EMTALA Preemption of State Laws Restricting Emergency Abortions

Authors

Rachel N. Reeder

Document Type

Student Note

Abstract

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) was established to restrict hospitals from refusing to treat or transferring patients with an unstable emergency medical condition. While intended to protect vulnerable groups from discrimination, the duty EMTALA imposes on hospitals also applies when a pregnant patient presents to a participating emergency room experiencing an emergency medical condition where the standard of care is pregnancy termination. Since Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, states have enacted laws prohibiting abortions, many with no exception or exceptions too narrow for stabilizing a pregnant patient’s emergency medical condition as required by EMTALA. This Note examines the history of EMTALA and current state laws restricting abortion in Idaho, Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, and Alabama. This Note discusses how those state laws are at risk of being preempted to the extent of conflict by EMTALA’s express preemption clause, which preempts any state law that “directly conflicts” with the requirements of the Act. State laws that make it (1) impossible to comply with the requirements of EMTALA or (2) those laws that stand as an obstacle to the Act are at risk of preemption. A state law that only permits an abortion when the pregnant person’s life is at risk directly conflicts with EMTALA’s requirement to stabilize an emergency condition and to prevent material deterioration of the condition. Obstacles to EMTALA may include a state law that imposes additional requirements on a hospital prior to providing the stabilizing care, heavy burdens on a provider such as criminal penalties requiring an affirmative defense or those that chill their response to the condition, or unclear or narrow definitions of statutory terms. Finally, this Note concludes that state laws restricting emergency abortions that do not adopt the statutory language of EMTALA for the stabilization of an emergency medical condition are at risk of being preempted to the extent of the conflict.

Recommended Citation

Rachel N. Reeder, EMTALA Preemption of State Laws Restricting Emergency Abortions, 17 St. Louis U. J. Health L. & Pol'y (2024).
Available at: https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/jhlp/vol17/iss2/7