GOP pushing anti-abortion bill that can threaten the lives of pregnent women

[Moonbeam]

For a party that campaigned on "jobs, jobs, jobs" the GOP sure seems to be into social engineering. This is the seventh abortion restricting bill they passed this year-while having yet to do anything at all regarding job creation (except attack anything Obama presents).

They are only whipping the base to froth up campaign donations, murdering women for money like the scum that they are.

 

[wetech]

So what does discriminate in this sense mean then?

doesn't specify, but I'd wager not being able to penalize hospitals by withholding funds, additional regulations / requirements, etc.

 

[Fern]

If they're not objecting to making the referral, then why is existing law "forcing Catholic hospitals out as Medicaid providers?" The existing law gives them a choice to make the referral. You're not making sense.

The idea that they object to the referral seems like common sense to me. If you think abortion is murder, you aren't going to want to facillitate it.

The rest of your post is speculating that they'll make the referral anyway even if it isn't required by law. If they really don't mind and are going to do it anyway, then this law is pointless. If the law has any meaning, it is freeing them from having to do something that they in fact do not want to do, and will not do, at least in some cases.

- wolf

I think this confusion, or difference of opinion in what is at stake here arises from (another) another poorly written article.

I'll try to summerize the issue based on the article and some other info.

1. The issue is providing abortion services.

2. The issue is only about Hospitals that are Medicaid (and Medicare) providers.

3. The focus is on Catholic hospitals who are medicaid providers.

OK, then we have the info about a Catholic hospital that provided an abortion to a patient whose life was in danger. This is against Catholic principals and the hospital administrator was fired from her job and kicked out of the Catholic church.

I'm saying current law required that church to perform the abortion service. to conclude otherwise means the Sister, acting under NO requirement of the law, decided contrary to Catholic policy to perform an abortion anyway. If so, the story is about a rogue Catholic hospital administrator and has nothing to do with current law and the article is so flawed it should be dismissed in it's entirety.

Why would I say the catholic hospital is required to perform the abortions if it wants to continue providing Medicaid services?

The article mentions the Hyde Amendment, but without any details or explanations (again, crappy article). here's info on the Hyde Amendment:

The present version of the Hyde Amendment requires coverage of abortion in cases of rape, incest, and life endangerment.

Read more at http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/public_funding.html

Medicaid requirement(s) according to the article:

Under current law, every hospital that receives Medicare or Medicaid money is legally required to provide emergency care to any patient in need, regardless of his or her financial situation.

If the hospital wants to be a medicaid service provider it must provide the abortion service, in accordance with Hyde, under emergency situations as required by Medicaid. Thus we have the example of Sister Margaret McBride. The hospitals' other option is to cease being a Medicaid provider.

I have some personal experience with this (being a Medicaid provider etc.). I was part owner of a durable medical goods company. Durable medical goods are tangible medical products not including drugs and include things like wheelchairs, crutches, oxygen, bandages, slings etc.

Let's look at motorized wheelchairs for my example. If you're a medicaid provider you must follow all their rules, including pricing. I noticed that medicaid would allow us to charge $800 for a motorized wheelchair (WC) when our costs was $1,200. We're losing money. I told the manager we will stop selling WC to Medicaid patients. I was told "NO". If we stop that we will lose our status as a Medicaid service provider and we sell to many too many other products to Medicaid patients at a profit so "no" we don't want to that.

Accordingly, I assume, and I think fairly so, that if a full service Catholic hospital refuses to provide an abortion service as authorized under Hyde and mandated by Medicaid policy the hospital faces losing it's status as a Medicaid provider.

This is why I characterize this as a situation where we either permit Catholic hospitals to refuse emergency abortions or lose them as Medicaid providers.

-------------------------

The referral aspect seems a secondary issue to me. Abortions as allowed by Hyde permit them in cases of rape or incest. However, those are not "emergency" abortions. (Emergencies are required under Medicaid policy). Accordingly, I believe the Catholic hospitals are merely required to provide referrals in such non-emergency situations. As you point out, this is likely offensive to Catholics so this bill's provision would release them from this non-emergency requirement.

Fern

 

[Fern]

So what does discriminate in this sense mean then?

In this case it means those Catholic hospitals cannot be denied as Medicaid service providers.

