Sunday, 06 February 2011
-
H.R. 358: The new "Let Women Die" bill
TPM's Evan McMorris-Santoro provides the background on the Federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTLA) and how a radical new bill introduced by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) would carve out an abortion exemption to it that would allow women seeking medical care to be refused treatement.
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. [emphasis mine]
It seems step one should be demanding that the government clear up any confusion about "ability" vs. "willingness" of hospitals to perform medically necessary abortions in emergency situations. Pitts' staff responded to critics by saying that "this bill is only preserving the same rights that medical professionals have had for decades." That's not true, according to the legal experts who've read the language--it exempts anti-choice hospitals or providers from providing potentially life-saving care, or ensuring that the patient receive it. Life-saving care, by the way, which is perfectly and absolutely legal.
Again, it's entirely possible this is a feint by the House GOP looking for a bargaining chip on the odious H.R. 3--look what we can do if you don't give us control over abortion coverage in private insurance. But what is entirely clear is that we're in for an all-out, no-holds-barred assault on women for the next two years.
- via The Daily Kos
-
recommend
- recs 5
-
email
- sent 0
- like
Related Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to GodlessLiberal's Xanga Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in GodlessLiberal's local time zone: GMT -06:00 (Central Standard - US, Canada)
Comments (25)
Atheists and liberals always raise a fuss when someone tries to put a crimp in their beloved baby genocide.
I never understood the atheist fascination for genocide. Everyplace you go it's genocide of one form or another.
Fortunately, this assault on a woman's right to choose will never make it past the democratic Senate/President.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - Because we all know that Sweden and Japan are hotbeds of genocide, right?
@TheThinkingPerson - Sure they are, you nazi you.
If the woman's life is truly at risk, then any doctor should perform any surgery necessary to save her life.
But if we are talking about the words "health at risk" or "life at risk," legal experts tend to say the two phrases are different. Potentially any visit to the hospital under any condition can be described as the person's "health being at risk." But that is different than the life being at risk.
Have you ever heard a story of a woman that died on a hospital table because a doctor would not give her an abortion? You would think with over a million abortions a year, you would hear of those cases. Why don't you hear of them? You might be able to find one or two. But even then the cases would be probably exaggerated.
You do not hear about them because a woman's life is usually not at stake so she has to have an abortion. In other words, she has plenty of time to find a doctor who would perform an abortion.
So this appears to be yet another invented issue by politicians. Both sides do it. They focus on non issues to pretend they are fighting the battle because the larger battle really doesn't change much. The reality is a woman can have an abortion and has had that right for many years. That does not change. Instead, we pass meaningless legislation that has no impact on the abortion issue so people can claim victory and show voters they are on their side.
This is still a bill and probably won't even pass anyway. The whole reason that this bill was created was in order to create press and get attention as a 'Hey, I'm doing something!' from the politicians and it is clearly working since you're posting about it. Hah.
Pro-choice, anti-abortion. It shouldn't be in the doctor's hands to determine if the woman lives or dies.
It's refreshing to see the restraint from hyperbole on Xanga.
I read in my women's studies textbook last night that countries with awesome sex-ed and legal abortion not only have lower abortion rates but lower rates of death due to abortion complications. Just thought I'd throw that in there.
What I want to know is, when an abortion is needed and the woman's life is at risk, and if they DO think of abortion as murder, why they'd think murdering two people is better than murdering one. Because if the mother dies, the kid dies anyway. So what's the point of not performing the abortion?
burblespurt!
@thepsychoticraccoon - I think to a lot of people, women are supposed to be self-sacrificing for their children. They're supposed to believe "there's always a chance" it'll work out (especially if they're Christian, they think God will work a miracle to save both lives or else it was His Glorious Plan to let the mom die too). This, at least, is an attitude I have encountered in both men and women (curiously, especially women) here on Xanga.
Again, enacting bills like these is reprehensibly irresponsible and callous if we do not have additional resources and infrastructure in place to deal with the influx of newborn children and/or women that undergo dangerous abortion procedures to avoid having the children.
Also, I thought the Republicans were interested in reducing spending? Does anyone honestly believe that implementing this bill will not be tremendously expensive?
@thepsychoticraccoon - these people view mothers seeking abortions as people soliciting a hitman to murder a baby, which leads them to have a rather callous attitude towards these women, their reasons for seeking an abortion, etc.
