New GOP Bill Would Allow Hospitals To Let Women Die Instead Of Having An Abortion - Polidicks

[b]Note: this isn't the forcible rape bill, this is completely different. Just getting that out of the way.[/b] [url=http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/new-gop-law-would-allow-hospitals-to-let-women-die-instead-of-having-an-abortion.php]TPM[/url] [img]http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/assets_c/2011/02/pitts-obamacare-decision-cropped-proto-custom_2.jpg[/img] [release]The controversy over "forcible rape" may be over, but now there's a new Republican-sponsored abortion bill in the House that pro-choice folks say may be worse: this time around, the new language would allow hospitals to let a pregnant woman die rather than perform the abortion that would save her life. The bill, known currently as H.R. 358 or the "Protect Life Act," would amend the 2010 health care reform law that would modify the way Obamacare deals with abortion coverage. Much of its language is modeled on the so-called Stupak Amendment, an anti-abortion provision pro-life Democrats attempted to insert into the reform law during the health care debate last year. But critics say a new language inserted into the bill just this week would go far beyond Stupak, allowing hospitals that receive federal funds but are opposed to abortions to turn away women in need of emergency pregnancy termination to save their lives. The sponsor of H.R. 358, Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) is a vocal member of the House's anti-abortion wing. A member of the bipartisan Pro-Life Caucus and a co-sponsor of H.R 3 -- the bill that added "forcible rape" to the lexicon this week -- Pitts is no stranger to the abortion debate. But pro-choice advocates say his new law goes farther than any other bill has in encroaching on the rights of women to obtain an abortion when their health is at stake. They say the bill is giant leap away from accepted law, and one they haven't heard many in the pro-life community openly discuss before. Pitts' response to the complaints from pro-choice groups? Nothing to see here. "Since the 1970s, existing law affirmed the right to refuse involvement in abortion in all circumstances," a spokesperson for Pitts told TPM. "The Protect Life Act simply extends these provisions to the new law by inserting a provision that mirrors Hyde-Weldon," the spokesperson added, referring to current federal law banning spending on abortion and allowing anti-abortion doctors to refrain from performing them while still receiving federal funds. "In other words, this bill is only preserving the same rights that medical professionals have had for decades." A bit of backstory: currently, all hospitals in America that receive Medicare or Medicaid funding are bound by a 1986 law known as EMTALA to provide emergency care to all comers, regardless of their ability to pay or other factors. Hospitals do not have to provide free care to everyone that arrives at their doorstep under EMTALA -- but they do have to stabilize them and provide them with emergency care without factoring in their ability to pay for it or not. If a hospital can't provide the care a patient needs, it is required to transfer that patient to a hospital that can, and the receiving hospital is required to accept that patient. In the case of an anti-abortion hospital with a patient requiring an emergency abortion, ETMALA would require that hospital to perform it or transfer the patient to someone who can. (The nature of how that procedure works exactly is up in the air, with the ACLU calling on the federal government to state clearly that unwillingness to perform an abortion doesn't qualify as inability under EMTALA. That argument is ongoing, and the government has yet to weigh in.) Pitts' new bill would free hospitals from any abortion requirement under EMTALA, meaning that medical providers who aren't willing to terminate pregnancies wouldn't have to -- nor would they have to facilitate a transfer. The hospital could literally do nothing at all, pro-choice critics of Pitts' bill say. "This is really out there," Donna Crane, policy director at NARAL Pro-Choice America told TPM. "I haven't seen this before." Crane said she's been a pro-choice advocate "for a long time," yet she's never seen anti-abortion bill as brazenly attacking the health of the mother exemption as Pitts' bill has. NARAL has fired up its lobbying machinery and intends to make the emergency abortion language a key part of its fight against the Pitts bill when it goes before subcommittee in the House next week. Pitts' office says they're unmoved by NARAL's concerns. They say the goal of their bill is to codify existing legal protections for medical providers who do not want to perform abortions, such as the Weldon Amendment. "NARAL and other abortion rights groups have vigorously opposed any conscience protection legislation, it is no surprise that they would attack the Protect Life Act with the same old talking points," a Pitts spokesperson said. To be sure, advocates from the anti-abortion medical community are rallying around the bill. Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association -- which is not always in lockstep with the pro-life community when it comes to the health care reform law -- penned a letter to Pitts last week praising the bill for its "additions to the conscience protections which hospitals and health care providers already have." But pro-choice advocates say that the new provisions in the Pitts effectively eliminate the right of critically ill women to obtain an abortion to save their lives. That goes beyond the commonly accepted understanding of "conscience protections" for pro-life health providers. "I think a majority of Americans would agree with us that saving a woman's life should be every hospital's first priority," Alexa Kolbi-Molina, an attorney with the ACLU's reproductive freedom division said. "We all know a woman who has faced a complication in her pregnancy ... we would hope that when that woman goes to a hospital she would be protected and get the care that she needs." "I think a majority of Americans would believe that a hospital should not be imposing their religious beliefs when providing care, especially life-saving care," she added.[/release]

