Protect Life Act Doesn't Protect All Lives
Rep. Joe Pitts
Following on the heels of H.R.3, No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act, comes H.R. 358, the “Protect Life Act,” another attempt to severely limit women’s access to the full spectrum of reproductive healthcare. According to Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Penn.), sponsor of H.R. 358, the bill, “amends the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to prevent federal funding for abortion… Additionally, the bill protects the right of conscience for health care professionals and ensures that private insurance companies are not forced to cover abortion.”
This last part is most troublesome. Pro-choice advocates fear the bill can be interpreted so that medical personnel can refuse services to a woman in need of an abortion, even if the woman’s life is in jeopardy.
The language in the bill reads, “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.“
Currently hospitals that receive Medicare and Medicaid funding must provide emergency care to at least stabilize and transfer patients regardless of the patients’ ability to pay or any other factors. The concern with H.R. 358 is that it takes that protection away and women could be left to die if hospital workers objected to a course of treatment, specifically a medically-necessary abortion.
Pitts writes on his website, “Taking someone’s life because we don’t regard their life as valuable takes the dignity away from our own lives as well. Life is a gift. It is precious, and it needs to be defended.”
Whose life is he talking about? Not the life of women. Not if he can sponsor a bill that leaves open to legal interpretation whether or not a medical professional can refuse to treat a woman if she needs an abortion to save her life.
As we asked about Reps. Chris Smith and John Boehner, if they care so much about the sanctity of life, what are they doing about the maternal mortality rates in the United States? Deaths from pregnancy and childbirth have doubled in the last twenty years according to data from Amnesty International, and approximately one-third of pregnant women (1.7 million women) suffer from pregnancy-related complications.
The report, titled, “Deadly Delivery: The Maternal Health Care Crisis in the USA,” points out that “Access to abortion services is restricted for many women receiving health care services through Medicaid, even when the pregnancy poses a grave risk to the woman’s health,” and, “Only 17 states fund all or most medically necessary abortions, where the woman’s health is at risk…”
To be honest, abortion makes me uncomfortable and my thoughts on the matter are conflicted. But I am absolutely certain the government should not control women’s bodies. If our legislators really care about protecting life, they should work with women, not against them.
[...] Hello Ladies. 7 Feb. 2011. “Defending Whose Life?” [...]
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Kristin Brittain and Hello_Ladies, Hello_Ladies. Hello_Ladies said: Defending Life http://goo.gl/fb/UiN8r [...]