Per the actual language of the bill (emphasis mine):
"(1) IN GENERAL-
No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act(or an amendment made by this Act), including credits applied toward qualified health plans under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or cost-sharing reductions under section 1402 of this Act,
may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except--`(A) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest; or`(B)
in the case where a pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself."This is the only reference I can see in the entire bill -- it being only a few paragraphs long -- that make any mention to therapeutic abortion coverage, and it explicitly includes therapeutic abortion in its coverage. From there, it goes on to explicitly state that the Bill creates no restraints on private abortion coverage. The point which the author of the article is attempting to misconstrue is as follows (emphasis mine):
"(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), may not subject any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination, 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, on the basis that the health care entity refuses to--`(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`(D) provide referrals for such training or such abortions."Given that the bill is completely about funding, and given that subsection (g) falls under the header, "MODIFYING SPECIAL RULES RELATING TO COVERAGE OF ABORTION SERVICES UNDER THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT TO CONFORM TO LONG-STANDING FEDERAL POLICY," it's pretty clear that it is in reference to federal funding, not medical care. A physician who refuses to perform a therapeutic abortion on a patient that dies is still guilty of medical malpractice and neglect, but that's not the purpose of this bill. It's a funding bill.
So, I'm kinda lost on how that suddenly becomes leaving women to die on hospital tables.
This is being mislabled all together. To the author, you're an idiot, I've read the bill. To all those who'd would like facts, this is part of the healthcare debate in Congress. What the bill states if you read it (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-358) is that under medicare the federal government and states are restricted from funding abortion unless in the case of incest, under age, rape, and threat to life. All the Repubs are doing is defunding some parts of medicare because when the Universal Healthcare kicks in a majority of people will be covered by Medicare and Medicaid. So, if you're going to rip this legislation apart, do it based upon what it's about and not supressed facts. I'm a Libertarian and believe everyone has the right to choose, but I also get the right to choose to use public funds for it too. If you want an abortion, go get one, the only difference is Medicare and Medicaid won't pay for it ever!
Mass infanticide is actually quite easy to justify as having a baby is always a potentially life-threatening state. Hence a doctor finds it easy to justify an abortion because physically it is always more risky to go ahead with a pregancy than terminate it. In the case of a doctor or hospital who are not into killing babies on demand this can also produce a dilemma as the woman who is demanding an abortion can generally argue that her life is threatened. The problem is we have made laws according to the exception and used them to promote and justify mass-genocide. As for 'a woman's right to choose' argument I would also argue that it is a child's right to live. Everyone taking part in this discussion has been born and has had that right!
@UTRow1 - don't you think killing a baby is rather callous too?
I'm appalled that any hospital would be able to justify refusing a woman treatment who is suffering from an ectopic pregnancy and in danger of bleeding to death. Which she will, when the fallopian tube ruptures. Painfully.
A pregnancy that will never result in a live baby and could very easily kill the mother can't be terminated because of someone's tender religious sensibilities?
I will never understand why mothers are considered so expendable by the religious right.
Even though they don't have to, the bill isn't saying the hospitals aren't allowed to transfer them. They still are able to, if they are willing.
Well then, there lies the problem, IF they are willing.
Ehh. I'm in the middle about this.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace -
gen·o·cide   /ˈdʒɛnəˌsaɪd/ Show IPA –noun the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.From Dictionary.com.
Abortion is NOT genocide.
Also, one of the most famous men for genocide, Adolf Hitler, was raised Roman Catholic.
Suck my dick.
@Darth_Windows - Abortion is the government sanctioned, systematic murder of the unborn. That is genocide.
If you don't like the word genocide, substitute mass murder.
You take great pains at semantics. I find it tragic that mass murder means nothing to you but misuse of the word "genocide" bothers you greatly.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - I am pretty sure that government does not force people to have abortions. And did I say that Mass Murder means nothing to me? No. Do not put words in my mouth. I probably wouldn't have a abortion but I respect people's right to to have one f they choose. I respect peoples right to free religion, speech, ect ect. THAT is what makes this country great. The ability to choose. It is people like you who hate everyone who doesn't think like they do and you berate anyone who is different than you that make America look bad. And yes, I have a problem with the misuse of words because all words mean different things.
@kenedwards5 - Until the second trimester it is not a baby. By definition it is a cluster of cells sucking life from the mother. It is not a functioning human being until it takes its first breath on its own. By definition a fetus is a parasite, and far more bothersome than a tapeworm.
Also, you'll find that after the first trimester doctors encourage you to keep the baby because the parasite can feel pain. Late-term abortions aren't preformed (usually) unless the mother is in grave danger like the example @ZombieMom_Speaks gave.
@Darth_Windows - At any given point in a being's lifetime it's function may be different than at some other point.
We see this with the insect. It has four stages of life. And at all stages of life, an insect is an insect.
The same holds true for human beings. A fetus may not function as a baseball player but it is still functioning appropriately as a human being at that particular point in its life, if it is healthy.
Regarding abortion... Roe v Wade made murdering an unborn child a basic human right. Laws that enable a particular activity serve as government sanction since it is the government that creates the law and enforces it.
@Darth_Windows - 'Until the second trimester it is not a baby.' Who says? People who are trying to justify the practice. I can assure you my children were not parasites or tapeworms! Neither was my wonderful grand-daughter whose life might have been destroyed if certain people had have had their way!
@zombiemom What are you even talking about. When have you ever EVER heard of a case where a womans life was in DANGER and a pro life surgeon refused to do an emergency operation?You live in a fantasy world.