Skip to content

What Does Project 2025 Say?

Share this page:

On November 5, 2024, the United States Elected Donald J. Trump to a second term. The day after that, his allies gleefully admitted that Project 2025 was their – and his – agenda the entire time.

This is what we’re up against.

“In July 2022, HHS/CMS released guidance mandating that EMTALA- covered hospitals and the physicians who work there must perform abortions, to include completing chemical abortions even when the child might still be alive. The guidance also declared that EMTALA would protect physicians and hospitals that perform abortions in violation of state law if they deem those abortions necessary to stabilize the women’s health. This novel interpretation of EMTALA is baseless. EMTALA requires no abortions, preempts no pro-life state laws, and explicitly requires stabilization of the unborn child.

HHS should rescind the guidance and end CMS and state agency investigations into cases of alleged refusals to perform abortions. DOJ should agree to eliminate existing injunctions against pro-life states, withdraw its enforcement lawsuits, and in lawsuits against CMS on the guidance agree to injunctions against CMS and withdraw appeals of injunctions.”

Citation: Project 2025, Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services, Roger Severino, pages 505 and 506
Context:

EMTALA is the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. This is both misleading and horrifying – the statement suggests that EMTALA forces hospitals and doctors to perform abortions, even in cases where the fetus may still be alive. Truth: EMTALA was enacted to ensure that patients receive emergency care, including pregnant women facing life-threatening conditions, but it doesn’t explicitly mandate abortions. EMTALA also does not specifically address the “stabilization” of the fetus but requires hospitals to stabilize the mother in an emergency.

Rescinding the guidance will make it harder for women facing life-threatening pregnancy complications in pro-life states to access abortions, even in dire medical emergencies. This is already resulting in preventable deaths and serious health complications for women. See:

Without federal guidance protecting doctors, those in pro-life states might be vulnerable to legal action for performing medically necessary abortions, potentially deterring healthcare providers from offering emergency care involving pregnancy complications. This is already happening also. See:

Ending any state agency investigations into cases of alleged refusals to perform abortions suggests that Severino / The Heritage Foundation doesn’t give a single solitary shit that pregnant women are dying from preventable causes. There are many more such examples of this happening already, and it will get much, much worse if these proposals are entertained.

Full contextual analysis of Section 3.5: Department of Health and Human Services here.