On 24 June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organisation held that:'The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.'Since the ruling, thirteen states have enacted 'trigger laws' that restrict access to abortion except in specified circumstances, such as to save the life of the pregnant patient in a medical emergency. These laws not only inappropriately insert the State into the physician-patient relationship, but create an uncertain practice landscape for physicians by placing them at risk of criminal penalties. We illustrate the complexity of medical decision making for pregnant patients using examples from the case report literature, and discuss how leaving the definition of 'medical emergency' up to courts to decide will create a patchwork of restrictive and permissive standards that criminalises physicians and creates a 'political standard of care' that replaces evidence based medical care.
Keywords: Abortion; abortion restriction; healthcare disparities; pregnant populations; reproductive rights.
Medical emergency exemption clauses within laws restricting access to abortion undermine the physician-patient relationship and the complexity of medical decision making, creating a ‘political standard of care’ that replaces evidence based medical care.