Tennessee Woman Denied Abortion for Ectopic Pregnancy Was Left Infertile.

Pommer said:

Osmundson said there are still other cases where doctors are unsure how to act.”

Click to expand...

Your baby has no skull, but you're in no danger.

Tennessee woman slams state ban after she is denied abortion after discovering that her fetus’ ‘brain is not attached’​

The law makes no exceptions for fatal conditions and also criminalizes physicians who perform the procedure outside of the allowed exceptions.
Ms Cecil contemplated joining a group of women, represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights, who were denied abortions and are now fighting the state’s prohibition, asking for “clarity” on the ban’s medical exceptions.

She decided not to become a plaintiff in the case because she feared others’ opinions of her decisions.

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN said:

Tennessee Woman Denied Abortion for Ectopic Pregnancy Was Left Infertile. Tennessee Woman Denied Abortion for Ectopic Pregnancy Was Left Infertile

Click to expand...

Everyone knows that an ectopic pregnancy is a medical emergency, even non-medical types. The hospitals had no business violating the law. This woman was collateral damage.

Your article:
Associated Press reported that the Health and Human Services Department’s Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) opened an investigation into the two hospitals that turned Farmer away—the University of Kansas Hospital and the Freeman Health System—and determined that they had violated the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal law that requires health care workers to provide life-saving medical care to stabilize a patient’s emergency medical condition. Last summer, shortly after the fall of Roe v. Wade, the Biden administration issued a reminder to hospitals that EMTALA requires them to offer life-saving abortion care and that the law supersedes state abortion bans.


CMS hasn’t announced fines or penalties the hospitals will face.

RestoreTheJoy said:

Last summer, shortly after the fall of Roe v. Wade, the Biden administration issued a reminder to hospitals that EMTALA requires them to offer life-saving abortion care and that the law supersedes state abortion bans.

Click to expand...

Antiabortion states are fighting the Biden Administration over EMTALA, saying it doesn't apply.

5th Circuit Appeals court rules Texas can ban emergency abortions in spite of federal guidance​

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that Texas can ban emergency abortions even though the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services says a federal statute takes priority over state laws prohibiting the procedure.

The appeals court agreed with the district court’s finding that the federal statute, known as EMTALA, “does not provide an unqualified right for the pregnant mother to abort her child especially when EMTALA imposes equal stabilization obligations,” Engelhardt wrote in Tuesday's opinion.
--

What the EMTALA case means for Idaho, abortion bans around the U.S.​

Idaho attorneys will go before the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday morning in a case that will determine the extent to which the state’s abortion ban applies.

The state is arguing that EMTALA doesn’t supersede state law and that it doesn’t require abortion as a procedure in emergencies.

essentialsaltes said:

Your baby has no skull, but you're in no danger.

Tennessee woman slams state ban after she is denied abortion after discovering that her fetus’ ‘brain is not attached’​

The law makes no exceptions for fatal conditions and also criminalizes physicians who perform the procedure outside of the allowed exceptions.
Ms Cecil contemplated joining a group of women, represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights, who were denied abortions and are now fighting the state’s prohibition, asking for “clarity” on the ban’s medical exceptions.

She decided not to become a plaintiff in the case because she feared others’ opinions of her decisions.

Click to expand...

I was nuked by poorly-crafted abortion laws myself and it is freaking traumatizing.

essentialsaltes said:

Antiabortion states are fighting the Biden Administration over EMTALA, saying it doesn't apply.

5th Circuit Appeals court rules Texas can ban emergency abortions in spite of federal guidance​

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that Texas can ban emergency abortions even though the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services says a federal statute takes priority over state laws prohibiting the procedure.

The appeals court agreed with the district court’s finding that the federal statute, known as EMTALA, “does not provide an unqualified right for the pregnant mother to abort her child especially when EMTALA imposes equal stabilization obligations,” Engelhardt wrote in Tuesday's opinion.
--

What the EMTALA case means for Idaho, abortion bans around the U.S.​

Idaho attorneys will go before the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday morning in a case that will determine the extent to which the state’s abortion ban applies.

