iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Protect Life Act: New Bill Would Allow Hospitals To Refuse To Perform Abortions

Antiabortion

First Posted: 10/11/2011 7:34 pm Updated: 12/11/2011 5:12 am

WASHINGTON -- The House is scheduled to vote this week on a new bill that would allow federally-funded hospitals that oppose abortions to refuse to perform the procedure, even in cases where a woman would die without it.

Under current law, every hospital that receives Medicare or Medicaid money is legally required to provide emergency care to any patient in need, regardless of his or her financial situation. If a hospital is unable to provide what the patient needs -- including a life-saving abortion -- it has to transfer the patient to a hospital that can.

Under H.R. 358, dubbed the "Protect Life Act" and sponsored by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), hospitals that don't want to provide abortions could refuse to do so, even for a pregnant woman with a life-threatening complication that requires a doctor terminate her pregnancy. This provision would apply to the more than 600 Catholic hospitals governed by the Catholic Health Association, which are regulated by bishops and prohibited from performing abortions.

"Unfortunately in the Catholic system, someone who's a bishop, who has no medical qualifications whatsoever, can dictate what a hospital does," said Jon O'Brien, president of Catholics for Choice. "And bishops have a mindset that's absolutely obsessed with sexual and reproductive health, especially on the issue of abortion, so the Diocese is throwing everything into backing this."

In late 2009, an Arizona bishop excommunicated Sister Margaret McBride, a senior administrator at St. Joseph's Hospital in Phoenix, because she authorized an abortion for a woman who was 11 weeks pregnant and suffering from a potentially fatal case of pulmonary hypertension.

"In this tragic case, the treatment necessary to save the mother's life required the termination of an 11-week pregnancy," the hospital said in a statement.

The Diocese of Phoenix sharply condemned the hospital's decision to abort the baby, saying in a statement that the mother's life should never take precedence over the baby's.

"An unborn child is not a disease," said Rev. Thomas J. Olmsted, the bishop of Phoenix. "While medical professionals should certainly try to save a pregnant mother's life, the means by which they do it can never be by directly killing her unborn child. The end does not justify the means."

A spokesperson for Catholic Healthcare West, which owns St. Joseph's in Phoenix, said the Protect Life Act would not change anything about its current policy, which is to provide abortions only for women whose lives are in danger. But other Catholic hospitals reserve the right to opt out of providing them, depending on the discretion of the bishops that preside over them.

In addition to changing the rules for hospitals, H.R. 358 would deny federal funding to any health care plan that includes abortion coverage, something that might cause insurance providers to stop covering abortions.

"During the debate over Obamacare, the president promised that no taxpayer dollars would be used to pay for abortions under the bill," House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said at a voters' summit last week. “Unfortunately, this is not the way things played out."

"We will bring to the floor a bill to ensure that no taxpayer dollars flow to health care plans that cover abortion and no health care worker has to participate in abortions against their will," he said.

The Hyde amendment, which has been in place for 30 years, already bans taxpayer dollars from being spent on abortions and allows anti-abortion doctors to opt out of performing them.

Health advocates worry that the new law would only increase financial and logistic barriers for women who require abortions to save their lives.

