It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

House Passes "Let Women Die" Act of 2011

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Quick !!

Quick !!

Some body build a "way-back machine".

Then we can go back about 40 or 50 years and let their mothers be the ones in trouble with their pregnancy.




posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by narwahl
 


What works is not having children when you know you can't afford them how hard is it to understand that?

meh


You don't get it.
This bill allows hospitals to object to an abortion on "moral grounds".
No matter wether the mother lives or not.
Miscarriage
It happens, and it can be life threatening.
Good luck, shopping for a hospital, that will not object to saving your life, while you are bleeding to death.
But hey: You took the risk of wanting to have a kid, you only have yourself to blame, right?



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by vatel
 


While they are worrying about babies that might be born maybe they sould worry about the ones that already have been born. There are at least 1.5 million starve to death every year. There are approximately 1 million children who aare sex slaves. There are at least 1 million children who go missing every year. There are approximately 57,000 who are killed to physical abuse every year. Also the thread claims that it is the women not the aborted fetuses that woul die on the floor. There are so many types of birth contol there really is no good reason for many unwanted pregnancies in this country. So why so many abortions in the first place?



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by narwahl
 


What i get is that billions of people have been born without the need of hospitals for centuries all over this world but pay no nevermind to that fact and please there is no hospital in existence that will let any person die without doing everything humanly possible to save their life.

give me a break.
edit on 14-10-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


there's been alot of people who have set broken bones, without medical assistance also, so well...
if you ever break a bone, save us all some money, and fix it yourself!!!

www.msnbc.msn.com...

edit on 14-10-2011 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by narwahl
 


What i get is that billions of people have been born without the need of hospitals for centuries all over this world but pay no nevermind to that fact and please there is no hospital in existence that will let any person die without doing everything humanly possible to save their life.

give me a break.
edit on 14-10-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


Thanks for giving me a laugh!
An emergency room measure, I will not going to get paid for, because the fed may not, and insurance can opt out, and a strong interest group will approve... how long will I need to find a "moral reason" not to do it, and send the lady on her way?
I mean, she can sue me if she survives.

As for: Hundreds of years, giving birth to a child was no big deal:


The historical level of maternal deaths is probably around 1 in 100 births.[15] Mortality rates reached very high levels in maternity institutions in the 1800s, sometimes climbing to 40 percent of birthgiving women.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by narwahl
 


Are we forgetting the fact that the majority if not all doctors and nurses are liberals?

come on go bark up someone elses tree tired of this already.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by narwahl
 


yeap your right republicans want all woman to die.... doctors are just going to sit there and let women die on the floor.

This bill is to stop federal funding of abortions and birth control. women are not going to die because of it



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
articles.cnn.com...:US

www.youtube.com...

naa...never would happen!!



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by narwahl
 


Are we forgetting the fact that the majority if not all doctors and nurses are liberals?

come on go bark up someone elses tree tired of this already.


So.... you are saying "No matter the law, they will do the right thing because they are liberals"?
wait...
What???

(And: Doctors are one of the repubs last strongholds)



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Narwahl,

I'm sorry, but you're not presenting things correctly. The bill deals with INDUCED abortions. A miscarriage is not an induced abortion. Further, the bill allows federal funds to be used to pay for insurance to cover abortions when the mother's life is threatened. Abortion is allowed by every religion I know of in order to save a mother's life.

Originally posted by narwahl

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by narwahl
 


What works is not having children when you know you can't afford them how hard is it to understand that?

meh


You don't get it.
This bill allows hospitals to object to an abortion on "moral grounds".
No matter wether the mother lives or not.
Miscarriage
It happens, and it can be life threatening.
Good luck, shopping for a hospital, that will not object to saving your life, while you are bleeding to death.
But hey: You took the risk of wanting to have a kid, you only have yourself to blame, right?



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by narwahl
 


Since when has laws ever mattered to liberals?

So yeah that's what i'm saying.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
articles.cnn.com...:US

www.youtube.com...

naa...never would happen!!


hahaha, im a bad person, i opened the link and started laughing when i seen the person knocked out under the chair. i was not expecting to open a link and see a dead person on the floor. Im not laughing because she is dead. im laughing because you found a news clip were someone died on a hospital floor just to prove me wrong.

yeah you got me. ill give you a star for that. a laid has died on the floor in a hospital and you have a picture.

edit on 14-10-2011 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   
one more link, just to let the ladies know just how much power they have.....


articles.cnn.com...:WORLD



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
Narwahl,

I'm sorry, but you're not presenting things correctly. The bill deals with INDUCED abortions. A miscarriage is not an induced abortion. Further, the bill allows federal funds to be used to pay for insurance to cover abortions when the mother's life is threatened. Abortion is allowed by every religion I know of in order to save a mother's life.