This whole thing is about being allowed to treat Medicaid patients. To do so, you must 'sign-up' with Medicaid and be approved. Thereafter, you're admitted into the program as a service provider and issued a 'billing' number. Without this paperwork, approval and billing number, you can not bill Medicaid for services provided to Medicaid patients. (Well, you can but you'll be ignored and get no money anyway.)

Not just any hospital, doctor etc can serve Medicaid/Medicare patients. They must be approved and follow all the Medicare/Medicaid rules.

Fern

 

[NeoV]

one problem is that we have religiously-affiliated hospitals in the first place

 

[Fern]

one problem is that we have religiously-affiliated hospitals in the first place

Really?

What exactly is the problem with a church, as part of it's charity mission, establishing and operating non-profit hospitals?

Patients in these govt programs, Medicare & Medicaid, are already facing serious problems finding HC providers. The fees permitted are too low for many physicians etc so Medicare/caid patients are often refused. All of them. You cannot choose to accept the rich retired exec on Medicare (who has supplemental coverage) and then refuse the poor retiree or poor person on Medicaid. You accept all or no one.

IMO, the govt will be shooting itself in the foot if it pursues policies that exclude 600 hospitals that otherwise provide good HC to poorer people.

Fern

 

[woolfe9999]

I think this confusion, or difference of opinion in what is at stake here arises from (another) another poorly written article.

I'll try to summerize the issue based on the article and some other info.

1. The issue is providing abortion services.

2. The issue is only about Hospitals that are Medicaid (and Medicare) providers.

3. The focus is on Catholic hospitals who are medicaid providers.

OK, then we have the info about a Catholic hospital that provided an abortion to a patient whose life was in danger. This is against Catholic principals and the hospital administrator was fired from her job and kicked out of the Catholic church.

I'm saying current law required that church to perform the abortion service. to conclude otherwise means the Sister, acting under NO requirement of the law, decided contrary to Catholic policy to perform an abortion anyway. If so, the story is about a rogue Catholic hospital administrator and has nothing to do with current law and the article is so flawed it should be dismissed in it's entirety.

Why would I say the catholic hospital is required to perform the abortions if it wants to continue providing Medicaid services?

The article mentions the Hyde Amendment, but without any details or explanations (again, crappy article). here's info on the Hyde Amendment:



Read more at http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/public_funding.html

Medicaid requirement(s) according to the article:



If the hospital wants to be a medicaid service provider it must provide the abortion service, in accordance with Hyde, under emergency situations as required by Medicaid. Thus we have the example of Sister Margaret McBride. The hospitals' other option is to cease being a Medicaid provider.

I have some personal experience with this (being a Medicaid provider etc.). I was part owner of a durable medical goods company. Durable medical goods are tangible medical products not including drugs and include things like wheelchairs, crutches, oxygen, bandages, slings etc.

Let's look at motorized wheelchairs for my example. If you're a medicaid provider you must follow all their rules, including pricing. I noticed that medicaid would allow us to charge $800 for a motorized wheelchair (WC) when our costs was $1,200. We're losing money. I told the manager we will stop selling WC to Medicaid patients. I was told "NO". If we stop that we will lose our status as a Medicaid service provider and we sell to many too many other products to Medicaid patients at a profit so "no" we don't want to that.

Accordingly, I assume, and I think fairly so, that if a full service Catholic hospital refuses to provide an abortion service as authorized under Hyde and mandated by Medicaid policy the hospital faces losing it's status as a Medicaid provider.

This is why I characterize this as a situation where we either permit Catholic hospitals to refuse emergency abortions or lose them as Medicaid providers.

-------------------------

The referral aspect seems a secondary issue to me. Abortions as allowed by Hyde permit them in cases of rape or incest. However, those are not "emergency" abortions. (Emergencies are required under Medicaid policy). Accordingly, I believe the Catholic hospitals are merely required to provide referrals in such non-emergency situations. As you point out, this is likely offensive to Catholics so this bill's provision would release them from this non-emergency requirement.

Fern

The Hyde amendment actually has nothing directly to do with this issue. You're confusing the issue in exactly the same way as EK did. The OP article mentions it only for broader context. The act under discussion in this thread actually contains the Hyde amendment, which is what was quoted by EK on page 1. The reason it "contains" the Hyde Amendment is because the Hyde Amendment isn't a free standing law. It's a standard clause that gets attached to various pieces of healthcare related legislation.