The state is arguing that EMTALA doesn’t supersede state law and that it doesn’t require abortion as a procedure in emergencies.

Click to expand...

An ectopic pregnancy is an emergency. It must always be addressed. EMTALA is broader, hence the qualified language.

Patients who say they were denied emergency abortions and other care will now be able to file complaints directly with the U.S. government.

The decades-old EMTALA process has received fresh attention given the surge of patient complaints about denied emergency abortions following the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade, which guaranteed a national right to abortion. Physicians and hospital leaders have said they are confusedabout whether new state abortion restrictions take precedence over the federal emergency care law, with federal and state leaders offering conflicting guidance. While Biden officials maintain that EMTALA provides protections for emergency abortions, Republican lawmakers have said the law is being wrongly applied.

The Supreme Court is weighing the legal arguments around EMTALA and abortion and expected to render a verdict this year.

The fight over EMTALA and abortion has created a dynamic in which health agencies in conservative states — sometimes overseen by political appointees who oppose abortion — are charged with investigating patients’ allegations that they were denied the procedure.

essentialsaltes said:

Patients who say they were denied emergency abortions and other care will now be able to file complaints directly with the U.S. government.

The decades-old EMTALA process has received fresh attention given the surge of patient complaints about denied emergency abortions following the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade, which guaranteed a national right to abortion. Physicians and hospital leaders have said they are confusedabout whether new state abortion restrictions take precedence over the federal emergency care law, with federal and state leaders offering conflicting guidance. While Biden officials maintain that EMTALA provides protections for emergency abortions, Republican lawmakers have said the law is being wrongly applied.

The Supreme Court is weighing the legal arguments around EMTALA and abortion and expected to render a verdict this year.

The fight over EMTALA and abortion has created a dynamic in which health agencies in conservative states — sometimes overseen by political appointees who oppose abortion — are charged with investigating patients’ allegations that they were denied the procedure.

Click to expand...

The law has been wrongly applied by those who are pushing a no-restriction agenda. Anyone whose life is in danger can be taken care of immediately on a doctor's recommendation. Fear of litigation has caused CYA behavior. Do the right thing and save your patients.

RestoreTheJoy said:

Anyone whose life is in danger can be taken care of immediately on a doctor's recommendation.

Click to expand...

At least you agree that if any patients really were denied emergency abortions, they have good cause for a complaint.

essentialsaltes said:

At least you agree that if any patients really were denied emergency abortions, they have good cause for a complaint.

Click to expand...

Of course. Emergency care is required. The legal department cannot pre-empt medical judgment. But it is happening.

RestoreTheJoy said:

Of course. Emergency care is required. The legal department cannot pre-empt medical judgment. But it is happening.

Click to expand...

The laws are ambiguous enough that the legal advisors to the hospitals have determined the doctors cannot perform procedures on women to save their lives.

While saving life is good, nobody is obligated to seriously endanger their own freedom or safety in doing so.

It sounds like what's happening is cases of where people think overcorrection is a solution to the dilemma of "what do we do now that the other team refuses to budge from their position?".

The rub is, how do you prevent "over-correction pitched as a solution" when regular old correction isn't polling well with either faction?


What I mean by that. If we said tomorrow (again, this is just an example, this isn't promotion of abortion)
"We're going to have the same rules as Denmark" (which allows for elective abortions up to 12-14 weeks, but has robust, well-codified exemptions for matters of rape and health)

Neither faction would take it. Many on the pro-life side would say it's too permissive, many on the pro-choice side would say it's too restrictive.

How do you find a compromise when it's "Nobody should be allowed to do it, period" vs. "People should be allowed to get one, at anytime they want, for any reason they want"?


Another aspect of the argument that makes things worse is that people tend to put all the focus on the outlier scenarios, but then if you offer to concede those outliers, they still don't want to compromise.

For instance, the pro-choice side will often bring up the health and rape aspects (which account for a very small percentage), if you offer to concede on those 2 and say "Okay, we can have rock-solid exemptions and protections for those scenarios... so is it okay to put some limits on the rest of them?", they won't agree to that.