"This is just a demolition derby for women's health care," said Dawn Laguens, executive vice president for communications at Planned Parenthood. "To first say, 'We won't even treat you if you show up needing a life-saving abortion,' and then to eliminate health insurance that might have saved your family from bankruptcy is a real one-two gut punch to women in these tough economic times."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- The House is scheduled to vote this week on a new bill that would allow federally-funded hospitals that oppose abortions to refuse to perform the procedure, even in cases where a woman w...
WASHINGTON -- The House is scheduled to vote this week on a new bill that would allow federally-funded hospitals that oppose abortions to refuse to perform the procedure, even in cases where a woman w...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 2,091
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (38 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cjsim
an 86 yr. old progressive democrat
08:35 PM on 11/01/2011
All these positions have been held by the Catholic church for centuries but I don't understand their big push behind these tea-party extremests of today? cjsim
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Annie Snyder
Not Going to Sit Down and Shut Up
11:54 PM on 10/19/2011
If you don't wish to perform ALL the functions of your profession, find a new profession. Don't take a job at McDonald's then cripe that you can't serve burgers becaue you're a vegan.
04:10 PM on 10/19/2011
here we go again. for the last time. religion does not belong in law making. our great country gives us freedoms. people of faith have the right to believe, and others have the right to not believe. please keep religion out of politics, make your own choices, and let your neighbor make hers/his.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Teri Springer
Educated and Opinionated
06:42 PM on 10/15/2011
Such logic. Ok, the mother's life does not take precedence. So, we allow a woman with pulmonary hypertension to die because we don't want to abort her fetus. And thusly, we save the life of the 11 week old fetus.....uh huh......anyone see a problem with this logic????
01:21 PM on 10/15/2011
So doctors have the right to bring their personal beliefs into their work?

Really?

So, if a pharmacist or ER doctor doesn't want to give insulin to a diabetic and feels that doing so would 'violate' their beliefs, they shouldn't have to?
photo
souix55
By your actions you will be known
12:28 PM on 10/14/2011
I see that Ron Paul and Michelle Bachman abstained from voting, guess they don’t want to stand up for their convictions when it comes to supporting misogynic legislation.
11:05 AM on 10/14/2011
"While medical professionals should certainly try to save a pregnant mother's life, the means by which they do it can never be by directly killing her unborn child. The end does not justify the means."
Unless they are your ends and means I guess.
09:31 AM on 10/14/2011
Republican 'gina police. Because ladyparts are a bigger threat to America than massive job loss and foreign terrorism. When did picking on pregnant women become the test of manhood in these GOP frat clubs?!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Teri Springer
Educated and Opinionated
06:43 PM on 10/15/2011
A very long time ago. Around the time the GOP came into existence.....
photo
Alwayspissedoffatsomeone
Liberalism = Stultification of the Brain
01:56 AM on 10/14/2011
The bill doesn't dictate either way whether a woman shall get treatment, only how it is covered by the government. If a hospital refuses treatment, it won't be because they won't get reimbursed the funds for treatment. The bill states...
Sec. 2

‘(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.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Annette Rf
09:37 PM on 10/13/2011
Though not a Catholic (I'm Jewish), I chose in 1993 to have my daughter in a Catholic hospital because they don't do abortions. I didn't want my child born in a hospital that murdered unborn babies on another floor. The Catholic religion does not believe women have to die; in the very rare case where a woman's life is in danger, they try to save BOTH, but if they can't, they try to save the one with the best chance of survival. Sometimes it is the mother, sometimes it is the baby,. But their religion is against DIRECT abortion, where the INTENT is to kill the baby. They don't oppose what would be an INDIRECT abortion, such as surgery to remove a cancerous uterus, even if the mother is pregnant and the baby will die...because the INTENT is not to kill the baby but to cure the cancer.
photo
goatini
We are two-legged wombs, that’s all
09:10 PM on 10/14/2011
You're darned lucky your family didn't have to sit shiva for you in a Catholic hospital.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Annette Rf
09:38 PM on 10/14/2011
It was a Catholic hospital that saved my life during one of my pregnancies. And my OBGYN, who is an Orthodox Jew, is on staff of that Catholic hospital precisely BECAUSE he knew he would not be required to perform abortions there (Orthodox Judaism is against abortion on demand too, not only the Catholic Church.)
12:06 AM on 10/15/2011
Actually, they state outright that they believe that the life of the fetus is of more importance than the life of the mother.

This law and the direct statements of the bishops state quite unequivocally that even if a woman's life is in danger they will not only NOT perform a life saving procedure but they are no longer obligated to ensure that she is taken to a facility that will.

