MoreThe House is scheduled to vote this week on a new bill that would allow federally-funded hospitals that oppose abortions to refuse to perform the procedure, even in cases where a woman would die without it.Under current law, every hospital that receives Medicare or Medicaid money is legally required to provide emergency care to any patient in need, regardless of his or her financial situation. If a hospital is unable to provide what the patient needs — including a life-saving abortion — it has to transfer the patient to a hospital that can.Under H.R. 358, dubbed the “Protect Life Act” and sponsored by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), hospitals that don’t want to provide abortions could refuse to do so, even for a pregnant woman with a life-threatening complication that requires a doctor terminate her pregnancy. This provision would apply to the more than 600 Catholic hospitals governed by the Catholic Health Association, which are regulated by bishops and prohibited from performing abortions.
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
this is probably one area that i have to agree with those lefties. abortions are usually gotten by the scum of the earth. why would we want the scum reproducing anyway? the solution that would help everyone, if you get an abortion, your tubes must be tied. think of all the lives not ruined. think of the money saved by the parents (even if its just child support or baby needs). think of the public's taxpayer money saved by not going to WIC, welfare, HUD, assistance of any other sort, orphanage, etc... its win-win for everyone involved!
ReplyDeleteWHO gets paid to come up with these names? The "Protect Life Act" that could result in the DEATH of a woman (through no fault of her own)?? The "Patriot Act", which no real patriot would EVER support? It's like Congress has a special knack for telling us a bill is something that it's not...or they think that the serfs are so stupid that they can CALL something anything they want and if it SOUNDS good, we'll fall for it. Every time.
ReplyDeletehmmm; we can have a bill that would "let women die", but not a bill that would "let babies live". this doesn't even make sense. by the way, 12 demos voted for this bill.
ReplyDeletei say let babies live. if women want to die that's their choice. babies have no choice.
There is no reason women can't go to a back street abortions clinic as they did years back. They were very cost effective, and close to home. Leaving a small carbon foot print and environmently friendly.
ReplyDeleteUntil our country embraces the sanctity of human life our problems will continue to escalate.
ReplyDeleteI have a friend that was battling cancer that started and spread through her lymph nodes. She was pregnant during the diagnosis. She already had a life threatening situation on her hands. The doctors all agreed she needed to get an abortion, because the chemo would cause tramatic effects on the baby, and also, they believed trying to carry the baby would kill here. You mean to tell me, when it comes to a life threatening situation, where neither would benefit for the good, that she shouldn't of had that abortion. And i don't believe she needed to have her tubes tied because of it because she's 27 years old and would like to have children later when she's healthy and do so
ReplyDeleteAnyone who thinks an unborn life is more important than a born life is horrible.
ReplyDeleteHardest thing my friend's daughter out west ever had to do was terminate her pregnancy but it would have killed her then to continue it.
Five years later her health improved and she is the ecstatic mom of a 2-year-old.
But keep telling yourselves how "pro-life" you are.
Liberal propaganda.
ReplyDelete4:29 any worse than the tons of crud that come out of conservative propaganda?
ReplyDelete