GOP's 'Protect Life Act' Says Hospitals Can Let Women Die

[Burnum]

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.

Link

This is insane and incredibly misogynistic, you can't let a woman die because your political ideology says abortion are bad.

[Kurtz]

Pro-lifers in action.

[Vanoi]

Gotta love pro-lifers.

[Randarkmaan]

If you have to choose, save the child

[Tiberios]

Increadibly stupid and insane proposal.

[Vir Triumphalis]

Stupid WRECKpublicans

[Babur]

I think the amendment should be renamed from Stupak to Stupid .

[Rolling Thunder]

To quote the West Wing:


"This is why good people hate us!"

[Admiral Piett]

Hold up here cowboys, I'm not sure that this bill specifically outlaws abortions of any kind.

Only that it repeals the Healthcare Acts' new insurance coverage of said abortions.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h358/show

I haven't read the bill in its entirety but from what I can read in the Congressional summary, its going to say that insurance companies no longer by law will cover the expenses of emergency abortions. (Some plans do cover abortions, just not everyone will have to) It seems to specifically target that provision of the healthcare law, not an encompassing and comprehensive federal halt to emergency abortion.

It sounds like a reinforcement of what Obama's executive order in spring of last year was supposed to do.

I'm 100% pro-choice myself. But until someone points out the specific provision that states this, I call BS rhetoric that's being fed to you gentlemen by zealous news agencies.

[PoleCat]

...But until someone points out the specific provision that states this, I call BS rhetoric that's being fed to you gentlemen by zealous news agencies.

At this point the latest amendment available on GovTrack lists the Jan. 20th version which has this provision:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

(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 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.

So that version still has the requirement that emergency abortions would still be paid for. The only other provision that seems to relate is one that would allow those with conscience objections to bow out from performing an abortion but not in the case of an emergency.

Since this bill is still in committee it could change drastically from the point it's at now. It's pointless to get in a twist about it until it goes to the floor.

I suspect this has everything to do with allowing religion run hospitals to not provide abortion services, which is how its been for decades IIRC.

I'm pretty sure even religious hospitals are required to perfom abortions in those cases where it might save the mother's life in an emergency. It's a difficult question but the patient should choose and not the health provider.

[Rolling Thunder]

So....insurance companies no longer have to cover something which is by definition an emergency treatment...because of the GoP's supreme butthurt?

That's frankly bad enough.

[Admiral Piett]

So....insurance companies no longer have to cover something which is by definition an emergency treatment...because of the GoP's supreme butthurt?

That's frankly bad enough.

Insurance companies are not required by the law to cover all emergency treatment, I don't even think the new healthcare law requires this.

[Rolling Thunder]

Insurance companies are not required by the law to cover all emergency treatment, I don't even think the new healthcare law requires this.

......I'm so glad I don't live in the US right now....

[Panzerbear]

......I'm so glad I don't live in the US right now....

because you might get pregnant ?

[Rolling Thunder]

because you might get pregnant ?

Spectacular reading fail there Panzer.

[Babur]

by "Protect Life Act" do Republicans include Democrats?

[Panzerbear]

LOL you guys are more full of hot air than the republicans.

[Carpathian Wolf]

LOL you guys are more full of hot air than the republicans.

I know right? It isn't that I like Republicans, just Democrats say things that are SO much dumber but also act so snobbish.

[Rolling Thunder]

I know right? It isn't that I like Republicans, just Democrats say things that are SO much dumber but also act so snobbish.

Because, while stupid, we can at least count on the Democrats to not attempt a repeal of Roe vs. Wade.

[Admiral Piett]

Because, while stupid, we can at least count on the Democrats to not attempt a repeal of Roe vs. Wade.

No, but we sure can count on the Dems to make a mess of a situation then blame it on the new Congress.

Whether or not we agree being put aside, Obama did make a promise to not utilize this healthcare law to pay for abortions, in exchange, he'd get the help of the Blue Dogs and maybe try to get some of the GOP vote. That's why he made an executive order to take that out of the bill. But shortly after this order, Pelosi snipped it in at the last minute anyway.