Blog: Robert Kilroy

Trump administration revokes guidance requiring hospitals to provide emergency abortions

The Trump administration announced it will stop enforcing guidance that required hospitals to provide emergency abortions to save women’s lives, reversing Biden’s policy aimed at protecting access during medical crises. This move raises concerns that women in states with strict bans may be denied urgent care. Critics say it endangers women's health, while supporters claim it limits abortion access. The federal government said it will continue enforcing laws to protect pregnant women’s health but acknowledged legal uncertainties remain.

The Trump administration announced on Tuesday that it would revoke guidance to the nation’s hospitals that directed them to provide emergency abortions for women when they are necessary to stabilize their medical condition.

That guidance was issued to hospitals in 2022, weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court upended national abortion rights in the U.S. It was an effort by the Biden administration to preserve abortion access for extreme cases in which women were experiencing medical emergencies and needed an abortion to prevent organ loss or severe hemorrhaging, among other serious complications.

The Biden administration had argued that hospitals — including ones in states with near-total bans — needed to provide emergency abortions under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. That law requires emergency rooms that receive Medicare dollars to provide an exam and stabilizing treatment for all patients. Nearly all emergency rooms in the U.S. rely on Medicare funds.

The Trump administration announced on Tuesday that it would no longer enforce that policy.

The move prompted concerns from some doctors and abortion rights advocates that women will not get emergency abortions in states with strict bans.

“The Trump Administration would rather women die in emergency rooms than receive life-saving abortions,” Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement. “In pulling back guidance, this administration is feeding the fear and confusion that already exists at hospitals in every state where abortion is banned. Hospitals need more guidance, not less, to stop them from turning away patients experiencing pregnancy crises.”

Anti-abortion advocates, meanwhile, praised the announcement. Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of SBA Pro-Life America, said in a statement that the Biden-era policy had been a way to expand abortion access in states where it was banned.

“Democrats have created confusion on this fact to justify their extremely unpopular agenda for all-trimester abortion,” she said. “In situations where every minute counts, their lies lead to delayed care and put women in needless, unacceptable danger.”

An Associated Press investigation last year found that, even with the Biden administration’s guidance, dozens of pregnant women were being turned away from emergency rooms, including some who needed emergency abortions.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which provides oversight of hospitals, said in a statement that it will continue to enforce the federal law that, “including for identified emergency medical conditions that place the health of a pregnant woman or her unborn child in serious jeopardy.”

But CMS added that it would also “rectify any perceived legal confusion and instability created by the former administration’s actions.”

The Biden administration sued Idaho over its abortion law that initially only allowed abortions to save the life of the mother. The federal government had argued before the U.S. Supreme Court last year that Idaho’s law was in conflict with the federal law, which requires stabilizing treatment that prevents a patient’s condition from worsening.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a procedural ruling in the case last year that left key questions unanswered about whether doctors in abortion-ban states can terminate pregnancies when a woman is at risk of serious infection, organ loss or hemorrhage.

Source: [https://apnews.com/article/abortion-emtala-biden-trump-emergency-hospital-3640bff165dac1d28b91e8adee7e47dd](url)

US Defence Secretary Hegseth to skip NATO-led meeting on Ukraine military support

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth will skip a NATO meeting about Ukraine, signaling less US support. He will attend a later meeting instead. NATO plans to increase defense spending, but no NATO member, including the US, currently meets the 5% of GDP goal. Ukraine isn’t a NATO member but is invited to the upcoming summit, with its participation uncertain. The conflict between Russia and Ukraine continues, with recent attacks and ongoing struggles on the battlefield.

