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.
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
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)
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.
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.
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?
Originally posted by dawnstar
articles.cnn.com...:US
www.youtube.com...
naa...never would happen!!
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]
I thought the Catholic Church was pretty strongly against abortions.
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.
This section shows that taxpayer money can be used to cover some 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.
‘(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.
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.
(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.''
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.
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?