GOP Protect Life Act...doesn't.

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
podbaydoor
Posts: 7548
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:16 am UTC
Location: spaceship somewhere out there

GOP Protect Life Act...doesn't.

Postby podbaydoor » Sat Feb 05, 2011 12:44 am UTC

So now for round 2 in the "we value fetuses over women" war:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011 ... ortion.php

Spoiler:
The controversy over "forcible rape" may be over, but now there's a new Republican-sponsored abortion bill in the House that pro-choice folks say may be worse: this time around, the new language would allow hospitals to let a pregnant woman die rather than perform the abortion that would save her life.

The bill, known currently as H.R. 358 or the "Protect Life Act," would amend the 2010 health care reform law that would modify the way The Affordable Care Act deals with abortion coverage. Much of its language is modeled on the so-called Stupak Amendment, an anti-abortion provision pro-life Democrats attempted to insert into the reform law during the health care debate last year. But critics say a new language inserted into the bill just this week would go far beyond Stupak, allowing hospitals that receive federal funds but are opposed to abortions to turn away women in need of emergency pregnancy termination to save their lives.

The sponsor of H.R. 358, Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) is a vocal member of the House's anti-abortion wing. A member of the bipartisan Pro-Life Caucus and a co-sponsor of H.R 3 -- the bill that added "forcible rape" to the lexicon this week -- Pitts is no stranger to the abortion debate. But pro-choice advocates say his new law goes farther than any other bill has in encroaching on the rights of women to obtain an abortion when their health is at stake. They say the bill is giant leap away from accepted law, and one they haven't heard many in the pro-life community openly discuss before.

Pitts' response to the complaints from pro-choice groups? Nothing to see here.

"Since the 1970s, existing law affirmed the right to refuse involvement in abortion in all circumstances," a spokesperson for Pitts told TPM.

"The Protect Life Act simply extends these provisions to the new law by inserting a provision that mirrors Hyde-Weldon," the spokesperson added, referring to current federal law banning spending on abortion and allowing anti-abortion doctors to refrain from performing them while still receiving federal funds. "In other words, this bill is only preserving the same rights that medical professionals have had for decades."

A bit of backstory: currently, all hospitals in America that receive Medicare or Medicaid funding are bound by a 1986 law known as EMTALA to provide emergency care to all comers, regardless of their ability to pay or other factors. Hospitals do not have to provide free care to everyone that arrives at their doorstep under EMTALA -- but they do have to stabilize them and provide them with emergency care without factoring in their ability to pay for it or not. If a hospital can't provide the care a patient needs, it is required to transfer that patient to a hospital that can, and the receiving hospital is required to accept that patient.

In the case of an anti-abortion hospital with a patient requiring an emergency abortion, ETMALA would require that hospital to perform it or transfer the patient to someone who can. (The nature of how that procedure works exactly is up in the air, with the ACLU calling on the federal government to state clearly that unwillingness to perform an abortion doesn't qualify as inability under EMTALA. That argument is ongoing, and the government has yet to weigh in.)

Pitts' new bill would free hospitals from any abortion requirement under EMTALA, meaning that medical providers who aren't willing to terminate pregnancies wouldn't have to -- nor would they have to facilitate a transfer.

The hospital could literally do nothing at all, pro-choice critics of Pitts' bill say.

"This is really out there," Donna Crane, policy director at NARAL Pro-Choice America told TPM. "I haven't seen this before."

Crane said she's been a pro-choice advocate "for a long time," yet she's never seen anti-abortion bill as brazenly attacking the health of the mother exemption as Pitts' bill has. NARAL has fired up its lobbying machinery and intends to make the emergency abortion language a key part of its fight against the Pitts bill when it goes before subcommittee in the House next week.

Pitts' office says they're unmoved by NARAL's concerns. They say the goal of their bill is to codify existing legal protections for medical providers who do not want to perform abortions, such as the Weldon Amendment.

"NARAL and other abortion rights groups have vigorously opposed any conscience protection legislation, it is no surprise that they would attack the Protect Life Act with the same old talking points," a Pitts spokesperson said.