US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth will not attend a NATO-led meeting of more than 50 defence ministers in Brussels on Wednesday, an absence that will be seen as another sign of Washington pulling back from its support for Ukraine against Russia's war. For the first time since the US created an international group to coordinate military aid to Ukraine three years ago — following Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022 — a Pentagon chief will not be present at a meeting of the defence ministers. Hegseth's absence from the meeting of the NATO Ukraine Defence Contact Group (UDCG) was confirmed to Euronews by a spokesperson for the US Department of Defence, who cited scheduling issues. The US Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker will take his place. Hegseth is set to attend Thursday's meeting of NATO defence ministers. The UDCG was established by Hegseth's predecessor, Lloyd Austin, and more than 50 member nations have collectively provided Ukraine with some $126 billion (€111bn) in weapons and military assistance, including over $66.5bn (€58bn) from the US. However, since US President Donald Trump took office in January, there have been no new announcements of US military or weapons aid to Ukraine. Hegseth turned leadership of the UDCG over to Germany and the United Kingdom in February, and said that Washington would no longer play a role in the monthly meetings. The NATO defence ministers are expected this week to finalise proposals to increase defence spending from 2% to 5% of GDP, ahead of the NATO leaders summit at the end of June in The Hague — with Trump is expected to attend. The US president has called for the 5% target, a demand which has been backed up by NATO chief Mark Rutte. However, none of NATO's 32 members — including the US — currently hit that level. The 5% target is expected to be split into 3.5% of spending directly on defence, and 1.5% on "defence-related" aspects such as cyber warfare and critical infrastructure. A NATO official told Euronews that "3.5% gives us equivalence with the US". What might constitute "defence-related spending" will have to be worked out, a source familiar with the issue said, with some NATO countries pushing for things such as "military mobility", including road-building, to be considered part of such spending. The timeline of when countries should meet the proposed 5% target will also be under discussion, the source said. The planned rise in spending is in response to US demands that the burden of Europe's security be handled by the continent. Spotlight on Ukraine Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine will be one of the main issues at the NATO summit in The Hague, but it is expected to be very different to last year's event in Washington, where Ukrainian Volodymyr President Zelenskyy was at the forefront of proceedings and Kyiv's relationship with Washington was flourishing under the Biden administration. Zelenskyy said this week that Ukraine had been invited to the NATO summit, but the nature of his country's attendance remains to be seen, given that it is not a member. Some sources told Euronews that there is broad consensus that Zelenskyy should be present at the summit “It’ll be a PR disaster if he’s not there," said one NATO official, speaking on condition of anonymity. The Dutch king is expected to invite Zelenskyy to a dinner for NATO leaders on the opening night, according to another source. On Monday, a second round of direct peace talks between Russia and Ukraine in just over two weeks made no progress towards ending the conflict, officials said. The discussions came a day after a string of astonishing long-range attacks by both sides, with Ukraine launching a devastating drone assault on Russian air bases and Russia hurling its largest drone attack of the war against Kyiv. NATO officials told Euronews that they were concerned about Russian advances, despite the Ukrainian army's massive attacks on Russian targets in recent days. “It was a stroke of genius what Ukraine has achieved over the last few days," the NATO official said. “We are all positive about it — they took out part of the capability to kill children and civilian infrastructure,” the official added. But while Ukraine’s Operation Spiderweb attack on Russia's bomber fleet is regarded as a major setback to Moscow, it does not fundamentally change the situation on the ground. More than 100 Ukrainian drones hit strategic Russian air bases over the weekend, destroying or damaging nearly a third of the country's bombers, according to Kyiv. “It doesn’t change the battlefield — the hard battlefield reality is that Russia is making progress square kilometre by square kilometre,” the NATO official said. "And this operation as great as it was, is not stopping the fact that Russia is moving forward and Ukraine is going through a very hard time," the official told Euronews. "The resounding success of Sunday can’t take away that fact."

The United States's alarming budgetary drift

Under pressure from Trump, the House passed a bill prioritizing tax cuts, deportations, and military spending, but it worsens conditions for the poor, cuts welfare, and increases debt. It is projected to raise the US debt by $3.3 trillion, pushing debt-to-GDP from 98% to 125% by 2034. The bill deepens deficits, raises borrowing costs, and risks economic stability, with markets showing concern over the rising debt and US creditworthiness amid trade tensions and tariffs.