The pro-life side will often fixate on late term abortions (which are also a tiny percentage)...same story there, if the offer was made "okay, no more late term abortions, we'll restrict those and put whatever type of penalties you want on them...but for the rest, can we let women make the choice?", they won't agree to that.

FireDragon76 said:

The laws are ambiguous enough that the legal advisors to the hospitals have determined the doctors cannot perform procedures on women to save their lives.

While saving life is good, nobody is obligated to seriously endanger their own freedom or safety in doing so.

Click to expand...

No, they aren't really that ambiguous. There is an agenda war going on here.

RestoreTheJoy said:

No, they aren't really that ambiguous. There is an agenda war going on here.

Click to expand...

We send lawyers who work for hospitals to college and they must pass bar exams in order to be able to practice law. This is called legal expertise. It is not a matter of uninformed opinion.

FireDragon76 said:

We send lawyers who work for hospitals to college and they must pass bar exams in order to be able to practice law. This is called legal expertise. It is not a matter of uninformed opinion.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm well aware of what is necessary to pass the Bar, thanks.

The point is that this is CYA activity, not the law in several cases. Federal law requires the hospital to provide abortion services if the life of the mother is at risk. And many state laws allow abortion upon medical judgment that the life or health of the mother is at risk.

Case in point: The 10 year old Biden trotted out in a speech for shock effect did not have to leave the state to get an abortion. While current Ohio law rules out abortion after a fetal heart rate, she was only 6.5 weeks pregnant- which is still 6 weeks. The law does NOT specify a time frame - just when there is a fetal heartbeat. Not to mention that a pregnancy at 10 does prevent a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function. They could have just done it. Fear - and agenda - made them hold out.
She got the abortion in Indiana anyway.

RestoreTheJoy said:

Yeah, I'm well aware of what is necessary to pass the Bar, thanks.

The point is that this is CYA activity, not the law in several cases. Federal law requires the hospital to provide abortion services if the life of the mother is at risk. And many state laws allow abortion upon medical judgment that the life or health of the mother is at risk.

Case in point: The 10 year old Biden trotted out in a speech for shock effect did not have to leave the state to get an abortion. While current Ohio law rules out abortion after a fetal heart rate, she was only 6.5 weeks pregnant- which is still 6 weeks. The law does NOT specify a time frame - just when there is a fetal heartbeat. Not to mention that a pregnancy at 10 does prevent a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function. They could have just done it. Fear - and agenda - made them hold out.
She got the abortion in Indiana anyway.

Click to expand...

I'm sure the hospital's legal staff have good reasons for their actions. Their duty is to serve the hospital staff. No doctor signs up for spending time in jail or risking prison

RestoreTheJoy said:

Case in point: The 10 year old Biden trotted out in a speech for shock effect did not have to leave the state to get an abortion. While current Ohio law rules out abortion after a fetal heart rate, she was only 6.5 weeks pregnant- which is still 6 weeks. The law does NOT specify a time frame - just when there is a fetal heartbeat.

Click to expand...

It's neither fetal nor a heartbeat at that stage.

But please, tell us more about proper interpretation.

NxNW said:

It's neither fetal nor a heartbeat at that stage.

But please, tell us more about proper interpretation.

Click to expand...

I recited what the LAW is in that state in several posts...you truncated my response. Perhaps you should read it. Your opinions on whether there is a fetal heartbeat possible at that time are noted. I don't know when one can hear it. But I accurately stated the legal position.

Here was my last response:
Yeah, I'm well aware of what is necessary to pass the Bar, thanks.

The point is that this is CYA activity, not the law in several cases. Federal law requires the hospital to provide abortion services if the life of the mother is at risk. And many state laws allow abortion upon medical judgment that the life or health of the mother is at risk.

Case in point: The 10 year old Biden trotted out in a speech for shock effect did not have to leave the state to get an abortion. While current Ohio law rules out abortion after a fetal heart rate, she was only 6.5 weeks pregnant- which is still 6 weeks. The law does NOT specify a time frame - just when there is a fetal heartbeat. Not to mention that a pregnancy at 10 does prevent a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function. They could have just done it. Fear - and agenda - made them hold out.
She got the abortion in Indiana anyway.