Nancy Pelosi: Protect Life Act Would Let Pregnant Women 'Die On The Floor' (VIDEO)

Ahead of Thursday's House vote on the so-called "Protect Life Act," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Cali.) called the bill a "savage" attack on women's health. If passed, H.R. 358 would free anti-abortion hospitals from the legal responsibility of providing a life-saving abortion procedure to a pregnant woman who is dying.

"When the Republicans vote for this bill today, they will be voting to say that women can die on the floor, and health care providers do not have to intervene," Pelosi said at a press conference. "It's just appalling. This is a health issue, and it falls right in there with a lot of other initiatives that they had coming up on the floor about clean air, clean water, mercury -- you name it."

In addition to allowing hospitals to opt out of providing life-saving abortions, H.R. 358, sponsored by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), denies federal funding to all health insurance plans that cover abortion. It would be the first law to restrict what kind of coverage women with private health insurance plans can purchase.

Supporters of the bill say its purpose is to free taxpayers from having to pay for abortions and to free hospitals from having to provide them against their will. But the Hyde amendment, which has been in place for 30 years, already prohibits the flow of taxpayer dollars to any kind of abortion service.

"I can't even describe to you the logic of what it is that they are doing," Pelosi said. "I just know that you'll see a large number of women on the floor today fighting for women's health issues as well as to point out how savage this is about withholding care for a woman because of this legislation."

Comments

[MadMaddie]

06:09 PM on 10/20/2011

I am so happy that I obtained dual citizenship with Italy for myself, my children & my husband.

I never ever imagined in a million years that the nation that "houses" The Vatican
would be more progressive on female reproductive rights than the United States.

[catman71]

03:20 PM on 10/20/2011

well nancy, if you use birth rate statistics( the number of female to male births per capita) many woman die in those clinics, just they are termed tissue mass's as a euphemism

[Abbey Gantt]

12:20 AM on 10/19/2011

I HATE THIS BILL!
How is this ethical? How can this possibly be ethical in any way?
America is becoming a terrible place to live in. Honestly, I want out.
This is coming from one of the "younger generation".
This coming election is the first I can vote in, and I don't even want to vote I am so sickened by the political climate in America.

[wdw808]

11:59 PM on 10/17/2011

just don't get federal funding then do what you want

[Skippy3000]

08:08 PM on 10/15/2011

Just when you think the left in America can't sink any lower, they go out and top themselves.

Obama is sinking in the polls???? Crank up the scare tactics and fear mongering!!!!

[SmileAndActNice]

11:57 PM on 10/15/2011

The left wasn't the one who voted down the proposal to amend section G to specify that you may not refuse to abort if its medically necessary to save her life.

That would be the bishop-buddies on the right.

If you don't want to be embarrassed by them you could, perhaps, stop electing them?

[adam646l]

12:31 PM on 10/16/2011

Fear mongering and scare tactics are not a left strategy. Tell me where those weapons of mass destruction were found? Oh wait, they weren't found. The fear mongering, war mongering village idiot from Texas was using fear as a tactic to take us to war. Nice try. Americans won't fall for GOP fear mongering again

[The last sane American]

08:06 AM on 10/20/2011

And then Joe Biden spoke up. You might want to coordinate youselves, Democrats.

But then again you could look at it that Nancy and Joe are well coordinated - crying wolf

[bcarb]

01:26 PM on 10/15/2011

it is easy to see what little respect the GOPhers have of women.

[Kerry Cook]

06:06 PM on 10/16/2011

Sweetie, it's not just the GOPs that see women as little more than household appliances that can make sandwiches & shake up a round of martinis after slaving away in the gilded lily palace & picking up Politico Jr. from the private school before setting him loose on the nanny. Just remember my political mantra to help clarify the lack of partisan seperation: you vote for a crook, I vote for a thief & we all lose! Also, I feel that this story is chock full o' fiction. If you know doo-dah about anything medical, esp. the rules, regulations, & politics of hospitals: NOBODY, be they pregnant or faking seizures, is turned away thanks to the litigious nature of Americans. This is Pelosi's way of trying to be a "stew brewer." Any woman who is ill or in danger of death caused by or aided by a pregnancy, even in the latest of the 3rd trimester, will be attended to & nobody is going to be jumping over corpses or pregnant women in the waiting rooms of our country's emergency departments. To even jokingly suggest this discredits Pelosi to being a screaming mimi & someone should start holding fear mongering politicians responsible for what they say, no matter where they fall, right or left.

[nocomment999]

04:31 PM on 10/17/2011

finally a resonable response

[upsetDave]

02:58 AM on 10/15/2011

Pelosi should have simply argued against the bill on the merits that it prevents federal money from going to insurance companies that cover abortion which puts insurance limits on people who are provided health insurance as part of a benefits package paid for by the government (except in certain cases).