To be sure, advocates from the anti-abortion medical community are rallying around the bill. Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association -- which is not always in lockstep with the pro-life community when it comes to the health care reform law -- penned a letter to Pitts last week praising the bill for its "additions to the conscience protections which hospitals and health care providers already have."

But pro-choice advocates say that the new provisions in the Pitts effectively eliminate the right of critically ill women to obtain an abortion to save their lives. That goes beyond the commonly accepted understanding of "conscience protections" for pro-life health providers.

"I think a majority of Americans would agree with us that saving a woman's life should be every hospital's first priority," Alexa Kolbi-Molina, an attorney with the ACLU's reproductive freedom division said. "We all know a woman who has faced a complication in her pregnancy ... we would hope that when that woman goes to a hospital she would be protected and get the care that she needs."

"I think a majority of Americans would believe that a hospital should not be imposing their religious beliefs when providing care, especially life-saving care," she added.


So if I understand correctly, if a pregnant woman is dying and in need of an abortion to save her life, previously under "conscience protection" hospitals who receive federal funds who wouldn't perform abortions were at least required to transfer the woman to a hospital that would. Under this new bill, these hospitals are no longer required to do that much. To lift a single finger to save this person's life.

"Protect Life"? "Conscience protection"? How could anybody have a woman's death on their conscience and feel righteous about it?
tenet |ˈtenit|
noun
a principle or belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy : the tenets of classical liberalism.
tenant |ˈtenənt|
noun
a person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.

User avatar
Midnight
Posts: 2170
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:53 am UTC
Location: Twixt hither and thither. Ergo, Jupiter.

Re: GOP Protect Life Act...doesn't.

Postby Midnight » Sat Feb 05, 2011 12:56 am UTC

Just wanna point out that the names of bills are totally irrelevant. The act that created the interstate system was called the defense act. Post-9/11 they called it the PATRIOT act and turned that into an absurd backronym.
Which is why I think Obama should've called his medicare expansion either "the expansion of medicare" or "The Patriot Protector Act"
uhhhh fuck.

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: GOP Protect Life Act...doesn't.

Postby mmmcannibalism » Sat Feb 05, 2011 1:14 am UTC

So conscientious objection now extends to the doctrine that kill 2 save zero is a good idea?

What the fuck are they doing.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: GOP Protect Life Act...doesn't.

Postby Malice » Sat Feb 05, 2011 1:43 am UTC

podbaydoor wrote:"Protect Life"? "Conscience protection"? How could anybody have a woman's death on their conscience and feel righteous about it?


Presumably they see a difference between not helping somebody who asks for it, allowing them by inaction to die, and actively killing someone, even to save a life.

So much for the Hippocratic Oath. Maybe we should swear doctors to the Three Laws of Robotics.
Image

User avatar
Bubbles McCoy
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:49 am UTC
Location: California

Re: GOP Protect Life Act...doesn't.

Postby Bubbles McCoy » Sat Feb 05, 2011 1:47 am UTC

Appalling as the law may be, I'm not sure if bringing up the Hippocratic Oath while speaking favorably of abortion is quite advisable...

User avatar
Aikanaro
Posts: 1801
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 1:43 pm UTC
Location: Saint Louis, MO

Re: GOP Protect Life Act...doesn't.

Postby Aikanaro » Sat Feb 05, 2011 1:49 am UTC

Malice wrote:
podbaydoor wrote:"Protect Life"? "Conscience protection"? How could anybody have a woman's death on their conscience and feel righteous about it?


Presumably they see a difference between not helping somebody who asks for it, allowing them by inaction to die, and actively killing someone, even to save a life.

So much for the Hippocratic Oath. Maybe we should swear doctors to the Three Laws of Robotics.

They'd have to be coded VERY carefully, or else they'd go into lockup in those kinds of situations.

Also, the medical profession expects most doctors to practically BE robots, anyway my gf is a pediatrician and starting to hate her job. Not the patients, the insanely long hours and the coworkers.
Dear xkcd,

On behalf of my religion, I'm sorry so many of us do dumb shit. Please forgive us.

Love, Aikanaro.

dedwrekka
Posts: 152
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 10:39 am UTC

Re: GOP Protect Life Act...doesn't.

Postby dedwrekka » Sat Feb 05, 2011 2:22 am UTC

Bubbles McCoy wrote:Appalling as the law may be, I'm not sure if bringing up the Hippocratic Oath while speaking favorably of abortion is quite advisable...


Agreed, in the relevant situation* it's a catch-22 anyways. You save the fetus but lose the mother, or you lose the fetus and save the mother. In that situation even the three laws of robotics would be unable to help, because it would violate the first two laws completely whichever choice you took and any attempt to make them do it anyways would violate the third.

Though I will point out that the Hippocratic oath is not a requirement to practice medicine.

*The relevant situation being a choice between the mother or the child: Due to complications in a pregnancy, the mother is made ill, and is unlikely to recover or survive necessary surgery to keep the fetus alive. However, an abortion would allow the mother to live and recover.
Last edited by dedwrekka on Sat Feb 05, 2011 2:29 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
minno
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 11:33 pm UTC
Location: Where you least expect it.

Re: GOP Protect Life Act...doesn't.

Postby minno » Sat Feb 05, 2011 2:29 am UTC

dedwrekka wrote:
Bubbles McCoy wrote:Appalling as the law may be, I'm not sure if bringing up the Hippocratic Oath while speaking favorably of abortion is quite advisable...


Agreed, in the relevant situation* it's a catch-22 anyways. You save the fetus but lose the mother, or you lose the fetus and save the mother. In that situation even the three laws of robotics would be unable to help, because it would violate the first two laws completely whichever choice you took and any attempt to make them do it anyways would violate the third.

*The relevant situation being a choice between the mother or the child: Due to complications in a pregnancy, the mother is made ill, and is unlikely to recover or survive necessary surgery to keep the fetus alive. However, an abortion would allow the mother to live and recover.


Or you lose the mother, and the fetus isn't developed enough to live. That falls under this bill's actions too.
If you fight fire with fire, you'll get twice as burned.

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: GOP Protect Life Act...doesn't.

Postby omgryebread » Sat Feb 05, 2011 2:52 am UTC

Read it for yourself:
H.R. 358, Section 2, Paragraph g wrote:‘(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.
As I read it, even any state that wants to provide assistance to hospitals can't withdraw their own state funds from hospitals that refuse to provide or even provide referrals for abortions without losing ACA funding for that state. So much for state's rights, Republicans?

This whole bill is scary. Section 2 Paragraph C seems to me to imply that anyone getting a subsidy to pay for their private health care could not get one that covers abortion.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-358
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

engr
Posts: 322
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 3:08 am UTC

Re: GOP Protect Life Act...doesn't.

Postby engr » Sat Feb 05, 2011 4:35 am UTC

dedwrekka wrote:
Bubbles McCoy wrote:Appalling as the law may be, I'm not sure if bringing up the Hippocratic Oath while speaking favorably of abortion is quite advisable...


Agreed, in the relevant situation* it's a catch-22 anyways.


I believe Bubbles McCoy was referring to the fact that Hippocratic oath specifically prohibited a doctor from performing abortion.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. Gilbert K. Chesterton

Wodashin
Posts: 488
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 6:54 am UTC

Re: GOP Protect Life Act...doesn't.

Postby Wodashin » Sat Feb 05, 2011 4:57 am UTC

Some Republicans believe that abortion is baby murder. Obviously from their stand-point, a pro-baby-murder agenda is a bad thing, from their perspective. SO, this isn't that crazy coming from them seeing as they feel the way they do. :|

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: GOP Protect Life Act...doesn't.

Postby Garm » Sat Feb 05, 2011 5:07 am UTC

engr wrote:
dedwrekka wrote:
Bubbles McCoy wrote:Appalling as the law may be, I'm not sure if bringing up the Hippocratic Oath while speaking favorably of abortion is quite advisable...


Agreed, in the relevant situation* it's a catch-22 anyways.


I believe Bubbles McCoy was referring to the fact that Hippocratic oath specifically prohibited a doctor from performing abortion.


Where? I'm reading it on the modern version and there's no prohibition against abortion. The original version did, sure, but we've moved on in the world.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

engr
Posts: 322
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 3:08 am UTC

Re: GOP Protect Life Act...doesn't.