Hyde says: no federal funding for abortion except in cases of rape, incest, life of the mother. In practice this affects mainly Medicaid (people on Medicare are obviously not getting abortions.) But that is a separate issue, that of who or what can PAY for the abortion. It has nothing to do with the hospital's choice to provide it or not. Oh, and your pro-choice source is slightly mischaracterizing the Hyde Amendment. It doesn't "require" Medicaid coverage of abortion in cases of rape, incest, life. Rather, it permits such coverage as an exception to the general rule.

Hyde Amendment irrelevancies out of the way, the current law that the bill under discussion would change is the second one you site: any provider receiving Medicaid must provide emergency care to all patients in need, unless they do not have the capability to provide the needed care, in which case they must transfer the patient to a facility that does have such capability. I bold that second part because that is likely the most relevant issue here for the Catholic hospitals. With some limited exceptions, Catholic hospitals do not have the facilities or training to perform abortions. They do not hire physicians trained in abortion and do not stock the equipment. The issue here is they do not want to transfer the patient to a facility that will perform an abortion because that is facillitating the abortion. Under the new proposed bill, they would not have to make the transfer and they could keep their Medicaid funding, whereas under existing law they either have to do the abortion themselves OR make the transfer.

So far as the example in the OP, it sounds like that particular Catholic hospital performed the abortion, though the wording is unclear enough that it actually might have been an authorized transfer that got her excommunicated. If you understand the pro-life stance, there is essentially no difference between the transfer and directly performing the abortion. It's like sending the fetus to its death versus killing it yourself.

This law is saying that the hospital now need not make the transfer in an emergency situation. It can do exactly what I said in my first response to you, tell the patient's family to go figure it out for themselves.

- wolf

 

[Fern]

The Hyde amendment actually has nothing directly to do with this issue.

The Hyde amendment says what abortion procedures the federal govt can spend money on. Medicaid is federal money.

From the link I provided:

After Roe v. Wade decriminalized abortion in 1973, Medicaid covered abortion care without restriction. In 1976, Representative Henry Hyde (R-IL) introduced an amendment that later passed to limit federal funding for abortion care. Effective in 1977, this provision, known as the Hyde Amendment, specifies what abortion services are covered under Medicaid.

The Hyde Amendment directly effects abortions under Medicaid.

Hyde says: no federal funding for abortion except in cases of rape, incest, life of the mother. In practice this affects mainly Medicaid (people on Medicare are obviously not getting abortions.) But that is the a separate issue, that of who or what can PAY for the abortion. It has nothing to do with the hospital's choice to provide it or not.

We're in agreement here, and I don't believe I've said anything otherwise.

Oh, and your pro-choice source is slightly mischaracterizing the Hyde Amendment. It doesn't "require" Medicaid coverage of abortion in cases of rape, incest, life. Rather it, permits such coverage as an exception to the general rule.

You're mistaken, my link doesn't say anything about Medicaid requirements. That portion came from the OP's article. See my post again. I specifically said "Medicaid requirement(s) according to the article".

Hyde Amendment irrelevancies out of the way, the current law that the bill under discussion would change is the second one you site: any provider receiving Medicaid must provide emergency care to all patients in need, unless they do not have the capability to provide the needed care, in which case they must transfer the patient to a facility that does have such capability. I bold that second part because that is likely the most relevant issue here for the Catholic hospitals. With some limited exceptions, Catholic hospitals do not have the facilities or training to perform abortions.

Cannot agree. Abortion does not appear to be that complicated. It's typically an outpatient procedure at clinics, not "hospitals", just clinics. The Catholic hospitals are "full service". I don't believe a full service hospital can legitimately claim to be "unable" to perform an abortion.

The Catholic at issue in the article who had the administrator fired doesn't appear to offer abortions. It seemed a unique situation caused by complying with Medicaid requirements. If they otherwise did abortions it's a lie to state, as the article did, the Sister was fired for performing abortions for Medicaid. She'd have been fired for performing any of the other abortions.

They do not hire physicians trained in abortion and do not stock the equipment.

Not persuaded that is that is so. However, it does raise questions. I don't know about your area, or Catholic hospitals, but many physicians around here are 'affiliated' with hospitals. They are not strictly employees of hospitals. They have their own offices/clinics, but when procedures require it they use hospital facilities.

The issue here is they do not want to transfer the patient to a facility that will perform an abortion because that is facillitating the abortion. Under the new proposed bill, they would not have to make the transfer and they could keep their Medicaid funding, whereas under existing law they either have to do the abortion themselves OR make the transfer.

- wolf

I've looked at about half dozen websites reporting on this and none mentions the issue you claim. They are all in agreement that Medicaid currently requires hospitals, in including Catholic hospitals, to perform the abortion under emergency conditions and this proposed bill eliminates that.

Again, you're either 'all-in' or 'all-out' with regard to Medicaid/Medicare. Catholic hospitals who refuse the emergency abortion would have to cease as medicaid.medicare providers. There is no other 'penalty' mentioned.
---------

Other info found in that search:

1. Not all Catholic hospitals refuse abortions in emergency situations. The 600 hospitals mentioned are those operating under a diocese forbidding abortions under any circumstances. IMO, this bill is an effort to keep those 600 as Medicaid providers.

2. The exception language allowing a hospital to turn away the emergency patients if they are "unable" to provide the service appears to be a matter under litigation. The ACLU is arguing "unable" does mean "unwilling". The source reported the fed govt has not weighed in on the issue. This bill would resolve that dispute.

Whether or not the referral of an emergency patient is at issue here as you contend, the crux of the matter is reported by all other sources as being the requirement of abortion services for emergency patients. If the hospital refuses a referral it hardly matters under the law, the hospital is already in violation of medicaid for the initial act of refusing the abortion.

Fern

 

[woolfe9999]

The Hyde amendment says what abortion procedures the federal govt can spend money on. Medicaid is federal money.

From the link I provided:



The Hyde Amendment directly effects abortions under Medicaid.



We're in agreement here, and I don't believe I've said anything otherwise.



You're mistaken, my link doesn't say anything about Medicaid requirements. That portion came from the OP's article. See my post again. I specifically said "Medicaid requirement(s) according to the article".



Cannot agree. Abortion does not appear to be that complicated. It's typically an outpatient procedure at clinics, not "hospitals", just clinics. The Catholic hospitals are "full service". I don't believe a full service hospital can legitimately claim to be "unable" to perform an abortion.

The Catholic at issue in the article who had the administrator fired doesn't appear to offer abortions. It seemed a unique situation caused by complying with Medicaid requirements. If they otherwise did abortions it's a lie to state, as the article did, the Sister was fired for performing abortions for Medicaid. She'd have been fired for performing any of the other abortions.



Not persuaded that is that is so. However, it does raise questions. I don't know about your area, or Catholic hospitals, but many physicians around here are 'affiliated' with hospitals. They are not strictly employees of hospitals. They have their own offices/clinics, but when procedures require it they use hospital facilities.



I've looked at about half dozen websites reporting on this and none mentions the issue you claim. They are all in agreement that Medicaid currently requires hospitals, in including Catholic hospitals, to perform the abortion under emergency conditions and this proposed bill eliminates that.

Again, you're either 'all-in' or 'all-out' with regard to Medicaid/Medicare. Catholic hospitals who refuse the emergency abortion would have to cease as medicaid.medicare providers. There is no other 'penalty' mentioned.
---------

Other info found in that search:

1. Not all Catholic hospitals refuse abortions in emergency situations. The 600 hospitals mentioned are those operating under a diocese forbidding abortions under any circumstances. IMO, this bill is an effort to keep those 600 as Medicaid providers.

2. The exception language allowing a hospital to turn away the emergency patients if they are "unable" to provide the service appears to be a matter under litigation. The ACLU is arguing "unable" does mean "unwilling". The source reported the fed govt has not weighed in on the issue. This bill would resolve that dispute.

Whether or not the referral of an emergency patient is at issue here as you contend, the crux of the matter is reported by all other sources as being the requirement of abortion services for emergency patients. If the hospital refuses a referral it hardly matters under the law, the hospital is already in violation of medicaid for the initial act of refusing the abortion.

Fern

What I know about abortions is that the typical method involves the use of a vacuum device or electrical pump. The procedure is not complicated but it does require some training. If the hospital doesn't have the equipment or the training they can't do it.

An abortion could also be done invasively, by any surgeon qualified to operate on the female reproductive system. A surgeon who can remove a tumor from the uterus or ovaries could also remove a fetus, for example. Having the capability I doubt would require the hospital to actually perform it because there are too many complications and that procedure would never be used over the standard methods except in special situations.