The Bill does not give hospitals the right to refuse an abortion that could save a woman's life. A congress person saying it does shows what is wrong with our politicians. It is true for the politicians on each side -- They will lie and/or exaggerate to stir up emotion against the other side from their base, and most never check to see if what they say is true or not.

[cwebster]

01:04 PM on 10/15/2011

Actually, it does. Part (g) would allow hospital to do exactly that. And Catholic hospitals would be all over that clause.

[adam646l]

12:40 PM on 10/16/2011

As an ex catholic, I can tell you that they would be all over it. When my mom was dying they put her on a breathing machine and refused to take her off. I had to call a lawyer who in turn informed the nice nun in charge of the hospital that she was in danger of losing federal funds if she did not abide by our wishes and not make us beholden to extremest catholic theology. How sad that as a very young man of 25 I had to get an attorney to get a hospital to abide by a dying woman's wish. Needless to say, the lawyer fut the "fear of God" into the "good" sister and my mother was taken off the machine. She lived an additional 6 months and died at age 45. She died the way she wanted to die, not the way the catholics told her she had to die. If they take fed funds, they sorta have to let you be a grown up and make decisions for yourself

[SmileAndActNice]

07:16 PM on 10/15/2011

Yes it does. Part G. The "nondiscrimination" clause which prohibits any retaliation against hospitals who refuse to abort with no exceptions for maternal life.

Furthermore, they VOTED DOWN an amendment proposed to clarify that section and add a note that if her life is in danger that's different.

[onnozol]

06:36 PM on 10/14/2011

I cannot believe the disgusting reprehensible comments I am seeing here. Not only do some of you champion this but you are relishing in the idea of a woman dying due to a refusal to treat. Are you proud of yourselves? Do you realise that only countries we deem "inferior" to the US refuse to treat a woman for this reason? Are you on board with being like those countries you hypocrites incessantly denigrate? Seriously. This self righteous bu!!$hit is unacceptable. Keep on pushing and see how fast you start a revolution.

[upsetDave]

02:48 AM on 10/15/2011

read the bill. Do any of you who are saying this lets a woman die or allow doctors to refuse to treat a woman who will die without an abortion understand the meaning of the word "except"

[cwebster]

01:05 PM on 10/15/2011

read part (g)

[bcarb]

01:22 PM on 10/15/2011

I doubt you read the bill either. You are just going off the Koch brothers and Rove list of talking points, so why should we trust you over Rep Pelosi.

[Chaton de Malheur]

02:45 PM on 10/16/2011

Anti-choice imagery of women dying in back alleys from botched "coat-hanger" procedures is a particular form of ṃіѕоɡупіѕt рогпоgгарһу. Not kidding. There are quite a few guys on HP who search on keywords like “fеṃіпіѕt”, "pro-choice" and “аЬогtіоп” for the sole purpose of beating down women verbally and psychologically. You can spot them easily, as they tend to ask 25 women the same exact questions about the same article over and over, without bothering to read the answers. They usually lie about a wife or sister who was told to abort by a doctor, but didn't and the kid grew up to be a minister or a rocket scientist, blah blah. They cut and paste a lot, as it's hard to type with one hand in your pants...

[Peter Combs]

06:00 PM on 10/14/2011

I meant to add, a Therapuedic abortion covers it if the life or health of the mother is in Danger...

If a woman is Pregnant, and wants an abortion because she simply wishes not to have a child at the time, she must pay for it..

[markgoode]

07:07 PM on 10/14/2011

Regardless of the reason, current USA law states that, American women may purchase a health-insurance plan that provides abortion coverage. She pays the premiums (often her employer pays some of the premiums too, as part of her employee-compensation package), and she pays the copay if there is one for the procedure. In other words, SHE DOES "PAY FOR IT." Since the 1970s, federal funds have been prohibited from paying for abortions. This ridiculous bill is trying to make it so women can't buy a legal service from an insurance company.

[upsetDave]

03:04 AM on 10/15/2011

the way I read the Bill the only people who will be effected are women whose insurance is paid for in some part by the federal government. So mostly women who are directly employed by the federal government or have insurance through a spouse that works for the federal government. That would include military members and their spouses.

It isn't a good bill. It should be defeated. However, Pelosi shouldn't be trying to play on people in order to get them to oppose it. It is bad when either side resorts to those types of tactics.

[SmileAndActNice]

07:18 PM on 10/15/2011

And your goons in the house VOTED DOWN an amendment specifying that the part G clause doesn't apply to Therapeutic abortion.

