The House has passed a bill that will let hospitals refuse women emergency abortion care - HR 358

  • metta

    Posts: 39133

    Oct 14, 2011 12:41 AM GMT
    The House has passed a bill that will let hospitals refuse women emergency abortion care.

    302158_10150355880379321_80562389320_788


    Petition to stop it: https://secure.prochoiceamerica.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=5037

    US: House Bill Would Permit Hospitals to Let Women in Need of Care, Die
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/human-rights-watch/us-house-bill-would-permi_b_1010042.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 14, 2011 12:51 AM GMT
    They aren't going to turn a woman down if she could die, trust me.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Oct 14, 2011 1:10 AM GMT
    Looks like House Republicans are campaigning through legislation. Not exactly sure how this will help the economy. Oh well.
  • styrgan

    Posts: 2017

    Oct 14, 2011 2:09 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    creature saidLooks like House Republicans are campaigning through legislation. Not exactly sure how this will help the economy. Oh well.


    No comment on Metta8's LIE?


    You and metta are referring to different aspects of the bill which does two things: overturn the original compromise reached two years ago during the health care debate so that an "add on" paid for by the insured woman would negate her eligibility for any health care subsidy. The second, as metta points out, would allow public hospitals to deny abortions at their discretion. Both are horrible.

    Here's some help with that:

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

    I'm sorry. I forgot how to link here on RJ. It's been a while for me. But if you can't learn how to have an honest debate, then I should not have to learn how to observe the small formalities.
  • styrgan

    Posts: 2017

    Oct 14, 2011 2:48 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    styrgan saidThe second, as metta points out, would allow public hospitals to deny abortions at their discretion.



    The other part of H.R. 358 you mention:

    (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.



    So again... metta is guilty of no dishonesty. His OP presented the bill fairly, if with a certain amount of hyperbole. He is certainly not parrotting off left-wing lies as you asserted.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 14, 2011 6:31 PM GMT
    As usual, the GOP wants the big bad federal government to intervene in the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship.icon_evil.gif
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65932.htmlAbortion rights groups said this is the seventh such vote on abortion issues and reproductive rights the House has had in this Congress.

    “Americans are facing real challenges, yet House Speaker John Boehner is ignoring the public’s call for Congress to focus on jobs," said NARAL President Nancy Keenan. “Instead, he is coming up with new ways to give politicians more control over our personal, private decisions. The House’s attacks on women’s freedom and privacy are out of touch with our nation’s values and priorities.”

  • dancedancekj

    Posts: 1761

    Oct 14, 2011 6:49 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidAs usual, the GOP wants the big bad federal government to intervene in the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship.icon_evil.gif


    Part of the reason why healthcare is f'ed up. Just let doctors do their work, and do it well.

    Oh, some Republicans are just so nonsensical. God forbid you touch a hair on that unborn baby's head. After it's born though? GTFO, and don't you dare ask me for any support after you've come into this world. As soon as you trot on out of that uterus, you're on your own.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Oct 14, 2011 8:30 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    styrgan said

    So again... metta is guilty of no dishonesty. His OP presented the bill fairly, if with a certain amount of hyperbole. He is certainly not parrotting off left-wing lies as you asserted.



    Of course he is.

    He is stating that a hospital - assuming they have somebody on staff who is capable of performing an abortion - now has the ability to refuse to have that person perform the abortion.

    That is not correct.



    It's not?

    Read it again ...... Batman
    The republican wing nuts had a party and were all invited
    Almost ten percent of America doesn't have a job and this is the sh*t they come up with

    ...... And THIS is the party you want in the WH???? Unf**king believable
  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Oct 14, 2011 9:11 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    styrgan said

    So again... metta is guilty of no dishonesty. His OP presented the bill fairly, if with a certain amount of hyperbole. He is certainly not parrotting off left-wing lies as you asserted.



    Of course he is.

    He is stating that a hospital - assuming they have somebody on staff who is capable of performing an abortion - now has the ability to refuse to have that person perform the abortion.

    That is not correct.




    Isn't that exactly what it says? That people can no longer claim discrimination or look for legal action if the hospital or healthcare provider refuses not only to provide the abortion but to provide information about it as a healthcare option or provide a referral to a provider who will?

    Yes, that's right...with-holding information and referrals from a patient is ok because you find it morally questionable! Sweet! Hopefully this spreads to diabetes II ! I ain't gonna treat diabetes II anymore!!! Damn those fat people! Deserved it!
  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Oct 14, 2011 9:18 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    nanidesukedo said
    southbeach1500 said
    styrgan said

    So again... metta is guilty of no dishonesty. His OP presented the bill fairly, if with a certain amount of hyperbole. He is certainly not parrotting off left-wing lies as you asserted.



    Of course he is.

    He is stating that a hospital - assuming they have somebody on staff who is capable of performing an abortion - now has the ability to refuse to have that person perform the abortion.

    That is not correct.




    Isn't that exactly what it says? That people can no longer claim discrimination or look for legal action if the hospital or healthcare provider refuses not only to provide the abortion but to provide information about it as a healthcare option or provide a referral to a provider who will?

    Yes, that's right...with-holding information and referrals from a patient is ok because you find it morally questionable! Sweet! Hopefully this spreads to diabetes II ! I ain't gonna treat diabetes II anymore!!! Damn those fat people! Deserved it!



    Nope. It says if a hospital has a policy of not performing abortions or dealing with anything relating to abortions, there can be no government discrimination against that hospital for having that policy.


    that's what I said! My practice ain't gonna deal with any patients who have diabetes...I'll just never tell them that insulin is an option and is morally bad and witchcraft! The devil supports insulin! I also won't mention that there are other providers who might do things differently! Can't get me in trouble because I find insulin morally objectionable! Suck it, government!
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Oct 15, 2011 10:22 AM GMT
    Nope. It says if a hospital has a policy of not performing abortions or dealing with anything relating to abortions, there can be no government discrimination against that hospital for having that policy.

    Exactly ..... Tah- Dah SB you just proved the OP's point

    you just verified what the OP just said
    A woman comes into an ER in the second or third trimester of a Fallopian tube pregnancy.... hemorrhaging What's the republican hospital administrator going to do?

    Another in full blown CHF with multiple fetuses because she took fertility meds against her OB's advice

    Oh wait ..... a fifteen year old is brought in by her mother
    she was rsexually abused by her eighteen year old brother and is now 4 months pregnant

    These things happen everyday in ER's across the country
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 15, 2011 11:05 AM GMT
    Hasn´t SB died yet?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 15, 2011 12:16 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidThey aren't going to turn a woman down if she could die, trust me.


    trust YOU?

    Just what position are you in to offer a personal guarantee. may I ask? icon_eek.gif Or is that a typically worthless right wing rhetorical flourish icon_rolleyes.gif

    It takes a special lack of conscience to make blithe guaratees so completely beyond your capability as if that setlles a valid concern.. That special lack is called pathological lying. or lack of moral compass.