Representative Mikie Sherrill (D-N.J.) introduced the “Reaffirming Emergency Abortion Care for All” resolution last week that would require U.S. emergency rooms to conduct “emergency abortions” in the case of “life-threatening pregnancy complications.” The text reads, “[E]very person has the basic right to the emergency care they need to protect their health and lives, including abortion care.”

As The Washington Times pointed out, “The resolution has little chance of passing a Republican-controlled House in an election year.” But Democrats continue to push all the same. In fact, Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.) announced her plans to propose a Senate version of the resolution. “There should be no question about whether women in need can get lifesaving abortion care,” she posted on X. “I’ll introduce a companion to this resolution in the Senate that reaffirms the right to emergency care absolutely includes abortion.”

In a statement, Rep. Emilia Sykes (D-Ohio) expressed her own opinion on the matter: “Let me be clear: women should be able to access reproductive health care for when they need it, whenever they need it but especially if they are in a life-or-death situation.” In general, the Democrats in favor of this resolution have posed the argument that, since Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022, “confusion and conflict have emerged when pregnant women have sought help in emergency rooms in states like Texas, Idaho and Florida” — states with laws protecting the unborn.

Additionally, Sherrill and other lawmakers referenced an Associated Press report “that found more than 100 pregnant women have been denied care since 2022” because of the alleged confusion from pro-life laws. These findings, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court’s dismissal of “the appeal of a ruling that temporarily allowed emergency abortions in Idaho” in June, have served as the motivation behind the measure being pushed by Democrats. However, as other lawmakers and experts have highlighted, an “emergency abortion” is not the same as an ectopic pregnancy — a distinction relevant to the matter at hand.

For instance, The Epoch Times reported, “The [Idaho] case, which is being hashed out in the lower courts, centers on whether the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) requires Idaho to allow abortions in emergency situations where there is no threat to the mother’s life — the only exception state law provides.” In short, “EMTALA requires hospitals to examine all emergency room patients and provide stabilizing treatment to those determined to have an emergency medical condition.” But as Carolyn McDonnell, litigation counsel for Americans United for Life, shared with the outlet, “EMTALA doesn’t mention abortion once.”

She continued, “Rather, the statute prevents patient dumping of women in active labor and explicitly protects the woman’s ‘unborn child’ at four separate points. These provisions are consistent with modern medicine, which considers the unborn child as a separate patient.” Additionally, Justice Samuel Alito had written in his dissenting opinion concerning the ruling, “The text of EMTALA shows clearly that it does not require hospitals to perform abortions in violation of Idaho law. To the contrary, EMTALA obligates Medicare-funded hospitals to treat, not abort, the ‘unborn child.’”

And if these are the realities of the case in Idaho, experts have urged these same realities are also applicable to the resolution.

Dr. Donna Harrison, director of research for the American Association of Pro-Life OBGYNs (AAPLOG) and previous guest on Family Research Council’s “Washington Watch” program, had explained the difference between an elected abortion and an ectopic pregnancy. Medically speaking, an ectopic pregnancy involves the life of the mother being threatened, which results in a procedure where “you have to separate that mom and baby” under the pretense that the baby won’t live. As Harrison explained, this does not equal an abortion.

Rather, she emphasized, “an elective abortion is a procedure done with the purpose of making sure … that [a] living, healthy baby comes out dead. That’s what an abortion is.” As for the resolution offered in the House last week, Mary Szoch, Family Research Council’s director of the Center for Human Dignity, shared with The Washington Stand, “When a woman goes for an abortion, the abortionist takes direct, intentional action to kill the child — so much so that if the child lives or is born alive following the abortion, it is known as a failed abortion.”

She reiterated, “There is no situation … where a woman needs an emergency procedure to save her life and the only option is to directly and intentionally kill an unborn child.” Additionally, “When an unborn baby does die as the indirect and unintentional result of a treatment, everyone — including the physician who performed the treatment — recognizes the tragedy of what happened.” And in light of emergency medical attention, according to the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, 41 states do allow emergency procedures “in situations involving a threat to the mother’s life, and 23 have exceptions for threats to the mother’s physical health.”

Szoch argued that “referring to miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies as intentional feticide — what is culturally known as an abortion — is both inaccurate and damaging to the countless mothers who desperately wanted to meet their unborn child who tragically died too soon.” She concluded, “During this time, we should pray that Americans recognize that laws protecting unborn children do not put their mothers at risk — in fact, those laws demand that mothers be treated with the utmost respect and care.”