Your fine lines may make sense to you, and that's great for you, BUT that's not what these hospitals and these bishops believe. Please read the article for some elucidation on how they perceive this issue, it's not what you think. They excommunicated a nun for making that decision in favor of the woman and not her un-viable fetus (apparently they don't get that if the mom dies, an 11 week old fetus will not live).

"The mother's life should NEVER take precedence over that of the fetus." (Emphasis mine) Get it?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:30 PM on 10/13/2011
When churches pay taxes they can lobby or attempt to influence policy.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tangelan
You will not cast aspersions on my asparagus.
06:08 PM on 10/13/2011
Wow. How does the fetus survive if the mother dies? Someone hasn't thought this through. I wish the GOP could move this fast on a jobs bill.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lady1genius
No se puede tapar el sol con un dedo
06:32 PM on 10/13/2011
Certainly they've thought it through. They don't care if women die. You obviously think this has something to do with protecting life, because it's called the Protect Life Act. You don't think they'd call it the Let Women Die Act, do you? ;)
05:05 PM on 10/13/2011
These Republicans are really something. They loves them some fetuses. It's after they are born - is when they don't care too much about people. - Witness the right to death crowd in Texas or Florida. Maybe they would sign on to a jobs program -if it employed - feeti - (at least two fetus?)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kenneth kdubs Williams
A student of ignorance so I won't repeat the same
04:27 PM on 10/13/2011
Tried really hard not to yell out loud as I read this. Had to take several breaks to finish the article. I truly feel bad about the elected officials who will plan to vote for this bill. It's like they are brainwashed. Do they not realize that they are taking the right to choose away from the female based on their own beliefs? They are all for deregulation of everything else except for social issues. They want it by the book, The Bible.
After reading about the excommunicated sister for approving of the abortion, I wanted to scream.

The youngest a baby has been recorded to survive out the womb was at 22 weeks.

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17237979/ns/health-childrens_health/t/earliest-surviving-preemie-remain-hospital/#.TpdIu5t79e8

What was the plan for the other 11 weeks?
Don't be an evangelical policy maker. If you want them to avoid the sin, talk to them individually, don't make a precedent for the whole USA. That's what the Bible is for. If we were to use that, we wouldn't have need for the Constitution.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
twinkie1cat
04:21 PM on 10/13/2011
This kind of thing is why a person's religious beliefs, especially if they are strong, should be examined when one considers our leaders. The teaparties have really gone off the deep end on this one to protect a potential person more greatly than one who is already functioning and contributing. But it would kill the baby too if the woman died unless it was old enough to be born prematurely and survive. And then it would not have a mama to take care of it.

This is just another Republican trick to rid the GOP of its moderates and pretend that they stand for life. Like most of their junk it does not make sense.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lady1genius
No se puede tapar el sol con un dedo
04:49 PM on 10/13/2011
If there was a baby in existence it would be delivered, not aborted. All that "babytalk" is a lot of nonsense, as viable fetuses are delivered, not aborted.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Teri Springer
Educated and Opinionated
06:47 PM on 10/15/2011
As an RN of 30+ years experience I can tell you, an 11 week old fetus would not be "delivered" as it cannot survive outside the womb of a LIVING mother. For that matter, any time before 24 weeks it's pretty much assured that the fetus will die. There is a reason that 24 weeks is considered the age of viability. However, even then, you are fighting an uphill battle to save a life that will probably be besieged with health issues for however long it it lasts.
03:56 PM on 10/14/2011
Not only should their religious beliefs be examined, all people running for office should
have to go through mental health testing! I've been saying this for years. I am not the
only one who thinks we have some sociopaths in office.
We have to stop voting these people in office. If not, don't be surprised when you see
bills like this "Protect Life" bill passed.
I just can't understand why people vote against their own best interest by voting
for these regressives. Like Harry Truman said, "How many times do you have to be hit over the head before you realize someone is trying to hurt you?"