Protect Life Act

Shadow Dragon · Feb 5, 2011

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.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...t-women-die-instead-of-having-an-abortion.php

Here's the actual wording of the bill:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h358/show

As the law is right now, a doctor working for a hospital that receives federal funding can't turn away a patient who's in critical condition, regardless of any other circumstances. In the case of an abortion, the doctor would at least have to stabilize the woman until another doctor that will perform the emergency abortion can get to her.

Under this act, they can simply turn away a woman in need of an emergency abortion without giving her any aid what so ever. And if she dies, the doctor cannot be held liable for it. I seriously doubt that any doctor would actual do that, but the fact that it'd be legal is a bit disturbing.

Plot Device · Feb 5, 2011

It'll never fly. Even the staunchest of pro-life advocates would never bar a dying woman from a hospital -- unless they were flat out crazy pro-life advocates.

Devil Ledbetter · Feb 5, 2011

The name of this act certainly has an Orwellian irony to it.

megoblocks · Feb 5, 2011

Where in the bill does it say hospitals can turn away emergencies? The comments by others say it, but I'm not seeing it in the text (I do have 2 kids climbing on me atm and am about to run out the door, so I'm really just asking where

)

Shadow Dragon · Feb 5, 2011

Prohibits a federal agency or program and any state or local government that receives federal financial assistance under PPACA from requiring any health plan created or regulated under PPACA to discriminate against any institutional or individual health care entity based on the entity's refusal to undergo training in the performance of induced abortions, require or provide such training, or refer for such training.

This is the part that means that a hospital receiving federal funding is allowed to have no one on staff able to give abortion and is allowed to refuse service to a woman in need of an abortion.

profen4 · Feb 5, 2011

um, what circumstances do you think someone comes in needing an emergency abortion?? are you talking about tubal-pregnancies? of course not. No doctor would refuse to treat a woman with such a condition. None! Are you talking about pregnancies where women have heart conditions and the pregnancy might put excess strain on their hearts? that's pretty rare and not exactly emergent.

I'm just trying to figure out exactly what the rage is about? Give me a situation where an "emergency abortion" is required. I can't think of one.

Zoombie · Feb 5, 2011

I'm just going to say that until a bill like this also advocates the abolition of the death penalty, war, and lethal police actions, the entire name of it is a farce.

Opty · Feb 5, 2011

swhibs123 said:
um, what circumstances do you think someone comes in needing an emergency abortion?? are you talking about tubal-pregnancies? of course not. No doctor would refuse to treat a woman with such a condition. None!

Do you have proof of that claim which you can link to?

Are you talking about pregnancies where women have heart conditions and the pregnancy might put excess strain on their hearts? that's pretty rare and not exactly emergent.

Are you a doctor of emergency medicine or an OB/GYN?

I'm just trying to figure out exactly what the rage is about? Give me a situation where an "emergency abortion" is required. I can't think of one.

Then why the need for a bill which excludes such procedures?

profen4 · Feb 5, 2011

Opty said:
Do you have proof of that claim which you can link to?

Do I really need one? A tubal pregnancy is not a viable pregnancy. The egg has not implanted.

Opty said:
Are you a doctor of emergency medicine or an OB/GYN?

No. Which is why I asked, "what circumstances do you think someone comes in needing an emergency abortion??"

Opty said:
Then why the need for a bill which excludes such procedures?

[/quote]

As I understand it, the bill is just saying that state-funded facilities are not required to force their doctors to perform abortions. Am I missing something?

Cranky · Feb 5, 2011

I'm thinking Opty might be talking about the claim that "no doctor would refuse to treat" a tubal pregnancy in this instance.

I've heard stories otherwise...I'll see if I can dig 'em up. In any event, when we make claims in these parts, we like to see cites to back 'em, if for no other reason than we're not going on assumptions, but shared facts.

Opty · Feb 5, 2011

swhibs123 said:
Do I really need one? A tubal pregnancy is not a viable pregnancy. The egg has not implanted.

Cranky already got this one. See above.

No. Which is why I asked, "what circumstances do you think someone comes in needing an emergency abortion??"

You took my question out of context. It was referring to your claims regarding the rarity and emergent status of pregnancy-involved heart conditions.

As I understand it, the bill is just saying that state-funded facilities are not required to force their doctors to perform abortions. Am I missing something?

Yes.

profen4 · Feb 5, 2011

Cranky said:
I'm thinking Opty might be talking about the claim that "no doctor would refuse to treat" a tubal pregnancy in this instance.

I've heard stories otherwise...I'll see if I can dig 'em up. In any event, when we make claims in these parts, we like to see cites to back 'em, if for no other reason than we're not going on assumptions, but shared facts.

http://www.ehealthmd.com/library/ectopicpreg/EP_treatment.html

profen4 · Feb 5, 2011

Opty said:
Cranky already got this one. See above.

You took my question out of context. It was referring to your claims regarding the rarity and emergent status of pregnancy-involved heart conditions.

.

You didn't ask for a link for the part about the heart, you asked for it for tubal pregnancies. So that was your mistake, not mine.

Opty · Feb 5, 2011

swhibs123 said:
http://www.ehealthmd.com/library/ectopicpreg/EP_treatment.html

The article in that link doesn't at all address your dubious claim that "no doctor would refuse to treat" a woman with a tubal pregnancy.