Postby engr » Sat Feb 05, 2011 5:24 am UTC

Garm wrote:Where? I'm reading it on the modern version and there's no prohibition against abortion. The original version did, sure, but we've moved on in the world.

I was referring, of course, to the original version.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. Gilbert K. Chesterton

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: GOP Protect Life Act...doesn't.

Postby Garm » Sat Feb 05, 2011 5:28 am UTC

engr wrote:
Garm wrote:Where? I'm reading it on the modern version and there's no prohibition against abortion. The original version did, sure, but we've moved on in the world.

I was referring, of course, to the original version.


Which our doctors don't use so it's relevant why? Let me guess... is this one of those Leviticus things? "hey guys, at one point, someone said that dudes should have sex with each other. That totally goes for today too."
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: GOP Protect Life Act...doesn't.

Postby Xeio » Sat Feb 05, 2011 5:30 am UTC

Wodashin wrote:Some Republicans believe that abortion is baby murder. Obviously from their stand-point, a pro-baby-murder agenda is a bad thing, from their perspective. SO, this isn't that crazy coming from them seeing as they feel the way they do. :|
No, it's still crazy, because they're saying you should let a person die because the medical procedure that saves their life would cause the death of the another... except that the other is dead either way, so you're only real choice is whether or not you think person 1 should be saved. This legislation says no, they should die, because, well, bad luck for them, their closest hospital happens to believe they should die, and is no longer required to give them life saving aid.

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: GOP Protect Life Act...doesn't.

Postby omgryebread » Sat Feb 05, 2011 6:34 am UTC

Xeio wrote:
Wodashin wrote:Some Republicans believe that abortion is baby murder. Obviously from their stand-point, a pro-baby-murder agenda is a bad thing, from their perspective. SO, this isn't that crazy coming from them seeing as they feel the way they do. :|
No, it's still crazy, because they're saying you should let a person die because the medical procedure that saves their life would cause the death of the another... except that the other is dead either way, so you're only real choice is whether or not you think person 1 should be saved. This legislation says no, they should die, because, well, bad luck for them, their closest hospital happens to believe they should die, and is no longer required to give them life saving aid.
Honestly, I don't think republicans are crazy at all with this. They know it won't pass the Senate or a veto. So no woman is ever going to die because of this bill. If one did, there'd be of course massive public outcry, and a lot of moderates would vote against republicans because of it. But because that situation will never occur, they don't have to worry about a massive public outcry. The only people who will really pay that close attention to what a no-chance bill does to a near-death woman are people who are pretty pro-choice already. So they can score some easy political points with their social conservative base by saying "we're making sure no doctor has to give an abortion against their will!" If the GOP were in control of both houses and the white house, you'd never see this (at least federally.)
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: GOP Protect Life Act...doesn't.

Postby Princess Marzipan » Sat Feb 05, 2011 6:39 am UTC

Ah. So you're saying the Republican party is basically trolling here.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
Bubbles McCoy
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:49 am UTC
Location: California

Re: GOP Protect Life Act...doesn't.

Postby Bubbles McCoy » Sat Feb 05, 2011 6:48 am UTC

Garm wrote:Which our doctors don't use so it's relevant why? Let me guess... is this one of those Leviticus things? "hey guys, at one point, someone said that dudes should have sex with each other. That totally goes for today too."

It was just a snide aside based off of a small bit of esoteric historical knowledge, let's just leave it at that.

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: GOP Protect Life Act...doesn't.

Postby omgryebread » Sat Feb 05, 2011 7:02 am UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:Ah. So you're saying the Republican party is basically trolling here.
Yeah, pretty much. Trolling seems a pretty effective strategy for the out of power party in the US, actually.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

Bright Shadows
Posts: 645
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 2:56 pm UTC

Re: GOP Protect Life Act...doesn't.

Postby Bright Shadows » Sat Feb 05, 2011 7:10 am UTC

omgryebread wrote:
Princess Marzipan wrote:Ah. So you're saying the Republican party is basically trolling here.
Yeah, pretty much. Trolling seems a pretty effective strategy for the out of power party in the US, actually.

