Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

After 'forcible rape,' another abortion restriction

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
Swede Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-07-11 12:12 PM
Original message
After 'forcible rape,' another abortion restriction
Under the guise of protecting hospitals, medical clinics and health workers from discrimination because they refuse to perform abortions, H.R. 358 would let them do so without fear of penalty. The "nondiscrimination on abortion" provision is part of the nine-page Protect Life Act, an amendment to last year's health-care law introduced by seven-term Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) on Jan. 20. In a copy of the manager's amendment I obtained from a source, the odious term "forcible rape" no longer appears. But here's the problem: If enacted this bill would trump the 25-year-old law that guarantees public access to emergency care, including abortions.

In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. Section 1867 of the Social Security Act imposes specific obligations on Medicare-participating hospitals that offer emergency services to provide a medical screening examination (MSE) when a request is made for examination or treatment for an emergency medical condition (EMC), including active labor, regardless of an individual's ability to pay. Hospitals are then required to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with EMCs. If a hospital is unable to stabilize a patient within its capability, or if the patient requests, an appropriate transfer should be implemented.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2011/02/from_forcible_rape_to_nondiscr.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Omaha Steve Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-07-11 12:13 PM
Response to Original message
1. K&R!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-07-11 12:38 PM
Response to Original message
2. if medical personnel do not wish to perform ALL legal medical services, they don't need "protection
from discrimination" (since THEY are, in fact, the ones discriminating), they need to find new jobs, period. the practice of medicine is not supposed to work like a chinese menu --one from column a, two from column c--it is supposed to cover everything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dawson Leery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-07-11 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
3. See this:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 06:17 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC