Halp Easy web blogging sites

there's always the old shove down the stairs

You say that, but there is actually a bill being debated that if it's a choice between having an emergency abortion to save the mother, perhaps from getting shoved down the stairs, the law would be to let the mother recover with the baby.

No joke.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/joe-pitts-protect-life-act-abortion

Supporters of abortion rights say Pitts' latest effort would allow doctors and hospitals to refuse to perform any abortion, even one that was needed to save the life of a pregnant woman. A Pitts spokesman told Talking Points Memo on Friday that the bill simply clarifies existing law and suggested that the new measure does not go beyond current law. (That's the same claim that defenders of the "forcible rape" language made before ultimately scrapping it.) But contra Pitts' attempt to downplay the new provision, a close look shows that it may change what hospitals are required to do in the very rare cases when an abortion is needed to save a woman's life—and the provision itself may even be unconstitutional.


Advertise on MotherJones.com

As it stands right now, a pregnant woman with a life-threatening condition cannot be turned away by a hospital, even if her condition requires a doctor to abort her child. A federal law, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), requires hospitals that receive federal funds (almost all of them do) to provide you with emergency treatment or transfer you to a hospital that can. Pitts' provision would trump that law, allowing a doctor to not only deny an abortion to a dying pregnant woman but to also refuse to transfer that woman to a place where she might be able to receive an abortion. In fact, the hospital would not be required to do anything at all.
 
Sigh. Well that's not okay. What am I going to do in place of the abortions I get on a regular basis?

69667-falcon_punch.jpg