Dr. Rachel T. Kaiser’s sincerely held pro-life beliefs could get her fined over $100,000.
In the state of Tennessee, where the Nashville Catholic works in a hospital emergency room, abortion is permitted only in cases where the life or bodily health of the mother is threatened. If a pregnant woman came to her ER after taking the abortion pill, Kaiser would stabilize the mother and try to save the unborn child’s life. But those actions, informed by her conscience and state law, could cost her.
That’s due to a Biden administration mandate requiring doctors to complete abortions in some emergency situations, even in states that ban abortions. The Catholic Medical Association, or CMA, is challenging the rule. On behalf of the CMA, of which Kaiser is a member, Alliance Defending Freedom filed a federal lawsuit in early January arguing that the mandate violates members’ conscience rights and oversteps executive authority.
The suit, Catholic Medical Association v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division.
“Doctors — especially in emergency rooms — are tasked with preserving life,” Matt Bowman, ADF director of regulatory practice, said in a press release. “Federal bureaucrats have no business compelling doctors or hospitals to end unborn lives, especially when the law they are citing grants them no such authority.”
That law is the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, enacted in 1986, which says that hospitals must treat patients in emergency situations regardless of the patient’s ability to pay. However EMTALA does not mention abortion, as ADF notes in the case document. “Instead, EMTALA requires the stabilization of emergency medical conditions posing serious jeopardy to patients, including the ‘unborn child,’ and explicitly refers to the need to protect the ‘unborn child’ four times.” Still, the 2022 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services memorandum considers abortion one such stabilizing medical treatment.
Pregnant women having a medical crisis will receive quality care from pro-life doctors in pro-life states, said Bowman, but that shouldn’t include the direct taking of unborn life. “(Catholic doctors) recognize that sometimes in the process of providing emergency care to a pregnant woman that the child may die,” he said. “Emergency room physicians can and do treat life-threatening conditions such as ectopic pregnancies. And every state allows doctors to do whatever is necessary to preserve the life of a mother.”
The suit finds several additional faults with the mandate. For example, EMTALA never authorized the creation of a national standard of care, as the memorandum implies. No federal statute, including EMTALA, supersedes a state’s power to prohibit abortion. And the mandate substantially burdens the exercise of CMA’s members’ religious beliefs, ADF argues.
CMA members object to being dragged into what they call the abortion-product chain. The case document noted that when abortion drugs are mailed to women in pro-life states, women take them at home instead of in a medical office. If complications arise, prescribers, pharmaceutical companies, HHS, and other federal agencies tell those women to go to their local emergency room. “HHS through the Mandate insists that CMA’s member doctors and their Medicare-participating hospitals must assist or complete such chemical abortions, rather than allowing the physician to engage in scientifically defensible treatments to address the wellbeing of both the mother and unborn child,” it said.
Other religious medical organizations have sued over this mandate and won. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled in Texas v. Becerra that members of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, members of the Christian Medical and Dental Association and anyone in the state of Texas is exempt from the mandate.
In a similar case, ADF attorneys are serving as co-counsel with Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador in upholding Idaho’s Defense of Life Act. However ADF doesn’t want just a patchwork of exemptions; they want an elimination of the mandate. “What CMA is seeking in this case is not only protection for their members … but also to vacate the rule nationwide so that it can’t be enforced against anyone anywhere,” Bowman told OSV News.
With a new president in the White House, the mandate could be removed before the case has its day in court.
“We obviously hope the Trump administration would restore a proper understanding of EMTALA and repeal the mandate,” said Bowman. “But in the meantime, we want to make sure that no government bureaucrat will try to weaponize this or use it against any of the CMA members.”
Read More Respect Life
Copyright © 2025 OSV News
English
Spanish