

Download PDF

Read More

One Response to “Navigating Strict State Abortion Laws”

  1. January 26, 2025

    Antony Hsu, MD Reply

    Thanks for moving this forward! For your fellow ED docs at your shop, please share this article and a copy/paste-able smart phrase that can be shared. Note that the following phrase is not vetted but your site medical director and you could consider reviewing with legal counsel to be triple-sure about the appropriateness.

    “I am concerned about the life-threatening risks to the patient due to delays in treatment for *** (e.g. PPROM, impending sepsis, ectopic pregnancy resulting in hemorrhagic shock) and so am initiating *** (e.g.medication, a specialist consult, transfer to nearest capable facility). Patient (***and their family) states that they understand the risks, benefits and alternatives and agrees with the plan.

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