Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Reproductive Health topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee clarifies that emergency services include reproductive health care, including abortion, in AB 40

2769235 · March 25, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

AB 40 would clarify California law to explicitly include reproductive health services, including abortion, as part of emergency services; the Health Committee voted to refer the bill to appropriations after hearing supportive testimony from clinical groups and opposition concerns about clinical judgment.

The Assembly Health Committee on March 25 approved AB 40, which clarifies state law to explicitly include reproductive health services — including abortion — within the definition of emergency services.

Author (presenting from the chair) explained the bill seeks to ensure emergency departments recognize reproductive health emergencies and provide necessary care to stabilize life‑threatening conditions. Testimony in support came from clinical training programs and professional organizations: Alina Chavez (TEACH program), representatives of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists District 9, the California Medical Association, the California chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, Health Access California, Planned Parenthood affiliates of California, and other clinical groups.

Supporters told the committee that pregnancy complications (placenta conditions, preeclampsia, ectopic pregnancy, sepsis and hemorrhage) sometimes require abortion or pregnancy termination to stabilize or save a patient’s life, and that patients should not be turned away from emergency departments. Alina Chavez said such care is “an emergency service that is protected under EMTALA.”

Opposition witnesses included a practicing nurse practitioner who said AB 40’s language could be read to give a specific procedure disproportionate weight in emergency evaluation and argued that fetal considerations and clinicians’ judgment should not be displaced. The California Family Council registered opposition as well.

The committee recorded the motion to refer AB 40 to appropriations. The bill’s sponsor described it as a simple clarification that ensures emergency departments treat reproductive health emergencies without denying or delaying care.