BILL NUMBER: S2165A
SPONSOR: MAY
 
TITLE OF BILL:
An act to amend the public health law, in relation to prohibited hospi-
tal interference with patient care; and to repeal certain provisions of
such law relating to required protocols for fetal demise
 
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL:
This bill would codify requirements that general hospitals provide
stabilizing care to all individuals experiencing an emergency medical
condition in state law.
 
SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS:
Section one amends section 2805-b of the public health law to require
all general hospitals in the state to screen individuals presenting in
the emergency room to determine whether a medical emergency exists and,
if a medical emergency does exist, obligates the hospital to provide
stabilizing treatment and sets standards for when transfer is appropri-
ate.
Section two amends an subdivision 5 of section 2806-b to make conforming
changes
Section three repeals section 2803-0-1 of the public health law.
Section four adds a new section 2823 of the public health law that
prohibits hospitals from interfering with medically accurate communi-
cations between health care practitioners and patients.
Section five provides a conflict of laws provision. Section six provides
for a severability clause.
Section seven establishes an effective date.
 
JUSTIFICATION:
For nearly 40 years, the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor
Act (EMTALA) has required emergency rooms to provide stabilizing treat-
ment to patients in emergency situations. For decades, the federal
government has recognized that EMTALA requires hospitals to provide
emergency care, including abortion care, for pregnant patients in need.
However, in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision, states hostile to
reproductive freedom have severely restricted or outright banned
abortion care and asserted that EMTALA does not apply to emergent preg-
nancy complications. This shift in policy has led to hospitals delaying
or denying care to pregnant patients seeking treatment, forcing these
individuals to experience life and health- altering complications, even
in fellow access states where abortion has been enshrined into the state
constitution, despite the fact that EMTALA is understood to apply in
such cases.
In June, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Idaho v. Moyle, did not take the
opportunity to make clear that every pregnant person in the country is
entitled to the emergency care they need to protect their health and
lives under EMTALA-an ominous portent. Moyle is still winding its way
through the courts and will return to the Supreme Court. Moreover, the
Trump administration is almost certain to change the federal govern-
ment's position in that case and argue that EMTALA does not apply to
pregnant people seeking the emergency care they need to protect their
health and lives.
In light of judicial support for interpretations of EMTALA that exclude
abortion care and the federal administration's broader attacks on health
care access, it is clear New York can no longer rely on federal
protections to ensure the delivery of care, The state must protect preg-
nant New Yorkers by codifying the obligation of all hospitals to provide
stabilizing care to patients in emergency situations, including
abortion.
 
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
2023-2024: S6616 (May) / A5297 (Paulin)
 
FISCAL:
None to the state.
 
EFFECTIVE DATE:
Immediately.

Statutes affected:
S2165A: 2803-o-1 public health law