dawnnikol
Prolific Pea
'A life without books is a life not lived.' Jay Kristoff
Posts: 7,877
Sept 21, 2015 18:39:25 GMT
|
Post by dawnnikol on Apr 24, 2024 16:31:33 GMT
SCOTUS is hearing arguments today about whether Idaho's abortion ban conflicts with this emergency treatment. Here's an informational thread from a female doctor: In case your Twitter doesn't show up, here's some of her Tweets copy/pasted: EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act) requires hospitals to provide emergency treatment to people, even if they don’t have insurance. The law enacted by congress in 1986, requires hospitals that receive federal funds to stabilize patients. EMTALA is a backbone of medical ethics and necessary to protect patients from corporate greed. Codifying protections like this into law is supposed to protect patients from laws like Idaho’s near total abortion ban. The Supreme Court will hear arguments today about whether Idaho’s near-total abortion ban conflicts with EMTALA. Idaho wants to deny emergency, life saving medical and surgical treatments to pregnant patients who need abortions - to save their lives. This is about Idaho, but if the Court allows Idaho law to override EMTALA requirements, then the 14 other anti-abortions states either similar laws may follow suit.
This case will determine access to EMERGENCY abortions in emergency rooms across the country.Link to Tweets for more info. |
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Apr 24, 2024 16:44:15 GMT
I posted this on the misc thread earlier.
At least we know Barrett is listening.
Unfortunately, ER doctors often have to make quick decisions for patients they do not know. Emergencies can go bad very fast. The doctors make their best decisions, they don't have time to call the politicians who will judge them after the fact when it is too late in either case!
|
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Apr 24, 2024 17:13:16 GMT
CNN just showed a clip of the Idaho Attorney General stating that life flights are not necessary and that doctors are to use their own judgement while treating pregnant patients in crisis. This was while CNN was interviewing and Idaho Ob-gyn.
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Apr 25, 2024 2:10:01 GMT
Sorry, I missed your post earlier. Thank you, there's so much going on with Trump, today's Supreme Court hearing hasn't gotten a lot of attention, but it's really important. I posted my thoughts on the Supreme Court thread but I will share here, too. Alito's questioning gave away the conservative goal - fetal personhood and potentially prioritizing the life of a fetus (that might not even survive) over the life of the mother. Women apparently are just vessels. I'm not evil so I don't want them to die, but can Thomas and Alito retire already? Also - ACB is apparently still clueless and naive. I knew when she was appointed that she was inexperienced and unqualified, but I hoped that she would rise to the challenge. That doesn't seem to be the case. She seemed surprised that women's health could be at risk in Idaho and other states with abortion bans. There were plenty of warnings before Dobbs that if Roe was overturned, maternal health would be at risk. This was entirely predictable. I guess she had rose colored glasses and thought the only outcome would be babies dropped off at firehouses. Conservatives keep insisting that Democrats are overreacting. First, it was Roe is established, it won't get overturned. Then when Democrats predicted women's health would be at risk, they were overreacting again. Nope, not overreacting. I'm tired of the gaslighting. PBS had really informative clip about the hearing www.pbs.org/video/abortion-at-the-court-1713992637/And here's a NYT article - a gift one, no paywall www.nytimes.com/2024/04/24/us/politics/supreme-court-idaho-abortion-ban.html?unlocked_article_code=1.nE0.7Hxi.5HPhAtwfQzfs&smid=url-share |
|
sueg
Prolific Pea
Posts: 8,022
Location: Munich
Apr 12, 2016 12:51:01 GMT
|
Post by sueg on Apr 25, 2024 7:06:47 GMT
Alito's questioning gave away the conservative goal - fetal personhood and potentially prioritizing the life of a fetus (that might not even survive) over the life of the mother. What do these people think is going to happen to the fetus if the mother dies? Do they REALLY not understand that a fetus won't survive the death of the mother? The mind boggles that there are people with so limited understanding of reproductive biology, let alone that they are allowed to rule on laws regarding it. |
|
|
|
Post by imkat on Apr 25, 2024 10:39:37 GMT
CNN just showed a clip of the Idaho Attorney General stating that life flights are not necessary and that doctors are to use their own judgement while treating pregnant patients in crisis. This was while CNN was interviewing and Idaho Ob-gyn. This reminds me of Texas. The law is sufficiently vague to discourage doctors from risking retaliation. And when the people asked for clarification, the attorney general said no clarification was needed. So they not only want women to live in fear, but also their doctors. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Apr 25, 2024 14:04:45 GMT