[Peter Combs]

05:57 PM on 10/14/2011

THis is rediculous....I wish Mr.s pelosi would consult an attorny to have ot explained to her.

She is totally mistaken and she knew it.

No where in this Bill is the word Therapuedic or Therapuedic Abortion used, only Induced Abortion. The only thing the Bill does is let off the hook from litigation a Religious Hospital who refuses to perform an Abortion in the case of Rape and Incest, which had to be done for Constitutional reasons...In this single situation the person needing an Abortion can go to ANY other Hospital or Clinic covered by the plan to have one, as it is specifically included in the Bill as well..

Pelosi is flat out WRONG....

[NJGrammy]

06:38 PM on 10/14/2011

Induced Abortion (the wording specifically used in this bill) refers to any non-spontaneous abortion. There are two categories of induced abortion: Therapeutic (medically necessary) and Elective.

You are correct in that they did not use the word therapeutic, they specifically used the word induced, which would include therapeutic abortions.

[markgoode]

07:09 PM on 10/14/2011

Faved! If they wanted to be specific, they could have used the word "elective." But they didn't.

[Peter Combs]

01:28 AM on 10/15/2011

No..not from a legal standpoint. Therapeutic is NOT elective if its application is required in cases where the pregnant woman's health is in danger...By definition, an elective abortion is when the woman chooses the abortion for non medical reasons, in which case it would be a Non Therapeutic Induced Abortion.

[markgoode]

06:57 PM on 10/14/2011

Read the bill-- http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr358rh/pdf/BILLS-112hr358rh.pdf

Btw, therapeutic abortions are always "induced." All abortions except for spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) are induced, and in fact many times after a miscarriage has begun the only way to complete the miscarriage so that the woman doesn't die of sepsis is to do a D&C (induced abortion

This Unconstitutional bill is never going to become law. It's just ginning up the TP base.

[Peter Combs]

01:31 AM on 10/15/2011

Correct and that point it becomes a Therapudic Abortion...

An "Induced abortion" versus a an "induced abortion" are two different things from a legal standpoint...one is a medical term when capitilized and the other is a proceduarl description. And no...not all Therapudic Abortions are not Induced...many require surgery...

[CrawfishFestival]

05:14 PM on 10/14/2011

Another example - showing why Obama did not want to include in Obamacare legislation - but only through a "rider" - that federal funding would not be used for abortions.

Also - another example of how Obama will deceive everyone - devising schemes - to acquire the EIGHT hold-out votes - that would have prevented Obamacare from being passed -

by his "rider" Con Game.

[markgoode]

05:34 PM on 10/14/2011

The Hyde Law passed in the 1970s was is, and always will be the Law of the Land: Federal funds may NOT be used to pay for abortions. The Healthcare Law did not overturn the Hyde Law.

Yes, to satisfy people who have short memories, in 2009, President Obama issued an Executive Order reiterating that the Healthcare Law will obey the Hyde Law. I don't know why people refer to Executive Orders as riders, but they do.

The bill that the House passed yesterday goes way beyond merely reiterating the Hyde Law. It prohibits the health-insurance companies from selling abortion coverage to private-paying clients. It's blatantly Unconstitutional.

[Chaton de Malheur]

02:09 PM on 10/16/2011

The Hyde Amendment was a hate crime against women, just as much as depriving us of the right to vote, if not more. Forcing a woman to give birth against her will just because she can't come up with the money for an abortion is SICK. Federal funds will oneday cover all health services 100%, medical, dental, vision, and YES, abortion. That's the future, boys. Suck on it.

[CrawfishFestival]

05:01 PM on 10/14/2011

If passed, H.R. 358 would free anti-abortion hospitals from the legal responsibility of providing a life-saving abortion procedure to a pregnant woman who is dying.

H.R. 358, sponsored by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), denies federal funding to all health insurance plans that cover abortion. It would be the first law to restrict what kind of coverage women with private health insurance plans can purchase.

********

What?! Come on - It restricts federal funding being used for abortions.

[giftsthatpurr]

05:35 PM on 10/14/2011

You'd better do a bit more reading - Federal funds have NEVER been used for abortion. Funds given to Planned Parenthood are for health services such as prenatal care, health screeneings, family poanning etc.

[markgoode]

05:40 PM on 10/14/2011

NO federal funding is ever used for abortions, and never will be. NONE NADA ZIP.

The bill the House passed says that a health-insurance company that covers federally funded patients' health plans (which by law can't cover abortions) cannot ALSO AT THE SAME TIME offer abortion coverage to its private-paying clients.

The bill is Unconstitutional, and the 251 who voted Yes on it know very well that it is.

