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.
(visit the link for the full news article)
WASHINGTON – Engulfed by criticisms from women's advocates, House Republicans have reportedly given up on legislative language that would deny some rape victims the ability to seek federally-assisted abortion coverage.
But according to the leading abortion rights group NARAL, a new version of a related bill would allow hospitals to deny abortion care to a woman even if her life is in danger. (NARAL obtained an advance copy of the new markup.)
A spokesperson for NARAL told Raw Story that Republicans have added a provision to H.R 358, the "Protect Life Act," sponsored by Rep. Joseph P
Originally posted by Arista
What really boggles my mind is that the same people that want the government to issue legislation about abortions, make them "illegal", ect. are some of the same shills that are screaming about the interference of "Obamacare" with their slogans like "stay out of my doctor's office"
Originally posted by SevenBeans
Originally posted by Arista
What really boggles my mind is that the same people that want the government to issue legislation about abortions, make them "illegal", ect. are some of the same shills that are screaming about the interference of "Obamacare" with their slogans like "stay out of my doctor's office"
What really boggles my mind is that so many people apparently can't read, or think... doesn't appear that this would "deny abortions to women" at all, it simply gives providers the freedom to offer the service or not.
Originally posted by Arista
The way the 'script drug "overhaul" granted pharmacists the right to deny BC to women based on their personal religious views? Denial of ACCESS is defacto denial of procedure - nice way to get around what is ultimately a LEGAL medical procedure.
Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
While abortion is a very divisive issue to begin with, I think that MOST people agree it is NESSASARY in life threatening situations. This is basically a death sentence for women who end up in this situation, should the bill pass. God forbid it does.
IMO, abortion in cases of rape, incest, and life and death situations should be allowed.
www.rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)edit on 3-2-2011 by v1rtu0s0 because: (no reason given)
‘(c) Limitation on Abortion Funding- ‘(1) IN GENERAL- No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), including credits applied toward qualified health plans under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or cost-sharing reductions under section 1402 of 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 occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of 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 DelMar
I don't see anywhere in the bill where it says a woman will not be able to get an abortion if she chooses to have one. Maybe I missed it, can someone point it out to me?
But according to the leading abortion rights group NARAL, a new version of a related bill would allow hospitals to deny abortion care to a woman even if her life is in danger. (NARAL obtained an advance copy of the new markup.)
A spokesperson for NARAL told Raw Story that Republicans have added a provision to H.R 358, the "Protect Life Act," sponsored by Rep. Joseph Pitts (R-PA), to amend the Affordable Care Act in a way that could preclude women in life-threatening situations from receiving an abortion.