Saturday, February 05, 2011

More Republican Misogyny

Congressional Republicans decided to change their minds and removed the wording in the new abortion bill limiting federal insurance coverage for reproductive services after rape to instances where the rape was "forcible." Under the new wording, women will not have to show bruises or broken bones in order to get reimbursed for the procedure. But these guys just can't help themselves.

The Boston Globe has the latest:
A companion bill, sponsored by Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania, also dropped its restrictive rape and incest provisions, but a new, equally upsetting clause was added. This would allow exemptions from the federal law requiring hospitals to perform emergency surgery — if the surgery is an abortion. So if a pregnant woman is hemorrhaging or has another life-threatening condition and needs an emergency abortion, hospitals could simply refuse.

“The fact that they would put in such a totally unacceptable provision and then swap it out for something that puts women’s lives in danger shows that they think very little of women,’’ said Donna Crane, policy director for the abortion-rights group NARAL, in Washington. “They think our lives are worth jeopardizing for their politics.’’

Federal bans on funding for abortion have been in place since the Hyde amendment took effect in 1977. Under its provisions, poor women cannot get abortions funded through the federal portion of Medicaid, and federal employees, including women serving in the military and the Peace Corps, cannot obtain abortions through their government health plans. Both the Smith and Pitts bills would make the Hyde amendment a federal statute; currently, it must be reauthorized every year.

More recently, abortion opponents have been trying to expand “federal funding’’ to include any of the subsidies or tax breaks offered to Americans who buy health insurance. The Smith bill effectively bars any private insurance plan that covers abortion procedures from participating in the so-called exchanges set up under the new health care law. And it would not allow anyone whose insurance plan covers abortion — including the self-employed, small businesses, or even men — to claim tax deductions or credits for their premium payments. These are obvious disincentives to insurance companies offering abortion services.

A few of these end-runs around the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion were tried — and failed — during congressional debate on the health care bill last year. But the provision taking aim at life-saving emergency care is a new low. In their zeal, these House Republicans are willing to burden desperate, traumatized women with new hurdles to prove themselves worthy of legal medical care. Archaic attitudes in abortion bill

Because this is an amendment to a bill, the new wording is not posted online yet for the public to read.

RH Reality Check adds:
...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.

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. Protecting Life? New Bill Says Its OK to Let Women Die

Under the proposed law, if a woman's life is in danger and the doctor has to choose between saving the fetus and saving the woman, he or she may choose to kill the mother with impunity.

First, they wanted a law that says if a man rapes a woman who has federal insurance coverage, and he doesn't leave marks or visible injuries proving the rape was forcible, and she is impregnated, then she will be forced to give birth to his baby unless she can afford the cost of an abortion out of pocket. Now they want to allow hospitals to let a woman die rather than terminate her pregnancy

Are you detecting a theme here?


Anonymous Anonymous said...

"A few of these end-runs around the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion were tried — and failed — during congressional debate on the health care bill last year."

well, a bunch of lunatics in the seventies found the right to kill your child if it's inconvenient to be in the constitution

they didn't decide its cost was a government entitlement

but forget the end-arounds: let's just obliterate this evil 73 ruling

"Are you detecting a theme here?"

yes, heroic attempts to save lives

February 06, 2011 6:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Way to go Republicans!

February 06, 2011 10:34 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home