[Peter Combs]

05:52 PM on 10/14/2011

you are mistaken....this Bill Specifically INCLUDES coverage when the health of the woman is in danger or she has been raped or an incest victim.

Religious Hospitals CAN opt out from performing non life threatening abortions i.e Induced Abortions (Rape and Incest) but every other hospital can still perform them. Religious Hospital and regular Hospitals cannot Opt Out in cases where a Therapeutic Abortion is needed to protect the life and health of the woman.

The wordage is crucial...the Bill only says "Induced", not Therapeutic. They are DIFFERENT from a legal and medical standpoint. Whihc is why it was worded this way.

[disgustedcitizen]

04:10 PM on 10/14/2011

To the "Right to Life" crowd, including the GOP and some Democrats, their concern for life ends as soon as the baby is born. These people disgust me to no end.

[CrawfishFestival]

05:04 PM on 10/14/2011

Considering the amount of people who are involved in the WIC program - whether they have children or not - or use other people's children, besides their own - to acquire a Big Fat Check,

this program indicates the government provides assistance - to newborns until FIVE Years old.

This is besides the other Free services - that generational welfare recepients acquire.

[markgoode]

05:48 PM on 10/14/2011

The Welfare-Reform Law passed under President Clinton specified that each American may receive welfare for a maximum of 5 years during their lifetime. Generational welfare no longer exists as a result. The separate WIC program provides assistance for children in poverty, as you say only until age 5. The WIC program has been cut severely, so it will help fewer poor children going forward.

Want to talk about people who get Big Fat Checks from the federal government? That would be recipients of the Fake Farm Subsidies. People who never farmed and have no intention of farming--but own land that was used for farming a long time ago--collect those checks paid for by our children and grandchildren. The federal government could save $200 BILLION over 10 years by eliminating the Fake Farm Subsidies. But certain members of Congress enjoy those fat checks (like Teawhiner Rep. Stephen Fincher of TN, who has gotten over $1 MILLION in those subsidies), so Congress is in no hurry to eradicate the Fake Farm Subsidies.

[SJW1]

04:05 PM on 10/14/2011

Hypocritical Teathugliklans, like they really care about babies. It would be different if they banned abortion, and at the same time create support systems that makes it easier to raise these babies. but no republicans are cutting programs and funds (tax cuts) that finance the healing, educating, sheltering and feeding of these babies. You are abortionist too, just you abort outside the womb instead of in it.
I totally believe in a woman's right to choose, but I am anti abortion as well. I just don't think the problem is that we allow abortion, I think the problem is that we have created a society where having a baby is a burden that can become detrimental to the quality of life, for both the child and the parents. Where abortion appears logically more humane, than bringing a baby in this so-called "God loving and fearing, Christian caring" society.

[CrawfishFestival]

05:06 PM on 10/14/2011

I am anti-abortion - but I think we have created a society of generational welfare recepients - who are depending on the government to finance people having children - so that the generatinal welfare culture does not have to work - only vote at election time.

[markgoode]

06:11 PM on 10/14/2011

Hogwash.

[SJW1]

08:30 PM on 10/14/2011

Poverty is the problem, not welfare dependency. You seem to forget that babies, children are dependent; even Jesus, when he was born depended on adults for his survival. So the answer to welfare dependency and abortion is punish babies? Is that why Teathugliklans is cutting the programs that they depend on to be healthy, and the education they need to be productive adults? I guess the plan is when they can't read and comprehend the words abortion and dependency it will go away.

[Chaton de Malheur]

02:34 PM on 10/16/2011

Great post. I'm pro-choice, with the emphasis on choice, not abortion. Guess what people- condoms break.

No one is "pro-abortion". It's a heartbreaking decision, and usually one of the grimmest days of a woman’s life. Anyone who thinks a woman takes this decision lightly is an unimaginative airhead.

I appreciate your perspective, and fully agree that our unsupportive and judgmental society is the number one reason women choose abortion. Most who do feel they have no other choice. The statistics back you up 100%.

♦On average, women give at least three reasons for choosing abortion: three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school, or other responsibilities; about two-thirds say they cannot afford a child; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.

♦ About 13,000 women have abortions each year following rape or incest.

♦54% of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904509.html

[Freddie Krueger]

03:41 PM on 10/14/2011

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/democrats-support-house-republicans-amend-obamacare-protect-life

Nancy is a perfect example of why we should have term limits.

[smcircle]

04:18 PM on 10/14/2011

If not term limits than running the government as a Corporations would with employees... They love Corporations so much so let's have them live it as we do.

[markgoode]

04:32 PM on 10/14/2011

Term limits would be great regardless of the example chosen (Strom Thurmond comes to mind), but Congress is never going to vote to limit its own terms.