Under pressure from Donald Trump, the House of Representatives passed a bill that brings together the president's main priorities. The legislation is expected to worsen living conditions for the poorest Americans, widen the deficit and inflate public debt. Published on May 24, 2025, at 4:03 pm (Paris) 2 min read Lire en français "One Big Beautiful Bill Act." The title of the bill passed on first reading Thursday, May 22, by the House of Representatives reflects Donald Trump himself: lacking nuance, simplistic and boastful. The bill is, indisputably, big. It includes the core of the president's legislative and budgetary priorities, from extending tax cuts to funding the deportation of undocumented migrants, along with sweeping cuts to welfare programs and increased military spending. As for its supposed beauty, that remains a more subjective question. Politically, it was undeniably a success, even if passed narrowly by a single vote. It came amid Democratic losses in the House and required the full force of the president to unify the Republican Party. With that hurdle cleared, the bill must now be debated in the Senate, where Trump aims to see it passed by July 4. However, the overall balance of the bill leaves much to be desired. In order to extend the tax cuts enacted during his first term, Trump reversed his campaign promise not to cut welfare programs. Health insurance for the most vulnerable faces significant reductions, leaving several million Americans without coverage. While the tax provisions favor the wealthiest, the poorest 40% risk seeing their living conditions deteriorate. The speaker of the US House of Representatives, Mike Johnson, addressed the media after the House passed the bill titled One Big Beautiful Bill Act, in Washington, on May 22, 2025. Funders and financial markets will also find little to appreciate in the "beauty" of this piece of legislation, which will deepen the budget deficit and swell public debt. According to independent estimates, public debt is expected to rise by $3.3 trillion, pushing the debt-to-GDP ratio from 98% to 125% by the end of 2034. The financial rating agency Moody's, which downgraded the US sovereign rating on May 16, now projects an annual deficit of 9% of GDP within 10 years, up from 6.4% in 2024. This is unprecedented in peacetime. This policy of unchecked spending is deliberate, even as annual interest payments on the debt already reach $880 billion – more than the combined budgets for defense and Medicare (the national health insurance program for seniors and disabled people). US debt remained manageable as long as the US dollar served as the world's reserve currency and US Treasury bonds were seen as the safest assets, encouraging the rest of the world to fund the US's deficits. But the trade war launched by Trump has weakened the safe-haven status of US assets. Investors now demand higher yields on Treasury bonds, which raises the cost of debt. The sharp response in bond markets in April, triggered by across-the-board tariff hikes, forced the White House to backtrack. Nonetheless, Trump renewed his threats on Friday, May 23, vowing to impose 50% tariffs on European exports. The bill's passage on first reading revived tensions among investors. The rising yields on 10 and 30-year bonds reflect growing concern about the US's ability to meet its debt obligations. Once again, the markets could serve as the ultimate arbiter.

Source: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/opinion/article/2025/05/24/the-united-states-s-alarming-budgetary-drift_6741617_23.html

By the Numbers: House Bill Takes Health Coverage Away From Millions of People and Raises Families’ Health Care Costs

The House passed a bill that could take away health coverage from millions of Americans and make healthcare more expensive. It could cause about 15 million people to lose Medicaid and lose access to care, especially those with chronic illnesses or disabilities. The bill also increases costs for many people, cuts Medicaid funding, and makes it harder for some to stay enrolled. Overall, it could leave millions without affordable health insurance and limit access for immigrants and vulnerable groups.

The House has passed a reconciliation bill that would take health coverage away from millions of people and dramatically raise health care costs for millions more. Here are some of the impacts:

  • Roughly 15 million people by 2034 would lose health coverage and become uninsured because of the Medicaid cuts, the bill’s failure to extend enhanced premium tax credits for Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace coverage, and other harmful ACA marketplace changes, according to estimates from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). This figure could well rise to account for last-minute changes in the House that made the bill harsher.
     
