It was 10:45 p.m. when my work phone jolted me awake.
“Jenny?” I asked when I picked up.
“It’s her mom,” the person on the phone said. “We need a ride to the ER right now. Something’s wrong.”
I quickly got Jenny and her mother a car to an Illinois emergency room near their hotel, where doctors were able to provide abortion care to stabilize her. My organization had supported Jenny in traveling from her home state, where abortion is banned, to Illinois, where she planned to have an abortion at an independent clinic the next day. Those plans changed due to an unexpected complication. Health care professionals being able to administer abortion care safely, legally, and without hesitation—the very lifesaving medical decisions under consideration right now by the Supreme Court—was critical for Jenny. She received expert, compassionate care, and after a stint in the emergency room, she was able to fly home with her mom just a few days later.
I serve as the director of services at Illinois’ Chicago Abortion Fund (CAF) and organizational lead for Complex Abortion Regional Line for Access (CARLA), a first-of-its-kind program in the state created in collaboration between CAF and four major Chicago-based hospitals to improve access to hospital-based abortion care for those who need it most. In my role, I have seen firsthand how critical immediate abortion care can be. Over the last two years, my team and I have supported more than 500 people like Jenny, who required abortion care in hospital settings because of complex medical needs.
Patients like Jenny, the doctors who treated her, and the work my organization does to support them are all at risk under a case before the Supreme Court that would allow states to deny pregnant people their right to emergency health care. At the center of the case is the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal law that requires physicians in hospitals to provide stabilizing treatment—including, where necessary, abortion care—to pregnant patients with emergency medical conditions. Without these protections, the cost of, and barriers to, abortion would increase, with more patients being forced to travel to states like Illinois for care. The journey would be traumatic and risky even for those who could safely travel across state lines. The outcomes would be devastating and perhaps even fatal for those who could not. That this is up for debate in the first place is unconscionable and shameful.
At CAF, we work to reduce delays to hospital care within a much larger abortion access crisis. In the wake of the Dobbs decision, my team and I have fielded nearly 20,000 calls for support from people seeking abortion care across the country. The majority of the calls have come from states with abortion bans and from people who have to cross multiple state lines to receive care. We help people get to the clinic that makes the most sense for them and their unique needs. We pay for appointments; purchase flights, bus, and train tickets; book hotels; and provide child care, gas, and food money.
The fall of Roe v. Wade, which allowed and emboldened states to ban abortion, pushed care even further out of reach for people already struggling to pay their bills and care for their families, people coming from rural areas, and people seeking care later in pregnancy. People in states with low or no access are facing an ever-changing maze of restrictions and roadblocks—and abortion funds like ours continue to meet the moment with compassion, determination, and expertise.
Those who need emergency care are confronted not only with time-sensitive medical needs, but also potentially thousands of dollars in hospital bills and cumbersome administrative systems with limited appointment availability. The case before the Supreme Court threatens to make this dire situation even worse.
Post-Dobbs, providers and patients alike have faced fear, uncertainty, and confusion navigating state and federal laws. This fear is by design; it prevents timely and necessary medical care and leads to more calls for support from abortion funds. Together with our nurse navigators, partnering hospitals, and physicians, the CARLA program intervenes by connecting patients to care in Chicago. Dismantling the protections of EMTALA jeopardizes the ability of health care professionals to provide lifesaving services—and puts thousands of people like Jenny in danger. This is made worse each day by mounting threats to abortion access and calculated legislative and judicial maneuvers pushed by anti-abortion extremists.
CAF has scaled up to meet the growing need. But we should never normalize the immense burden still placed on people to navigate these barriers. Having to leave your family, home, and community behind to cross multiple state lines to access care is unacceptable.
Should the protections of EMTALA be revoked, physicians will be unable to provide lifesaving care, and thousands of patients like Jenny whom CAF supports will face unimaginable danger. Access to abortion must be protected for the safety and dignity of all of our families and communities.
