U.S. House of Representatives passes the Let Women Die Act

[Sythan]

Yeah, no joke, now hospitals can refuse emergency abortions to save a mothers life, among other things. This is a blatant attack on women's reproductive rights, not to mention their own health. However, the Senate still needs to vote, and most likely they will vote no on it.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/articl...ie-act-of-2011

[chickenonsteroids]

If more people know about it then the bill would get screwed over and it'd hurt the republicans campaign loads.

Plus I do not see doctors exercising this because their job is to save life and abortion is acceptable through the doctors doctrine (i think that's what its called)

[Angel]

This is such crap. Nothing is being accomplished this way. They are not saving the life of the mother or the child. These politicians need to wake up and keep their personal views out of legislation such as this. I doubt the Senate will approve of this but I wouldn't be too surprised since this issue arose in the first place.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Hooray, they could save a newborn's life by making abortions harder! Wait a sec, that also means not saving the mother... Oh well, let's hope the public doesn't notice that by naming it the Protect Life Act, huzzah!

In all seriousness, the article makes the bill seem "evil", when it really isn't so. It does not overrule the hospital's decision to save a life, rather it merely allows for the opportunity for the hospital to refuse by allowing doctors to "exercise their conscience" but I cannot see many doctors openly refusing to save the mother and/or the child. One of the greatest societal values across many cultures (if not all modern cultures) is protecting the lives of children. However, the fact they are stating these refusal laws in the first place is ridiculous because I don't see any benefit coming from it. Sure, women could pay for abortions without insurance coverage, however, depending how expensive that is, for low-income mothers, it could put them into poverty, making it harder for them to contribute to the economy, supposing the whole reason behind this madness is the economy.

[Revolution]

So not only are rights taken away for choice, but her life as well? Ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. This country thinks an unborn child is more important than a mother. It's outrageous.

[TigerTank77]

Even if it somehow passes the senate, Obama would veto the ever living fuck out of it.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Even if it somehow passes the senate, Obama would veto the ever living fuck out of it.

I wonder how big the shitstorm would be if he didn't.

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

I wonder how big the shitstorm would be if he didn't.

Bout this big

[Kyeto-X]

I agree, Obama would veto it to pieces. It doesn't make sense. Save the life of one or kill them both because you refuse to act. Granted, i would agree with the fact that doctors can have a conscience in this as well. But if a would-be mother is dieing, and the pregnancy must be aborted to save her, I would feel better aborting the pregnancy so the mother can live another day rather then losing both the mother and the woefully underdeveloped child.

As Mr. Spock would say: "The needs of the Many outweigh the needs of the Few, or the One."

[Dez]

I don't think that this is right. While yes, doctors have the right to not want to abort a child, we are talking about a life or death situation here. I want to be a doctor myself and do not believe in abortion, but if it came down to a situation where the mother would die, I would be okay with performing an abortion. This would definitely take away the woman's right to healthcare because a hospital would let her die simply because she is pregnant. What if the baby wasn't developed fully or would just die, too? Then what would be accomplished?

[Xujhan]

Remember, the religious right is on your side, but only until you're born. "Pro-life" indeed.

[dr2005]

While I find the attempt by the Republicans to curtail abortion access through the back door somewhat distasteful (irrespective of my own views on abortion, I feel it should be debated properly), and expect the veto to be used, I feel the need to point out that this Bill does not cover anything like as drastic a set of changes as the article alleges. If you don't believe me, read the Bill yourself. In particular, I notice that the article overlooks the following section:

Originally Posted by H.R. 358

(c) Limitation on Abortion Funding-

(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 is the result of an act of rape or 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.

In short: emergency abortions are still covered by federal funding, specifically Medicaid. There's also a section concerning states and private insurers reaffirming their right to cover abortions via other plans, which somewhat negates the claim that such plans cannot be offered in state health insurance exchanges. What it actually does is removes Federal funding for them via other means, which is an altogether different issue to claiming that such plans are being struck out altogether. Likewise, the claim that other provisions grant hospitals the right to refuse to participate in abortions over and above existing refusal clauses is nonsense - all of those provisions are within a section concerning Federal financing assistance, to the effect that a State or local government cannot withhold such assistance simply because abortions aren't provided. It does not - I repeat, does not - make any further changes or extentions to refusal clauses, and in particular the claim that it overturns the provisions of EMTALA is quite simply a lie. Paragraph (f) referred to in Section 2 of the Bill says:

Originally Posted by Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Section 1303

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to relieve any health care provider from providing emergency services as required by State or Federal law, including section 1867 of the Social Security Act (popularly known as ‘EMTALA’)

The change it makes regarding this provision, paragraph (g), does not apply to EMTALA as there is no reimbursement under that Act, so Federal financial assistance does not come into the equation. As such, hospitals and medical providers who refuse to perform abortions would still be legally responsible to ensure that a woman who required such a procedure is treated or transferred to a facility which can and will, and would be liable for failing to do so. This point seems to have escaped the author of that article...

I'm no fan of bad legislation by any means, and I consider this to be a prime example; however, I'm even less of a fan of bad journalism of which that article is also a prime example. I have just read through the relevant section of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (and I have to say, to our American TeenHelpers, your Congress doesn't exactly make these things easy to read ) and compared it with the amended changes, and I can find little substance to many of the claims made. If you're going to criticise something, at least do so for the right reason. I notice that similar comments to mine were shot down on the article's comments thread with "read the entire Bill" - so I did. The claims being made are still nonsense. For the record, my disagreement with the Bill stems from my belief that if a country is to allow abortion under its national law, then it should do so in a consistent manner towards all its citizens - hence, provisions potentially curtailing this right according to financial criteria are to be criticised and rejected as discriminatory. That is my objection to the Bill, and hence why I do not support it. However, I do not intend to make the Bill out as permitting something it does not.

Anyway, as I said I still disagree with the passing of this Bill and expect the veto to be used as soon as it hits President Obama's desk, so the above may well all be academic.

[XxMallyPrydexX]

That's unfair this is such a Christian based society... do you know how many unwanted children there would be if we didn't? Or ones with horrible mental retardation? Or children without a mother because she died giving childbirth? That's just sad... as well as unfair to the unborn child and to the mother.

[chickenonsteroids]

Originally Posted by XxMallyPrydexX

That's unfair this is such a Christian based society... do you know how many unwanted children there would be if we didn't? Or ones with horrible mental retardation? Or children without a mother because she died giving childbirth? That's just sad... as well as unfair to the unborn child and to the mother.

wooooooaaahhhh, lets say the woman did want a child and didn't need an abortion. If the child is born with ' horrible mental retardation' does that make the child unwanted ?

[Cosmo]

Originally Posted by chickenonsteroids

wooooooaaahhhh, lets say the woman did want a child and didn't need an abortion. If the child is born with ' horrible mental retardation' does that make the child unwanted ?

Many parents find it extremely difficult to raise children with severe problems. Many abort so that they don't have to. It's not a popular option. While it's not certain to make the child unwanted, it's not unfair of her to presume it's unwanted.