Wow. Just fucking... Why. [editline]6th February 2011[/editline] Isn't saving lives what hospitals are FOR?

And this is the "Protect Life Act"?

Now that is just fucked up. Even most pro-life advocates are okay with abortions if the mother would die otherwise. What the fuck does the GOP think it's doing?

Hurrr let the woman die in order to save the baby that will die anyway :downs:

Hey anyone is Europe Is it ok if I move in for a few years? Until all this crap is blown over adleast.

What the fuck? Kill the Goose for one golden egg inside it instead of loosing one egg out of a large possible number?

[QUOTE=Esrange;27883425]Hey anyone is Europe Is it ok if I move in for a few years? Until all this crap is blown over adleast.[/QUOTE] Why so far? Canada is just couple miles (/or kilometers) north But seriously, this is just fucked up..

These republicans are despicable beings not worthy of being Americans

Terminally future-shocked old men, crazy luddites, religious fundies... The GOP truly is the most diverse party :downs:

[QUOTE=peepin;27883473]Why so far? Canada is just couple miles (/or kilometers) north But seriously, this is just fucked up..[/QUOTE] I'm afraid that the stupid may leak into Canada. I know it probably won't happen but you never know, we're talking about something highly toxic here

This is getting way out of hand. Even Ron Paul is looking better than the republicans now.

[QUOTE=Esrange;27883510]I'm afraid that the stupid may leak into Canada. I know it probably won't happen but you never know, we're talking about something highly toxic here[/QUOTE] Canada has absolutely no legal restrictions on abortion and more than 50% of the country wants it to stay that way based on polls [editline]5th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Pace.;27883523]This is getting way out of hand. Even Ron Paul is looking better than the republicans now.[/QUOTE] I have a strong feeling that Ron Paul would be a-okay with hospitals doing exactly what this bill is poised to let them do. He probably wants to repeal EMTALA or something stupid like that, since it's "government intervention"

[QUOTE=Zeke129;27883533]Canada has absolutely no legal restrictions on abortion and more than 50% of the country wants it to stay that way based on polls[/QUOTE] Alright. I've been to Toronto once and it seemed pretty nice.

[QUOTE=Esrange;27883551]Alright. I've been to Toronto once and it seemed pretty nice.[/QUOTE] Alright, I was wrong by 1% [quote]In addition, half of Canadians (49%) believe abortion should be legal under any circumstances. Conversely, 42 per cent of respondents want the procedure to be legal only under certain circumstances, while five per cent would outlaw abortion altogether. [/quote] No idea what the margin of error on the poll was so I may still be right, idk. There is also this poll: [quote]In a March 2010 EKOS poll, a majority of Canadians (52%) describe themselves as pro-choice while just over one in four (27%) describe themselves as pro-life. One in ten respondents (10%) describe themselves as neither pro-choice nor pro-life and 11% did not respond[/quote] Which bodes well for the future of abortion in Canada

Glaber... Please defend this

-snip-[URL="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-358"][/URL]

Protecting life through death.