Originally posted by narwahl]



Actually: No religon has anything to say about abortions, which have been around pretty much as long as women got pregnant.
There is one passage in the bible, that says if you punch a pregnant woman, and she looses her child, you have to reimburse her husband, but that's pretty much the it.
Still this bill offers hospitals the opportunity to send a woman on her way, even if she is in a life threatening condition, and to insurances to not cover this procedure.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by redrose123
 


i was never stating my opinion for abortion or against abortion ...
i just serve you a dish you would like or not ...
in my eyes i see some similar historical human rights issues in the future here,
with some historical proof, cloaked of course, but I see the direction predicted ...
and i am really concerned.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Dear Narwahl,

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you.

Originally posted by narwahl
Actually: No religon has anything to say about abortions, which have been around pretty much as long as women got pregnant.
I thought the Catholic Church was pretty strongly against abortions.

Still this bill offers hospitals the opportunity to send a woman on her way, even if she is in a life threatening condition, and to insurances to not cover this procedure.
This section shows that taxpayer money can be used to cover some abortions.


‘(c) Limitation on Abortion Funding-
‘(1) IN GENERAL- No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act . . . may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except--
(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, physical 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.


And if you go to the bill (section g) you'll see that the bill does not apply to miscarriages, only induced abortions.
govtrack

With respect,
charles1952



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 
The problem I've got is that the actual bill doesn't seem to say quite the same thing as interpreted in the article - which is why I asked you to review the bill itself.

The part they seem to be talking about is:

‘(g) Nondiscrimination on Abortion-
‘(1) NONDISCRIMINATION- A Federal agency or program, and any State or local government that receives Federal financial assistance under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), may not subject any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination, or require any health plan created or regulated under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) to subject any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination, on the basis that the health care entity refuses to--

‘(A) undergo training in the performance of induced abortions;

‘(B) require or provide such training;

‘(C) perform, participate in, provide coverage of, or pay for induced abortions; or

‘(D) provide referrals for such training or such abortions.


That doesn't seem to be quite the open door for this sweeping disregard of endangered life as discussed in the article, honestly.

I think the assumptions made in OP article interpret this a tad too wildly.


Actually if you read the Congressional record regarding this bill you will find that the assumptions made by the OP are actually voiced by members of Congress in their interpretation of this bill. It's actually a bit disturbing to read as those opposing the bill as it is currently written, requested that it be altered to state:

Page H6901 of Congressional Record

(h) Protecting the Life of the Mother in a Medical Emergency.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to exempt any hospital or health care provider from Federal or State laws that require such hospital or provider to provide medical examination, treatment, referral, or transfer to prevent the death of a pregnant woman with an emergency medical condition.''


But that change in wording to protect women in emergency or life threatening situations was struck down. A number of members expressed opinions similar to the following:

Page H6892 of Congressional Record

The Protect Life Act also ensures that medical providers and workers are not discriminated against for refusing to perform abortions. These protections are crucial for health care providers around the Nation whose core values include a deeply held belief that we must protect all human life. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Protect Life Act.


Reading through the record the interpretation of those opposed to amending the bill as mentioned in the first link, the bill does allow hospitals or medical providers to refuse life saving measures for a woman if those measures require a pregnancy to be aborted (ie; an ectopic pregnancy, etc)



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Pixiefyre
 


I really like your work, hate to admit it but I forgot the Congressional Record.

Please straighten me out here. I got the impression from your last paragraph (I think it was) that the interpretation of the minority opposition was significant in determining the bill's meaning. Do I understand you correctly?



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Pixiefyre
 


I really like your work, hate to admit it but I forgot the Congressional Record.

Please straighten me out here. I got the impression from your last paragraph (I think it was) that the interpretation of the minority opposition was significant in determining the bill's meaning. Do I understand you correctly?


Sorry I might not have been very clear in that. The minority opposition requested that the bill be amended to protect women in cases of medical emergencies.

The majority endorsing the bill were determining the bills meaning, allowing medical providers to refuse that treatment. This majority opposed amending the bill to protect women in cases of medical emergencies.
edit on 10/14/11 by Pixiefyre because: further clarification



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join