[Assentesy]

TPM: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...n-abortion.php

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.

...

A bit of backstory: currently, all hospitals in America that receive Medicare or Medicaid funding are bound by a 1986 law known as EMTALA to provide emergency care to all comers, regardless of their ability to pay or other factors. Hospitals do not have to provide free care to everyone that arrives at their doorstep under EMTALA -- but they do have to stabilize them and provide them with emergency care without factoring in their ability to pay for it or not. If a hospital can't provide the care a patient needs, it is required to transfer that patient to a hospital that can, and the receiving hospital is required to accept that patient.

In the case of an anti-abortion hospital with a patient requiring an emergency abortion, ETMALA would require that hospital to perform it or transfer the patient to someone who can. (The nature of how that procedure works exactly is up in the air, with the ACLU calling on the federal government to state clearly that unwillingness to perform an abortion doesn't qualify as inability under EMTALA. That argument is ongoing, and the government has yet to weigh in.)

Pitts' new bill would free hospitals from any abortion requirement under EMTALA, meaning that medical providers who aren't willing to terminate pregnancies wouldn't have to -- nor would they have to facilitate a transfer.

[propolo]

Even I couldn't possibly support this. I don't know how anyone can believe that refusing an emergency abortion that would save the life of the mother can possibly save the baby! Surely, if a fetus could viable, an early delivery that might save both mother and child should be allowed; if the fetus is not viable, letting the mother die won't save the baby either.

And what the hell is a rape that's not forcible?

[Tarrccrys]

That was another GOP idea that was floated this week and ultimately withdrawn. The premise being that abortions resulting from rape would be limited to only those rapes that Congress deem adequately violent. If it doesn't cross this new threshoold of "forcible," then the resulting baby is just a blessing and must be carried to term. The GOP clearly thinks very highly of women.

[Zenunlild]

*takes quick second for shameless plug* The GOP must have read my book: They keep turning in the performances I gave them... I'd be more proud of the fact if it wasn't truly scary.

A woman's life should never be put in danger for the sake of something unborn.