Senate Bill 5,557 would place in statute requirements that hospitals provide emergency medical screening and necessary stabilizing treatment to pregnant patients consistent with federal EMTALA obligations and recent Washington Department of Health emergency rules. The bill was discussed Feb. 7 in the Senate Health & Long Term Care Committee.

Sponsor remarks emphasized Washington’s longstanding protections for reproductive health and the need to ensure that pregnant patients who present with life‑threatening conditions receive timely, evidence‑based care. Senator Deb Krishnasen (prime sponsor) said the measure is intended to “guarantee protections for patients in crisis” and to prevent uncertainty following shifts in federal policy.

The Department of Health and the Washington State Women’s Commission testified in support and recommended harmonizing statutory definitions with the Protecting Pregnant Patients Act (PPPA). Lacey Fahrenbach, chief of prevention, safety and health at the Department of Health, told the committee that emergency abortion care “is crucial for preventing maternal deaths and preserving overall health,” and that the department had provided technical amendments to prioritize patient needs and timely transfer procedures.

Obstetrics and gynecology organizations, Planned Parenthood and practicing OB/GYNs described clinical scenarios that committee members said illustrated the stakes. Dr. Shannon Bailey, an OB/GYN who covers emergency obstetric care, recounted patients with life‑threatening hemorrhage, ruptured ectopic pregnancies and other emergencies that required immediate, evidence‑based interventions to prevent death. “Any delay in her surgery or care would have resulted in her death,” Bailey said describing a patient with rapidly progressing miscarriage and heavy bleeding.

Planned Parenthood and other proponents asked the committee to align SB 5,557’s definitions with the PPPA and to ensure transfer protections: hospitals should not transfer a patient out of an emergency department until they are stabilized or the patient gives informed consent to transfer.

Opponents at the hearing, including several individual public commenters, argued the bill would force hospitals to perform abortions even when hospitals or providers have religious objections. Those opponents asked the legislature to preserve conscience protections and limits to hospital obligations. Hospital associations and system representatives supported the bill’s intent but recommended technical amendments and flexibility. The Washington State Hospital Association urged conformity with existing emergency rules and asked the committee to preserve DOH’s ability to maintain up‑to‑date regulatory guidance.

Ending: The committee heard extensive clinical and legal testimony and asked staff and stakeholders to refine statutory language to harmonize definitions with existing state protections and DOH rules. No vote was taken at the hearing.