Monday, February 07, 2011

Since 'redefining rape' didn't go well, now the GOP wants to let a hospital LET YOU DIE if you need an abortion


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

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.

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.

So, did you wrap your mind around that?

Since, when they tried to REDEFINE RAPE under the cover of night and scattered like roaches when the light was shined upon it, so they ' backed away' from it.

Now, they are making it so that, even if you are a hospital that doesn't do abortions, YOU DON'T HAVE TO ARRANGE FOR THE WOMAN TO BE SENT TO ANOTHER HOSPITAL SO THAT SHE CAN HAVE THE ABORTION THAT WILL SAVE HER LIFE.

They can leave her there to die - literally, and not be legally responsible, because this is absolving the hospital, which would be acting according to their ' conscience' - letting a woman DIE because of their religious principles..

THAT would be ok with the GOP.

This is who they are.
This is who they've always been.

They don't want government intrusion, unless it's with a gay person, or in a woman's womb, then all the intrusion is not only welcome, it's warranted.

For all the LIES about Obama Cares and Death Panels..

Please explain to me how this can be considered anything other than a DEATH PANEL.

The situation in which this would kick in is when a woman is of need of an abortion - OR SHE WILL DIE.


And these misogynists are going - ok, she can die, because she shouldn't have an abortion.

I'm not shocked by this; I expect nothing less from this crowd.

No comments: