Refusing Abortions in Emergencies Causes Women's Deaths
Anti-abortion zealots have for decades tossed the "murder" word at abortions. Never do they discuss women they have killed indirectly by their zealotry. As I've discussed here before, they do not discuss death risks to women because the health of women never crosses their minds.
A noteworthy news items is the Biden Administration's warning to hospitals that if they refuse to provide an abortion and this is likely to place a woman in an emergency medical condition the hospitals may be in violation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). The two hospitals warned are the Un. of Missouri, Kansas City and a St. Joeseph Missouri hospital.
The case in point was a woman whose fetus was not survivable and was headed toward sepsis and infection. Doctors said an abortion was imperative or the woman's life would soon be at risk. The hospital would not allow the abortion because nerves in fetus tissue were still firing. This, the hospital (and clergy and politicians) claimed, was a "fetal heartbeat." Missouri has a law against abortion when there is a "fetal heartbeat."
The patient had to be transported over 250 miles to Illinois for the surgery. She survived. Nevertheless, by refusing treatment the hospital (and Missouri State Legislature/Governor) might have killed her. It's strange but playing games with this woman's life is rational in forced-birth religion and politics.
I know there are anti-abortion zealots out there saying, "The hospital could have approved the abortion and no one would have been prosecuted." The hospital did not agree with this. It is Monday morning quarterbacking.
Though I'm not a lawyer, the Administration's possible use of EMTALA to force hospitals to save women's lives might not pass muster with Federal Judges who are themselves anti-abortion zealots. It was passed in the 1980's to ensure poor people were given emergency medical attention even if they did not have money to pay for it. It has been called "an unfunded mandate."
Yet, its idealism that hospitals must not turn away patients with emergency issues is present. I hope it puts pressure on hospitals and doctors to save the lives of women.
Killing a baby ... It doesn't register with you.
ReplyDeleteMatt-- Killing a baby registers with me. Killing a fetus named "baby" by the self-serving religious propaganda of clergy does not.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletetsm "do you think that if your mommy had aborted you that it would not have been you that she killed."
DeleteArguing about abortion for 50 years means I have been asked some version of that question countless times. Each time the questioner thought he/she scored a debate home run. That is a question answered by our culture. In ours what I became, a person, was not me but a part of my mother's body until I was born. As birth approaches there is another calculation. Roe v. Wade considered this calculation and left room for a mother and doctor to determine the seriousness of the circumstances that face them. In nearly every case, when a woman is in the last months of pregnancy she wants and intends to give birth. Having priest and old white men in legislatures decide the solution is whacko.
In some cultures where infant mortality is so high parents cannot emotionally allow themselves to be too attached to a birth they delay considering the baby to be an individual person until the age of two. I've seen in all these years of exchanging views about abortion those who have had religious dogma drummed into their heads for a long time cannot overcome treating the woman as an unimportant in a pregnancy. That is sad but will not change until another generation.
Many of us, unfortunately, have metaphorically characterized a born person as brainless or heartless or spineless or some combination thereof. Now we have the real McCoy’s, brainless, heartless, spineless zygote persons. I guess a root metaphor was in order. There are a few 1/3 zygotes with guns out there.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletetsm '
Delete"you were a separate body growing inside your mother's body. you can't deny that can you?"
Yes, denial is the only rational reaction. The fetus that became me when I was born would not have existed, would have died, w/o being tissue that was her body. You can't deny that can you?
Women and men drive the ship of life equally. I know that is a foreign idea to you. I'll have to make you angry again by assigning motives to the men of the clergy who espouse this nonsense about male superiority. Their motives were/are self serving. There is no other explanation for the nonsense.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteKilling a baby is the only answer in your quiver. It's disguised as (1) it's a woman's body, (2) it's healthcare, (3) it is inconvenient, (4) men have nothing to say, (5) it's not human or living, (6) it will keep me in poverty, (7) it will put me in poverty, etc.
ReplyDeleteIt kills a human being.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Deletetsm-- Complementarianism is all about holding women back from equal opportunity.
ReplyDeletecomplementarianism; = "she cooks, I eat-- I fart, she laughs".
DeleteMatt--"It's disguised as..
ReplyDeleteSorry, you have it completely backwards. The goal of keeping women in their place, their place is to not have careers outside of the home and produce lots of numbers for the church, is disguised as "one fertilized cell is a human being."
You insult my mother whose career was raising 8 children. She was a rock star. So are many, many other women who choose motherhood as their vocation in life. In other words ...
DeleteYou insult my wife.
You insult my mother-in-law.
You insult my sister.
The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. Perhaps you have forgotten that bit of ancient wisdom.
So, to sum things up, you insult women who devote their lives to raising children who generally end up being solid citizens, great mothers and fathers, charitable, loving, self-confident, etc. And you regard abortion, i.e. child-killing as all the things I mentioned above. You have a lot to make up for. Time is running out, old man. Where is the love?
Matt "You insult my mother whose career was raising 8 children."
DeletePlease quote the words of my blog or comments that insulted women whose career is being in the home raising children.
Jon wants me to quote him on his insult to women whose career is being in the home raising children.
DeleteI don't have to go any further than May 4, 2023 at 8:14 AM where Jon stated ...
Sorry, you have it completely backwards. The goal of keeping women in their place, their place is to not have careers outside of the home and produce lots of numbers for the church,
There is the insult, on full display. Apparently, my Church has a goal of "keeping women in their place ...". Where is that place? Jon further states, "... their place is to not have careers outside of the home ...". Why does Jon attack motherhood in this way? Why even bring up motherhood? Why state the Church is stifling careers outside the home unless the career inside the home is not worthy? Why didn't Jon state, " ... their place is to not have careers in teaching, nursing, engineering, biology etc." unless his goal is to specifically attack motherhood as some lower form of career choice, one chosen by the Church to subjugate women.
I'm sure it comes so naturally to Jon to insult women who choose motherhood that he doesn't even think twice about it. Yes, you insulted my mother, my wife and a great many more noble women who chose motherhood.
Matt-- If you would take the trouble to read what I wrote instead of just getting angry and making false accusations, you would see I was not insulting any woman who chooses to have a career at home raising children. Clearly, I was writing about the church wanting women to be below men. Here are some quotes from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Delete"According to the intention of the Creator, therefore, the manifestation of human nature in women necessarily differs from its manifestation in man; the social spheres of interests and callings of the sexes are unlike. These distinctions can be diminished or increased by education and custom but cannot be completely annulled. Just as it is not permissible to take one sex as the standard of the other, so from the social point of view it is not allowable to confuse the vocational activities of both."
"Man is called by the Creator to this position of leader, as is shown by his entire bodily and intellectual make-up."
Matt, please read more and think more before you post. Thank you.