Bill to codify EMTALA protections for pregnancy‑related emergencies draws split testimony

Senate Finance Committee members heard SB 169, a measure to bring the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act’s (EMTALA) emergency‑treatment protections for pregnancy‑related conditions into Maryland law. The sponsor said the bill is limited to situations where abortion is medically necessary to save the patient’s life or prevent serious bodily harm and does not force providers to act against a conscience in general.

Clinical urgency and examples: An OB/GYN witness described cases where pregnancy complications can deteriorate rapidly and said physicians need clear authority to act. "Emergency pregnancy complications don't follow any timeline," the physician said, describing a case where a patient required immediate removal of a pregnancy after massive blood loss.

Support and opposition: Supporters argued the state must retain enforcement authority if federal interpretation changes; the Women’s Law Center and nurse‑midwife groups supported the bill’s enforcement tools. Opponents, including the Maryland Family Institute and Maryland Right to Life, said the measure would undermine hospital and provider conscience protections and improperly codify rescinded federal guidance.

Committee questions: Senators asked whether fines would go to the general fund and whether the bill would apply to all midwives or only those practicing outside hospitals; sponsors said fines would be handled consistently with other medical fines and that the bill is targeted at practitioners operating outside hospital privileges.

Next steps: The committee took testimony from both panels and closed the hearing with no vote.