The Colorado House on third reading adopted Senate Bill 130, which codifies procedures for how emergency departments must respond to pregnant patients and other individuals needing emergency medical services; the bill passed 42-21 with two excused.

Floor debate focused on how the bill defines emergency medical services and whether its reporting and log requirements — which include recording whether a patient was treated, stabilized, transferred, discharged, refused treatment or denied treatment — explicitly include abortion and sterilization procedures.

Supporters argued the bill brings state law into alignment with federal emergency care principles and protects clinicians who act to save lives in emergency settings. One backer pointed to national data on maternal mortality and urged colleagues to ‘‘trust pregnant people’’ and allow emergency departments to provide medically indicated care without legal confusion.

Opponents said the bill’s definitions reach beyond federally recognized emergency care (EMTALA) and could force hospitals, including safety-net providers and smaller facilities without full obstetrical units, to provide services they do not routinely offer. Speakers warned of operational strain, increased litigation risk and concerns about whether the bill sufficiently recognizes the interests of the fetus when emergency interventions involve pregnant patients.

Sponsors noted the bill requires emergency departments to enter a central log describing how cases were handled; the transcript cites the text requiring entries indicating whether the person refused treatment, was denied treatment, treated, stabilized, transferred, or discharged. Lawmakers asked for clarifications about inclusion of sterilization and elective procedures and whether the bill’s language leaves room to protect both patients involved in pregnancy emergencies.

After debate the House closed the machine and recorded the vote: 42 yes, 21 no and 2 excused. Supporters said the measure will reduce legal uncertainty for medical professionals in emergency settings; critics said concerns about scope and operational burden remain.