Snowstorm · Feb 5, 2011

Plot Device said:
Even the staunchest of pro-life advocates would never bar a dying woman from a hospital -- unless they were flat out crazy pro-life advocates.

These are the ones I'm afraid of. We have a state representative in Wyoming who, I'm VERY afraid, is that ~~crazy~~ self-serving.

This is disgusting.

profen4 · Feb 5, 2011

Opty said:
The article in that link doesn't at all address your dubious claim that "no doctor would refuse to treat" a woman with a tubal pregnancy.

*shakes head* - okay - whatever.

Opty · Feb 5, 2011

swhibs123 said:
You didn't quote the part about the heart. So that was your mistake, not mine.

Huh? I'm not sure you're reading what was actually in my post. I quoted you word-for-word.

You made a claim that, "pregnancies where women have heart conditions and the pregnancy might put excess strain on their hearts" are "pretty rare and not exactly emergent."

Grammatically, your statement is saying that "All pregnancies where woman have heart conditions [where] the pregnancy might put excess strain on their hearts" are "pretty rare and not exactly emergent."

I was just wondering what your qualifications were for making such a sweeping medical judgment or if you could cite some sources which back that claim up.

Opty · Feb 5, 2011

swhibs123 said:
*shakes head* - okay - whatever.

I'm not sure why you're shaking your head, unless it's in agreement with me.

The article DOESN'T back up your claim.

Perhaps you haven't actually read the article?

profen4 · Feb 5, 2011

Opty said:
I'm not sure why you're shaking your head, unless it's in agreement with me.

The article DOESN'T back up your claim.

Perhaps you haven't actually read the article?

Opty, ectopic pregnancies aren't viable pregnancies. Refusing to treat on the grounds that you oppose abortion doesn't make sense. Doctors aren't stupid.

How about you find a condition where "emergency abortions" are required for the survival of the woman? In the meantime, here's an article on heart-conditions and pregnancy. http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/pregnancy/PR00124

sulong · Feb 5, 2011

Not to but in on the conversation, but, isn't Pre-eclampsia life threatening to a pregnant woman? May be cause for a life saving abortion?

profen4 · Feb 5, 2011

sulong said:
Not to but in on the conversation, but, isn't Pre-eclampsia life threatening to a pregnant woman? May be cause for a life saving abortion?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001900

Opty · Feb 5, 2011

swhibs123 said:
Opty, ectopic pregnancies aren't viable pregnancies. Refusing to treat on the grounds that you oppose abortion doesn't make sense. Doctors aren't stupid.

And there's where your argument falls apart. You're basing it all on your personal assumption that there are no doctors out there with extremist viewpoints which influence their behavior. It's a statistical improbability that likely would be impossible for you to prove.

Also, your original claim was that "No doctor would refuse to treat a woman with [a tubal pregnancy]." You didn't qualify it by saying that "no doctor" would refuse to treat it based on their views of abortion.

How about you find a condition where "emergency abortions" are required for the survival of the woman? In the meantime, here's an article on heart-conditions and pregnancy. http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/pregnancy/PR00124

Why? I'm not a trained medical professional and I wouldn't assume that reading one article furiously googled on the internet would make me any kind of an expert on the various medical complications that can present in individual patients during pregnancy.

Again, your grammatically implied assertion that no such case exists or would exist is a statistical improbability that you cannot prove.

sulong · Feb 5, 2011

swhibs123 said:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001900

So, that means yes?

rugcat · Feb 5, 2011

I can imagine a scenario where a woman's life is at risk, from conditions not steming from the pregnancy, but exacerbated by it.

The safest route might well be to terminate the pregnancy. There might also be treatment that would hopefully save both mother and child, but that would involve more risk to the mother.

Hopefully the doctor would explain the options, and the woman would then make her decision about what to do.

In seems that in the case of this bill, a doctor could refuse to treat, or what's more likely, not explain the options at all.

I would guess these would be rare circumstances, but if it's happening to you, the statistical rarity is irrelevant.

profen4 · Feb 5, 2011

Opty said:
And there's where your argument falls apart. You're basing it all on your personal assumption that there are no doctors out there with extremist viewpoints which influence their behavior. It's a statistical improbability that likely would be impossible for you to prove.

Why? I'm not a trained medical professional and I wouldn't assume that reading one article furiously googled on the internet would make me any kind of an expert on the various medical complications that can present in individual patients during pregnancy.

Again, your grammatically implied assertion that no such case exists or would exist is a statistical improbability that you cannot prove.

Okay opty - I guess ANYTHING is possible, right? whatever you say.

The op seemed to be implying that there was some horrifying bill about to be passed that would have women arriving at ER's in need of abortions or their lives would be lost. I said, really? And what conditions would those be? There are several doctors on AW. Perhaps they'll come here and set me straight.

Protect Life Act

Shadow Dragon

Plot Device

A woman said to write like a man.

Devil Ledbetter

Come on you stranger, you legend,

megoblocks

Shadow Dragon

profen4

Zoombie

Dragon of the Multiverse

Opty

profen4

Cranky

Opty

profen4

profen4

Opty

Snowstorm

Baby plot bunneh sniffs out a clue

profen4

Opty

Opty

profen4

sulong

It's a matter of what is.

profen4

Opty

sulong

It's a matter of what is.

rugcat

Lost in the Fog

profen4