This article attempts to determine, first, whether emergency exceptions in statutes regulating abortion have been abused and, second, whether the standard used in such an exception--subjective or objective--makes a difference in the reported incidence of such emergencies. A review of the statistical data supports two conclusions. First, physicians who perform abortions and have complied with state reporting requirements have not relied upon the medical emergency exceptions in state abortion statutes to evade the requirements of those statutes. Second, the use of an objective standard for evaluating medical emergencies ("reasonable medical judgment") has not been associated with fewer reported emergencies (per number of abortions performed) than the use of a subjective standard ("good faith clinical judgment"). Both of these conclusions may be relevant in drafting other abortion statutes including prohibitions (e.g., post-viability abortions).