In any event, even if the usual situation is that the hospital has to perform it, refusing to perform one when the mother's life is at risk is the most extreme position on this issue. I'd much rather they be faced with the dilemma you describe than not.

I still fail to see the direct relevance of the Hyde amendment here. Yes, it affects Medicaid but has nothing to do with this particular issue. The issue is the rule that hospitals must provide emergency care.

- wolf

 

[Thump553]

I think this confusion, or difference of opinion in what is at stake here arises from (another) another poorly written article.

I'll try to summerize the issue based on the article and some other info.

1. The issue is providing abortion services.

2. The issue is only about Hospitals that are Medicaid (and Medicare) providers.

3. The focus is on Catholic hospitals who are medicaid providers.

OK, then we have the info about a Catholic hospital that provided an abortion to a patient whose life was in danger. This is against Catholic principals and the hospital administrator was fired from her job and kicked out of the Catholic church.

I'm saying current law required that church to perform the abortion service. to conclude otherwise means the Sister, acting under NO requirement of the law, decided contrary to Catholic policy to perform an abortion anyway. If so, the story is about a rogue Catholic hospital administrator and has nothing to do with current law and the article is so flawed it should be dismissed in it's entirety.

Why would I say the catholic hospital is required to perform the abortions if it wants to continue providing Medicaid services?

The article mentions the Hyde Amendment, but without any details or explanations (again, crappy article). here's info on the Hyde Amendment:



Read more at http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/public_funding.html

Medicaid requirement(s) according to the article:



If the hospital wants to be a medicaid service provider it must provide the abortion service, in accordance with Hyde, under emergency situations as required by Medicaid. Thus we have the example of Sister Margaret McBride. The hospitals' other option is to cease being a Medicaid provider.

I have some personal experience with this (being a Medicaid provider etc.). I was part owner of a durable medical goods company. Durable medical goods are tangible medical products not including drugs and include things like wheelchairs, crutches, oxygen, bandages, slings etc.

Let's look at motorized wheelchairs for my example. If you're a medicaid provider you must follow all their rules, including pricing. I noticed that medicaid would allow us to charge $800 for a motorized wheelchair (WC) when our costs was $1,200. We're losing money. I told the manager we will stop selling WC to Medicaid patients. I was told "NO". If we stop that we will lose our status as a Medicaid service provider and we sell to many too many other products to Medicaid patients at a profit so "no" we don't want to that.

Accordingly, I assume, and I think fairly so, that if a full service Catholic hospital refuses to provide an abortion service as authorized under Hyde and mandated by Medicaid policy the hospital faces losing it's status as a Medicaid provider.

This is why I characterize this as a situation where we either permit Catholic hospitals to refuse emergency abortions or lose them as Medicaid providers.

-------------------------

The referral aspect seems a secondary issue to me. Abortions as allowed by Hyde permit them in cases of rape or incest. However, those are not "emergency" abortions. (Emergencies are required under Medicaid policy). Accordingly, I believe the Catholic hospitals are merely required to provide referrals in such non-emergency situations. As you point out, this is likely offensive to Catholics so this bill's provision would release them from this non-emergency requirement.

Fern

Interesting anecdote Fern but really doesn't apply to the situation this law addresses.

Sitatuion-woman goes to Catholic hospital ER, needs a D&C or will die. Under current law the Catholic hospital doesn't have to provide the D&C but is obligated to provide emergency services necessary to keep her alive AND transport her to a hospital that will provide the necessary medical services.

Under this proposed new GOP law all the first hospital has to do is say "we don't provide those services" and turn the woman away. If she (and the unborn baby) dies on their doorstep, too bad, so sad.

What really burns me about this are three things:

(1) so called conservatives are using legislation to force their "moral" code upon the rest of the world

(2) a complete abrogation of basic human and medical values all in the name of so-called christian values, and

(3) these clowns were elected to create jobs, jobs, jobs, not be f*cking morality police. Not only are they not doing their job, they are creating new damage to this country.

 

[Anarchist420]

If what is said is true, no one voting for it is fit for public office.

From how I interpreted the bill, it would just return a power to the states, all of which belong to them. Didn't read the whole thread, so someone else may have pointed that out.

 

[dank69]

So you are saying to let a mother and child die is homicide? Great. I agree. Why not save the child vice the mother?

How did Darwin miss you?