In May 2024, Florida Republican Congresswoman Kat Cammack faced a medical crisis that brought the state’s new abortion law into sharp focus. Diagnosed with an ectopic pregnancy at just five weeks, Cammack’s life was at immediate risk—a situation where the embryo cannot survive and urgent intervention is required. The standard treatment, a methotrexate injection, is necessary to terminate the nonviable pregnancy and save the patient’s life. However, Cammack’s arrival at the emergency room coincided with the recent enactment of Florida’s six-week abortion ban, creating hesitation and confusion among medical staff about the legality of providing care.

Despite the law allowing for exceptions in life-threatening situations, healthcare providers expressed fear over potential legal repercussions. Doctors and nurses worried that administering the required medication could cost them their medical licenses or even lead to criminal charges. The ambiguity in the law’s language, particularly regarding the treatment of ectopic pregnancies, left hospital staff uncertain about what was permissible. This confusion delayed Cammack’s treatment for several hours, during which she tried to clarify the law by referencing the statute on her phone and even attempted to contact the governor’s office for guidance.

Florida’s Agency for Health Care Administration later issued emergency rules to clarify that treatments for ectopic pregnancies are not considered abortions under state law. These rules were intended to reassure providers that interventions in such cases are legal and necessary to protect the health and safety of pregnant women. Nevertheless, the initial lack of clarity had already created a chilling effect, with many doctors erring on the side of caution to avoid legal jeopardy. The experience highlighted how even lawmakers who support abortion restrictions can become entangled in the practical consequences of those policies.

Cammack, a co-chair of the House Pro-Life Caucus and an opponent of abortion, publicly criticized what she described as “fearmongering” from abortion rights advocates, arguing that it contributed to the uncertainty among healthcare providers. She maintained that her experience did not constitute an abortion under Florida law, emphasizing that the treatment was medically necessary and legally permitted. However, her ordeal underscored the broader challenges faced by patients and physicians navigating restrictive abortion laws, particularly when urgent medical care is needed and the law’s language is open to interpretation.