This sort of thing doesn't strike me as trolling, per se. It's just trying to earn brownie points. That's good for any party.
Image

User avatar
Triangle_Man
WINNING
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 8:41 pm UTC
Location: CANADA

Re: GOP Protect Life Act...doesn't.

Postby Triangle_Man » Sat Feb 05, 2011 8:47 am UTC

Okay, so I'm just wondering if they are focusing too much on 'Savin ta babies' and not enough on the other effects of this bill, which have basically been outlined here...
Last edited by Triangle_Man on Sun Feb 06, 2011 4:34 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
I really should be working right now, but somehow I don't have the energy.

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:My moral system allows me to bitch slap you for typing that.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: GOP Protect Life Act...doesn't.

Postby Diadem » Sat Feb 05, 2011 3:42 pm UTC

podbaydoor wrote:So if I understand correctly, if a pregnant woman is dying and in need of an abortion to save her life, previously under "conscience protection" hospitals who receive federal funds who wouldn't perform abortions were at least required to transfer the woman to a hospital that would. Under this new bill, these hospitals are no longer required to do that much. To lift a single finger to save this person's life.

"Protect Life"? "Conscience protection"? How could anybody have a woman's death on their conscience and feel righteous about it?

Silly podbaydoor. Someone who want an abortion isn't human in the first place. She's a whore, a Satan-spawned sub-human. No good Christian girl will be negatively affected by this bill.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

Radical_Initiator
Just Cool Enough for School
Posts: 1374
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:39 pm UTC

Re: GOP Protect Life Act...doesn't.

Postby Radical_Initiator » Sat Feb 05, 2011 6:28 pm UTC

And if by some horrible twist of fate, a married, good Christian woman happens to have complications which threaten to kill her or the baby, she had her time on the planet. The baby gets precedence over everyone!
I looked out across the river today …

User avatar
podbaydoor
Posts: 7548
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:16 am UTC
Location: spaceship somewhere out there

Re: GOP Protect Life Act...doesn't.

Postby podbaydoor » Sat Feb 05, 2011 7:22 pm UTC

Wodashin wrote:Some Republicans believe that abortion is baby murder. Obviously from their stand-point, a pro-baby-murder agenda is a bad thing, from their perspective. SO, this isn't that crazy coming from them seeing as they feel the way they do. :|

I suppose my empathy is failing here. Because back when I was an anti-abortion Baptist Christian, even I conceded that in a life-or-death situation, the walking, talking human being took precedence over the almost-human being. I just wonder how a sane individual could rationalize killing a life - the thing compassionate conservatives are supposed to care about - in order to questionably save a questionable life that may not survive without the mother anyway.

What if Joe Pitts were in the hospital? What if the dying mother begged him for the abortion with her last breaths, so she could live? Would he still refuse her, to her face? Would he tell her point-blank he'd rather see her die?
tenet |ˈtenit|
noun
a principle or belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy : the tenets of classical liberalism.
tenant |ˈtenənt|
noun
a person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.

User avatar
GenericPseudonym
Posts: 206
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:30 am UTC
Location: Wherever I happen to be.

Re: GOP Protect Life Act...doesn't.

Postby GenericPseudonym » Sat Feb 05, 2011 8:17 pm UTC

I'd say, if someone were actually given a direct choice between both dying and just the fetus, they'd take steps to save the mother. The thing here, though, is that it's really a choice between action and inaction. Many folks' consciences will assign much less weight to something caused through inaction, because your subconscious can kinda hide it in a corner, saying "it's not your fault, because you didn't do anything." If someone comes right up to them and asks them to make a choice, though, it's no longer action/inaction, because they have to come right up and say they're choosing not to save her.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: GOP Protect Life Act...doesn't.

Postby Xeio » Sat Feb 05, 2011 8:54 pm UTC

GenericPseudonym wrote:I'd say, if someone were actually given a direct choice between both dying and just the fetus, they'd take steps to save the mother. The thing here, though, is that it's really a choice between action and inaction. Many folks' consciences will assign much less weight to something caused through inaction, because your subconscious can kinda hide it in a corner, saying "it's not your fault, because you didn't do anything." If someone comes right up to them and asks them to make a choice, though, it's no longer action/inaction, because they have to come right up and say they're choosing not to save her.
Except that hospitals don't have the option of "Inaction". Hospitals are required by law to provide life saving assistance. This bill would remove that requirement in this case.

