The DeSantis administration in Florida is taking steps to clarify what constitutes a pregnancy-related medical emergency just one day after the state’s six-week abortion ban took effect, a move that may have significant implications for voters in November on the state’s proposed abortion rights amendment.

The state’s Agency for Health Care Administration on Thursday announced a new rule outlining that healthcare providers should exercise “medically appropriate” judgment when treating ectopic pregnancies, molar pregnancies, and premature rupture of membranes, or PROM. All three conditions can be fatal if left untreated.

AHCA Secretary Jason Weida told the Washington Examiner in an exclusive interview on the rule that the need for this clarification stems from abortion-rights groups causing confusion about the intent of the legislation prohibiting elective abortions after the detection of a fetal heartbeat.

“The pro-abortion lobby has been getting out their narrative, confusing, misleading, and outright lies,” Weida said. “What they’re doing is they’re trying to scare women and others into thinking that their amendment to the constitution, their ballot initiative, is something that’s necessary because otherwise women will die or not have access to healthcare.”

Amendment 4, if passed, would prohibit the state legislature from restricting access to abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the health of the mother.

The Florida Supreme Court approved the language of Amendment 4 against Republican challenges that the ballot initiative was unclear. The court issued its decision in this case on the same day that it upheld the constitutionality of the Heartbeat Protection Act, signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) in April 2023.

When asked why explicit provisions for these three medical emergencies were not included before the six-week ban was passed, Weida said that the administration “didn’t think it was necessary” because the medical standards of care have always been clear in medical emergencies.

“What we have sought to do here is to optimize the protections for women in life-threatening situations while at the same time optimizing protections for unborn children,” Weida said. 

Both the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology and the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists say the removal of an ectopic or molar pregnancy is not an elective abortion. Both are considered life-threatening conditions.

Standards of care for PROM are more variable, often largely depending upon the gestational age of the unborn child and the likelihood of survival. Medical professionals tend to agree that a baby is viable, or can survive outside the mother’s womb with intervention, at 20-24 weeks gestation.

The new rule outlines that the treating physician should attempt a live birth “regardless of the gestational age” of the unborn baby. If the infant does not survive, the new rule stipulates that “the incident does not constitute an abortion and shall not be reported” under the heartbeat law.

The rule also requires that physicians and providers document the reasons for their treatment decisions in the patient’s medical records.

Although the main audience of the rule itself is the medical community, the AHCA also published more general guidance for average Floridians, clarifying what constitutes protected medical care in the state.

The Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates sharply condemned the new rule, saying the rule will only sow “more confusion and chaos” in the wake of the abortion ban taking effect in medical emergencies that are not explicitly named under the law.

“Politicians know how bad this six-week ban is and they know the harm it is causing,” FAPPA Executive Director Laura Goodhue said in a statement. “They are trying to provide cover for themselves by creating emergency rules based on the worst cases highlighted in the media.”

Goodhue also called the rules “political interference,” adding that “it’s particularly disturbing to see this kind of disinformation coming from a state agency charged with protecting our health.”

SBA Pro-Life America State Policy Director Katie Daniel told the Washington Examiner that she sees the law that does not specify all emergency medical conditions as allowing physicians to act in a variety of situations.

“When you go to a list of conditions, you’re basically turning off the critical thinking part of the doctor’s brain,” Daniel said. “Key to the reasonable medical judgment standard is that the standard provides the doctors space to exercise their judgment based on what the standard of care for the industry is.”

The rule specifically carves out exceptions for “other life-threatening conditions” in addition to PROM, ectopic, and molar pregnancies.

The new rule could shift the tide in the outcome of the abortion rights amendment.

Only 49% of respondents in an April poll from Florida Atlantic University supported the amendment. That’s lower than the 60% supermajority necessary to enshrine the amendment into the state constitution come November. Nearly 1 in 3 voters were undecided.

Daniel said concerns over care for women during medical emergencies have been a prime motivating factor for abortion rights amendments in other states, swaying anti-abortion voters to support loosening abortion restrictions. She predicted that the new rule would help dispel these feelings among Florida voters.

So far, all seven abortion-related amendments following the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade in June 2022 favored the abortion-rights side.

“We think that the voters deserve to know the truth when they enter the voting booth and are going to make decisions based on facts, not on fear,” Weida said. “We will work very hard this year and at all times going forward to make sure that the facts are clear and that the truth prevails.”

The spokesperson for the YesOn4 campaign in support of the amendment declined the Washington Examiner’s request for comment on how they expect the rules to affect their results in the election.