    • CBO estimates project that 7.6 million people would become uninsured due to Medicaid policies passed by the Energy and Commerce Committee (E&C).
    • 1.8 million people would become uninsured due to codification of the Trump Administration marketplace rule provisions, which the E&C Committee also passed.
    • 2.1 million people would become uninsured because of marketplace policies passed by the Ways and Means Committee.
    • An additional 4.2 million people would lose marketplace coverage because the legislation fails to extend the premium tax credit enhancements.
  • When people lose their health coverage, they lose access to preventive and primary care, care for life-threatening conditions, and treatments for chronic conditions. For example, a person with diabetes who loses health coverage would lose the ability to properly manage their condition so they can maintain their health as well as their employment.
  • According to CBO, an earlier version of the bill would cut Medicaid by at least $716 billion, the largest cut in the program’s history.
  • Between 9.7 million and 14.4 million people in the expansion population would be at risk of losing Medicaid under a provision that takes coverage away from people who don’t meet a harsh work requirement.
     
    • Estimates of how many of those at risk will lose coverage vary. We estimate that if coverage losses mirror those experienced in Arkansas when it implemented similar requirements, some 7 million people would lose coverage.
    • Two-thirds of people aged 19-64 receiving Medicaid in 2023 worked during the year, and many of those who didn’t were taking care of a family member or had an illness or disability.
    • This expansive work requirement will harm parents, people with disabilities, and those with other chronic illnesses because past experience shows that exemptions don’t work. Even people who are supposed to be protected — and those who are working — lose coverage when they get caught in bureaucratic red tape.
  • One provision would take Medicaid coverage away from people, mostly seniors and those with disabilities who also have Medicare, due to provisions that make it harder to get and stay enrolled in Medicaid.
  • Some people would also lose coverage due to new requirements that expansion enrollees re-prove their eligibility every six months (instead of annually). These requirements frequently end up pushing eligible people off Medicaid because they don’t receive or submit the necessary paperwork, or because the state fails to process the paperwork.
  • Forcing states to implement the work requirement, along with all the other sludge this bill adds to the enrollment process, puts all Medicaid enrollees at risk of having their coverage held up and their questions left unanswered because of the burden on state agencies.
  • At the same time that states need to implement all these changes and will have more uninsured people, some states would lose federal funds due to new restrictions on how they finance their Medicaid programs, and all states would be limited in how they can finance their programs in the future.
  • The bill would require 38 states (plus the District of Columbia) that have adopted the ACA’s Medicaid expansion to low-income adults to modify their immigration-related eligibility requirements for health coverage or face severe penalties. These states would see their share of costs for covering the Medicaid expansion group double if they provide comprehensive health coverage to people who are not U.S. citizens or do not have the very narrow “qualified alien” statuses. This would put enormous pressure on these states to reduce or terminate comprehensive coverage programs now in place for people granted humanitarian parole for at least one year and for people who have given birth in the prior six months, as well as programs in 16 states and D.C. that are solely state funded and cover people who do not meet the extremely narrow eligibility requirements for Medicaid.
  • The legislation would also raise costs for Medicaid expansion enrollees and will lead many of them to defer needed care. The bill requires states to charge working people with incomes just above the poverty line — $16,000 year for an individual — new cost-sharing charges when they go to the doctor.
  • About 22 million people, including 3 million small business owners and self-employed workers, will see their health coverage costs skyrocket or lose coverage altogether in 2026 because, so far, the House bill does not extend the premium tax credit enhancements — even while extending huge tax cuts for millionaires — which are critical to making health coverage in the ACA marketplace more affordable.
     
    • Without an extension of this vital credit, an estimated 4.2 million people will be uninsured in 2034 because costs would rise to an unaffordable level.
    • Onerous marketplace changes in the House bill will make it harder for millions of working people to enroll in affordable health coverage.
  • The legislation also would take premium tax credits and Medicare away entirely from many immigrants who live and work in the U.S. lawfully. (People without a documented status are already ineligible.)
     
    • Those who would be affected include people with immigration statuses designed to help people in humanitarian need, like those granted refugee or asylee status and victims of trafficking or domestic violence.