Also, the hospital is already directly faced with that "choice", there isn't even an option of inaction here, it's attempt to save the mother, or watch her die because you decided she was the exception to the rule.

User avatar
podbaydoor
Posts: 7548
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:16 am UTC
Location: spaceship somewhere out there

Re: GOP Protect Life Act...doesn't.

Postby podbaydoor » Sat Feb 05, 2011 8:56 pm UTC

GenericPseudonym might have been responding to my specific proposition of putting Joe Pitts (the bill sponsor) into this hypothetical scenario in a hospital. Pitts isn't required by law to save a life that way. But yeah, it would be different for a hospital instead of a private individual.
tenet |ˈtenit|
noun
a principle or belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy : the tenets of classical liberalism.
tenant |ˈtenənt|
noun
a person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.

Wodashin
Posts: 488
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 6:54 am UTC

Re: GOP Protect Life Act...doesn't.

Postby Wodashin » Sat Feb 05, 2011 8:57 pm UTC

This might be a political ploy, one that's been done before.

Does anyone know if this bill has any parts that have nothing to do with the main point of the bill? If so, perhaps they want it to purposefully be voted down so they can point out that part and be 'Hey?! How could you possibly vote against a law that prohibits eating toddlers on live television?'. Obviously hyperbole there, but many parties have used a tactic of including insane things with perfectly normal things so they can use the vote against the bill in their commercials.

User avatar
podbaydoor
Posts: 7548
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:16 am UTC
Location: spaceship somewhere out there

Re: GOP Protect Life Act...doesn't.

Postby podbaydoor » Sat Feb 05, 2011 9:11 pm UTC

It's intended as a modification of the healthcare reform bill, as well as a "strengthening" of existing amendments. I think it is its own bill. However, I think the general consensus in this thread is that, yes, the Republicans are mostly trolling.
tenet |ˈtenit|
noun
a principle or belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy : the tenets of classical liberalism.
tenant |ˈtenənt|
noun
a person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.

juststrange
Posts: 296
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:57 pm UTC

Re: GOP Protect Life Act...doesn't.

Postby juststrange » Sat Feb 05, 2011 10:53 pm UTC

Midnight wrote:Just wanna point out that the names of bills are totally irrelevant. The act that created the interstate system was called the defense act.


Sidebar here - it was called that because thats what it was. The interstate system was developed by the government specifically for the purpose of having a consistent and reliable method to move military troops and equipment anywhere in the country rather painlessly. Eisenhower did this because when he was in the military he saw what a massive Charlie Foxtrot it was to move stuff. Those long straights? Those are for landing planes on if needed. And believe me, if the military needed to mobilize, they would shut down the highway in a heartbeat to make it happen. No misnomer there.

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: GOP Protect Life Act...doesn't.

Postby mmmcannibalism » Sat Feb 05, 2011 10:57 pm UTC

juststrange wrote:
Midnight wrote:Just wanna point out that the names of bills are totally irrelevant. The act that created the interstate system was called the defense act.


Sidebar here - it was called that because thats what it was. The interstate system was developed by the government specifically for the purpose of having a consistent and reliable method to move military troops and equipment anywhere in the country rather painlessly. Eisenhower did this because when he was in the military he saw what a massive Charlie Foxtrot it was to move stuff. Those long straights? Those are for landing planes on if needed. And believe me, if the military needed to mobilize, they would shut down the highway in a heartbeat to make it happen. No misnomer there.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... sportation
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

PossibleSloth
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 6:51 am UTC
Location: Boston (or thereabouts)

Re: GOP Protect Life Act...doesn't.

Postby PossibleSloth » Sat Feb 05, 2011 11:07 pm UTC

mmmcannibalism wrote:
juststrange wrote:
Midnight wrote:Just wanna point out that the names of bills are totally irrelevant. The act that created the interstate system was called the defense act.