CNN just showed a clip of the Idaho Attorney General stating that life flights are not necessary and that doctors are to use their own judgement while treating pregnant patients in crisis. This was while CNN was interviewing and Idaho Ob-gyn. This reminds me of Texas. The law is sufficiently vague to discourage doctors from risking retaliation. And when the people asked for clarification, the attorney general said no clarification was needed. So they not only want women to live in fear, but also their doctors. The bans were intentionally written vaguely, knowing that doctors would hesitate. Republicans can claim they’re not complete bans, but in effect they are. |
|
|
|
Post by epeanymous on Apr 25, 2024 15:43:59 GMT
Alito's questioning gave away the conservative goal - fetal personhood and potentially prioritizing the life of a fetus (that might not even survive) over the life of the mother. What do these people think is going to happen to the fetus if the mother dies? Do they REALLY not understand that a fetus won't survive the death of the mother? The mind boggles that there are people with so limited understanding of reproductive biology, let alone that they are allowed to rule on laws regarding it. They know the fetus will die. They are just erring on the side of “some necessary abortions won’t be performed and the woman will die, and I guess so will the fetus” because they think the alternative is “women and doctors will pretend there is a medical issue and have/perform an abortion when it is not medically necessary.” I live in WA, am in my 50s, and am not having more kids, so this isn’t a live issue for me, but if I lived in a red state and were still of actual childbearing age/propensity I would be leery of getting pregnant. |
|
Nink
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,947 
Location: North Idaho
|
Post by Nink on Apr 25, 2024 20:05:07 GMT
I’m increasingly more embarrassed to live in Idaho. There was a special with Diane Sawyer called “on the brink”. It’s available to watch on Hulu. I think every Republican in favor of this BS should be required to watch it.
|
|
|
|
Post by epeanymous on Apr 25, 2024 23:28:26 GMT
I’m increasingly more embarrassed to live in Idaho. There was a special with Diane Sawyer called “on the brink”. It’s available to watch on Hulu. I think every Republican in favor of this BS should be required to watch it. It is effing weird being right next door. I have read that 1/4 of your obgyns and 1/2 of the high-risk maternal specialists have moved out of Idaho. It’s a beautiful place, and I hope your politicians become more reasonable. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy4scraps on Apr 26, 2024 1:56:03 GMT
What do these people think is going to happen to the fetus if the mother dies? Do they REALLY not understand that a fetus won't survive the death of the mother? The mind boggles that there are people with so limited understanding of reproductive biology, let alone that they are allowed to rule on laws regarding it. They know the fetus will die. They are just erring on the side of “some necessary abortions won’t be performed and the woman will die, and I guess so will the fetus” because they think the alternative is “women and doctors will pretend there is a medical issue and have/perform an abortion when it is not medically necessary.” I live in WA, am in my 50s, and am not having more kids, so this isn’t a live issue for me, but if I lived in a red state and were still of actual childbearing age/propensity I would be leery of getting pregnant. I’m in a blue state, well over 50 and definitely not having more kids but because I have a teenaged daughter it’s absolutely still a live issue for me. My state is surrounded on three sides by states that have enacted pretty strict bans (plus Canada). It makes me sick to think that my kid is growing up in a country where the state where she lives will determine what her rights are for her own bodily autonomy. She has cousins that live in TN and it’s even worse for them there. FWIW, I was scared enough to get pregnant when I did. So many things can go wrong. I can’t imagine even considering it if I was living in a red state with a strict ban. |
|
tincin
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,368
Jul 25, 2014 4:55:32 GMT
|
Post by tincin on Apr 27, 2024 1:31:04 GMT
Alito's questioning gave away the conservative goal - fetal personhood and potentially prioritizing the life of a fetus (that might not even survive) over the life of the mother. What do these people think is going to happen to the fetus if the mother dies? Do they REALLY not understand that a fetus won't survive the death of the mother? The mind boggles that there are people with so limited understanding of reproductive biology, let alone that they are allowed to rule on laws regarding it. Are you suggesting the mother is a person too? Shocking. I swear I’m going to need meds to be able to speak with a conservative. |
|