"We will no longer allow federally funded abortions for non-forced rape pregnancies. We will now only allow federally funded abortions for forcible rape pregnancies and pregnancies that would endanger the mother." Then... "We will permit federally funded hospitals to not carry out abortions for pregnancies that would endanger the mother if they don't feel like it." Next it's probably going to be the "Family Togetherness Act", no longer allowing abortions in the case of rape. And trying to get the victim to marry the rapist.

Who the fuck comes up with these bills?

This is anti woman to a whole new level.. Take it away George Carlin: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qtlvr6LLV8[/media]

Wait. So if the mother died due to pregnancy-related problems, assuming the baby isn't late term, wouldn't the fetus die anyway? My mind can't wrap around the logic of this

It won't happen. Obama would never let it go through. But hey, that's republicans for you. Isn't it nice that we don't have those restrictions.

i agree with this bill. fuck women

if you guys want to start moving over here I'm sure we can make room in Yorkshire or something, if you leave the GOP and the rest of right wing america over there for a year or two, I'm sure they'll kill themselves off how does half of your politics manage to be so extreme that they seem like satire

[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;27883629]Oh look, the media not reading bills, again. [url]http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-358[/url][/QUOTE] Uhh [quote]‘(g) Nondiscrimination on Abortion- ‘(1) NONDISCRIMINATION- A Federal agency or program, and any State or local government that receives Federal financial assistance under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), [b]may not subject any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination[/b], or require any health plan created or regulated under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) to subject any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination, [b]on the basis that the health care entity refuses to[/b]-- ‘(A) undergo training in the performance of induced abortions; ‘(B) require or provide such training; ‘(C) perform, participate in, provide coverage of, or pay for induced abortions; or ‘[b](D) provide referrals for such training or such abortions.[/b][/quote] Read what I bolded. Hospitals don't have to send women out for abortions even if they are necessary. The exception based on rape that comes earlier in the bill doesn't apply to this section, only to federal funding. To laymanize it, [i]hospitals do not need to refer women for abortions IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCE[/i] under this bill.

Republicans really are the most creative. You just can't make this shit up. It's as if every night they gathered like in the end of every Boston Legal episode, to drink and smoke cigars and laugh at each other. "So today I got this bill approved, it trolls normal people and kills moms!" "Oh Bill, you so crazy!" "And then... Guys... And then I told them, the wealth would just 'trickle down'" "HAHAHHAHAHHA"

[QUOTE=Zeke129;27883533] I have a strong feeling that Ron Paul would be a-okay with hospitals doing exactly what this bill is poised to let them do. He probably wants to repeal EMTALA or something stupid like that, since it's "government intervention"[/QUOTE] Ralph Nader has combined with Ron Paul to form a libertarian coalition so hopefully he'll counterbalance Pauls crazyness. Still, I cant picture anything worse than the republicans right now. I mean the Democrats are very similar to them in what ultimately ends up being done (look at what Obama has "accomplished") but at least they aren't proposing insane things like this.

[QUOTE=Pace.;27883728] Still, I cant picture anything worse than the republicans right now. I mean the Democrats are very similar to them in what ultimately ends up being done (look at what Obama has "accomplished") but at least they aren't proposing insane things like this.[/QUOTE] The democrats ended a war, repealed DADT, reformed healthcare, reformed the financial sector, and prevented a second great depression Stop saying they didn't accomplish anything because it's horseshit

[QUOTE=Pace.;27883728]Ralph Nader has combined with Ron Paul to form a libertarian coalition so hopefully he'll counterbalance Pauls crazyness. Still, I cant picture anything worse than the republicans right now. I mean the Democrats are very similar to them in what ultimately ends up being done (look at what Obama has "accomplished") but at least they aren't proposing insane things like this.[/QUOTE] uhm, no. Dems are bad. Not evil. Not stupid. Not fucked. Just spineless.