Today, the Republican leaders of the House of Representatives brought to the floor H.R. 358, a bill to restrict women's ability to get insurance coverage for abortion coverage. That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. But what might surprise even the most jaded among us is a provision in the bill that would actually allow a hospital to refuse care to a pregnant woman in a medical emergency.
H.R. 358 creates a loophole which would allow hospitals to circumvent the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), a law that has saved many lives. EMTALA was established to ensure that when a patient arrives at a hospital in critical condition -- particularly women in labor -- the patient will be stabilized, regardless of her ability to pay.
EMTALA is truly the embodiment of the Hippocratic Oath to "apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures that are required." This law has been on the books for over 25 years--and it works.
However, H.R. 358 carves a radical and uncalled for loophole into this law. It would allow providers to refuse emergency care for women even if their lives are endangered by their pregnancy. Incredibly, the hospital could even refuse to give a referral.
As wonderful an event as pregnancy so often is, unfortunately there are some tragic complications that can occur for which a therapeutic abortion is necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.
I'm talking about conditions like severe preeclampsia, where a pregnant woman's rapid rise in blood pressure can lead to seizure, stroke, multiple organ failure and her death. Pulmonary hypertension, a condition that American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association's joint guidelines explicitly states necessitates the termination of a pregnancy to avoid maternal death, is another deadly threat.
If you've never heard of these conditions it might be easy to think they are not significant issues. But to the women whose lives are saved by these emergency abortion services -- oftentimes mothers who very much want their pregnancy to be successful -- this issue is more than politics. It's literally life or death.
What if your wife or daughter was rushed to the hospital, pregnant with severe bleeding? You don't research or compare the policies of your local hospitals. You go to the one that is closest -- the one you trust will save your loved one. But if a diagnosis is made and an emergency abortion is necessary to save her life, what would you do if the hospital refuses to perform it, stabilize her, or even provide a referral for care elsewhere?
Thanks to the protections provided by EMTALA, that's a question you won't face today.
But if H.R. 358 becomes law it very well could be.
That's why I offered the only Democratic amendment to the bill -- an amendment to ensure that no hospital or health care provider can be exempted from EMTALA when a pregnant woman presents with an emergency medical condition.
Unfortunately, my amendment was defeated -- in a party line vote.
We've always had tough and searing debates about a woman's right to choose. Choice is an issue which elicits strongly held views on both sides of the debate. And I respect that.
But we should all be able to agree that when a pregnant woman is in a medical emergency we should do all we can to save her. No pregnant woman -- or her family -- should be afraid that she will be denied the care she needs when she goes to a hospital.
For a variety of reasons, H.R. 358 is an extreme attack on women's rights. This just happens to be one of the worst.
Follow Rep. Lois Capps on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RepLoisCapps
Nancy Keenan: How Many Committees Does it Take to Wage a War on Women?
Rev. Debra Haffner: Supporting Family Planning Is the Moral Response
Anu Kumar: Legislating Abortion Stigma
H.R. 358: Protect Life Act (GovTrack.us)
House GOP to attack abortion funding - The Hill's Floor Action
The bill clearly and plainly states exceptions for: (and I quote)
"`(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, phy...sical 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."
That's fine if you believe that abortions should be paid for with tax payer dollars but know that the above article and many, many, more left wing articles in the news and on the web are blatant LIES and fabrications concerning this bill that you are all falling for hook, line and sinker. My personal belief is that NO ELECTIVE surgery should be paid for by tax payer dollars. Writers, reporters and bloggers should at least state their belief that tax dollars should pay for elective procedures and stop adding all the malicious lies to misinform people in an attempt to get them on their side....anyone who has to create these kinds of lies must know that their argument can not stand on facts alone. Pathetic.
Scroll down to Section 2 (c).
Thanks for the reply. :) I've read the bill over and over trying to find out what the Left is talking about but I can not find anything of the sort in this bill. My understanding is that it just stops any tax payer dollars for (elective) abortions, not in the case of a life or death situation for the mother.
I hope the link above works. Some do not, as they are PDF files, but in case it doesn't, I just googled HR 358 - bill text and made sure the source for the text is a credible one.
The point of the article, and major cause for concern is not who is paying-but if hospitals have the right to decide to refuse emergency care. If I am hemorrhaging at 11 weeks, and the only way to save my life is to terminate the pregnancy immediately-and the ambulance takes me to a catholic hospital-who makes the choice? Me and my family? The law? The catholic church? This bill would allow the hospital to decide if I live or die-even if it is an emergency situation and tehre is no time to seek treatment elsewhere.
The other point of the bill, which was not addressed in the article, limits the options of insurance policies that women, who pay for insurance out of their own pocket entirely can not choose an option that includes abortion when going through the newly created government group plan.
"NO ELECTIVE surgery should be paid for by tax payer dollars" - Define elective. Is surgery to lessen or end chronic pain that is in no way life threatening elective? How bad does the pain need to be to qualify? Is surgery to make it easier to walk elective-the person can choose to use a wheelchair or just live with the pain or limit their activity...
Your points about insurance. That is covered in the section after exclusions:
Section 2 ‘(3) OPTION TO OFFER COVERAGE OR PLAN- Nothing in this subsection or section 1311(d)(2)(B)(i) shall restrict any non-Federal health insurance issuer offering a qualified health plan from offering separate coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this subsection, or a qualified health plan that includes such abortions, so long as--
(And then see A and B on the link I provided in the earlier - I am having trouble keeping this at the max allowed 250 words)
I'm not sure what the problem you have with insurance is here after reading that section.
Pull out any/look up any health insurance manual and they will help you determine what elective surgeries are.
The Left always claims the Right are fear mongers and alarmists. It crossed my mind concerning the Left: They would never ask or expect any entity of the muslim religion to do anything against their religious beliefs. Why the same doesn't hold true for Christian religions, I don't know. I'm Catholic, have only had dealing with our local catholic hospital. A mother's life in a life threatening situation would be saved, even if it meant abortion.
What I can not understand is how anyone who calls themselves pro-life can justify watching a woman die when they can save her. The fetus will die anyway when the mother dies-how is it not clear that the most pro-LIFE solution is to save the mother and mourn the loss of the fetus-which was inevitable.
Even if that is not the choice of the woman, and she chooses to not have the procedure, the decision should be made by her and her family-not the hospital.
An ambulance does not ask which hospital you want to go to. I actually live close to a catholic hospital which means, if this bill is passed and I, God forbid, am in this situation, doctors can just watch me die because saving me "goes against their morals." I and my family would have no say. Yet-they can still collect federal funding. It is all so wrong!
I have hope that the Senate will not pass it and the President will not sign it-but it restrengthens my belief that Republicans can not win the Senate or White House-or bills like this would become the norm....very scary!
Its very wrong! If men got pregnant, I can assure you,
this Bill , this cruel persecutnig women bill, would never
ever have been drawn up.
Mike
Women who are for this bill - you're ok with being martyrs for somebody else's religion and political gain?
Voting a law to allow hospitals, to deny care to a pregnant woman with medical issues, is something out of Nazi Germany.
Anyone, especially any women, who supports this legislation, that support fain, fear and death is
Unstable.
Fanned.
My Catholic , mother of two daughter read this and is going today to register as a Democrat. She is appalled , like all should be of the mindset in this evil and hatred group.
Well, your post invigorated me. And I, a white educated woman, will not go quietly into that good night. Back to work, kids! I may not be as invigorated about President Obama as the last time around, but he is a clear choice over any of the hate-filled regressives in the republican race.
Not that I would EVER EVER vote for a republican. They stand against everything that I hold dear, including empowerment of women.