Sidebar here - it was called that because thats what it was. The interstate system was developed by the government specifically for the purpose of having a consistent and reliable method to move military troops and equipment anywhere in the country rather painlessly. Eisenhower did this because when he was in the military he saw what a massive Charlie Foxtrot it was to move stuff. Those long straights? Those are for landing planes on if needed. And believe me, if the military needed to mobilize, they would shut down the highway in a heartbeat to make it happen. No misnomer there.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... sportation


Beat me to it. Oh well.
Image

User avatar
Vash
Posts: 488
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 9:14 pm UTC
Location: The planet Gunsmoke

Re: GOP Protect Life Act...doesn't.

Postby Vash » Sun Feb 06, 2011 2:40 am UTC

mmmcannibalism wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#Transportation


That is a quality Wikipedia page. Thank you.

Ninja edit: some of the corrections to the misconceptions are wrong anyway, though.
Last edited by Vash on Sun Feb 06, 2011 6:12 am UTC, edited 3 times in total.

juststrange
Posts: 296
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:57 pm UTC

Re: GOP Protect Life Act...doesn't.

Postby juststrange » Sun Feb 06, 2011 4:08 am UTC

Well darn.

The military motion part still stands: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Ai ... ct_of_1956

But yes, you're right, it seems the plane thing is bull. Don't that just beat all. Now I need to remember where it was I heard that in the first place.

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: GOP Protect Life Act...doesn't.

Postby mmmcannibalism » Sun Feb 06, 2011 5:40 am UTC

juststrange wrote:Well darn.

The military motion part still stands: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Ai ... ct_of_1956

But yes, you're right, it seems the plane thing is bull. Don't that just beat all. Now I need to remember where it was I heard that in the first place.


That plane thing is just sort of ubiquitous, it doesn't help that occasionally a small plane has in fact landed on a stretch of highway. Of course, when you already know the highways were made for the sake of aiding military travel, landing planes just seems like a logical extension once brought up in conversation.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

Chen
Posts: 5580
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: GOP Protect Life Act...doesn't.

Postby Chen » Mon Feb 07, 2011 1:11 pm UTC

I gotta wonder, even if this somehow did pass, how many doctors and/or hospitals would actually let a woman die instead of performing an abortion to save her. Seems like even with the law in place saying they COULD, they would get destroyed on a PR front to make it completely not worth it. Don't get me wrong though, its still an absolutely ridiculous thing to try and change.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: GOP Protect Life Act...doesn't.

Postby Belial » Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:34 pm UTC

When the question is "will people be awful" the safe bet is basically always "yup"
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: GOP Protect Life Act...doesn't.

Postby Heisenberg » Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:54 pm UTC

podbaydoor wrote:Would he tell her point-blank he'd rather see her die?

If I was told I needed to kill you to save my friend's life, I wouldn't do it. Similarly, if I was told I need to kill my friend to save your life, I wouldn't do it. For me, killing is wrong. I'm sorry if that offends you, and I know it doesn't make mathematical sense, but it's what I believe.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: GOP Protect Life Act...doesn't.

Postby Xeio » Mon Feb 07, 2011 3:08 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:If I was told I needed to kill you to save my friend's life, I wouldn't do it. Similarly, if I was told I need to kill my friend to save your life, I wouldn't do it. For me, killing is wrong. I'm sorry if that offends you, and I know it doesn't make mathematical sense, but it's what I believe.
They both die if you do nothing.

The choices: Save the mother, don't save the mother. There is no "Don't let anyone die".

User avatar
podbaydoor
Posts: 7548
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:16 am UTC
Location: spaceship somewhere out there

Re: GOP Protect Life Act...doesn't.

Postby podbaydoor » Mon Feb 07, 2011 3:28 pm UTC

Chen wrote:I gotta wonder, even if this somehow did pass, how many doctors and/or hospitals would actually let a woman die instead of performing an abortion to save her. Seems like even with the law in place saying they COULD, they would get destroyed on a PR front to make it completely not worth it. Don't get me wrong though, its still an absolutely ridiculous thing to try and change.

I think there was a recent news item where the Catholic Church excommunicated a nun who was on the board of a hospital that decided to save a woman's life through a necessary abortion. Excommunicated the nun for saving someone's life. Yes, people are that awful.
tenet |ˈtenit|
noun
a principle or belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy : the tenets of classical liberalism.
tenant |ˈtenənt|
noun
a person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 23 guests