Those among us who regularly attend the annual March for Life have seen these type individuals before. Always angry, ugly, profane, vulgar, and obscene.
Posted on 04/24/2024 9:20:07 AM PDT by Morgana
Protesters gathered outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday as justices hear a case over whether emergency rooms can provide abortion in medical emergencies in states where abortion is banned.
Oral arguments are taking place in the case of Moyle v United States and Idaho v United States.
It is the first time the country's highest court will hear arguments over the scope of state abortion bans after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade in 2022 returning the issue of abortion to states.
The Biden administration argues the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) can in narrow circumstances supersedes state law that criminalizes abortion.
But Idaho rejects the argument, claiming it is a federal power grab and the law does not require doctors to provide specific medical treatments or require hospitals to perform abortions.
This is the second abortion related case the Supreme Court has heard in recent weeks after hearing arguments over the medical abortion drug mifepristone.
Outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday morning protesters both for and against abortion rights gathered.
Some pro-abortion rights protesters held signs that read 'abortion is health care' and 'abortion saves lives' while others went after the Supreme Court which overturned Roe v Wade in 2022.
Some protesters dressed in white and covered in fake blood even participated in a 'die-in' in support of abortion access in emergency rooms.
Anti-abortion protesters had signs that read 'emergency rooms are not abortion clinics.'
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
As always the devil is in the details. I believe every state allows abortion when necessary to preserve the life of the mother. So however the law defines “emergency” is the key. My guess is that the definition is very broad indeed.
Not an emergency, ever. EMTALA deals with emergencies and labor. This should never have gotten this far up the corruption chain.
Sounds like they’re interfering with official government business. Better hang ‘em high!
Pro aborts up to old tricks. Staging a die-in with fake blood on on their crotch.
I have to ask how emergency is being defined. I can’t imagine that any abortion ban does not permit abortion when the mother’s LIFE is truly in danger. So I have a feeling the definition for pro aborts has been expanded to included the mother’s health. Which as history has shown us includes just about any reason as long as her physician agrees. A little sad about your pregnancy presto we have major depression! A danger to health.
Laz does have standards so.......
Some protesters dressed in white and covered in fake blood even participated in a ‘die-in’ in support of abortion
“Abortion Saves Lives”
Well, if that isn’t a George Orwell classic I don’t know what is.
I’d like to know what specific medical condition requires an emergency abortion as the treatment?
They never get around to concrete examples for some reason.
I see the Soros rent a mob showed up right on time for maximum propaganda value.
“Not an emergency, ever. EMTALA deals with emergencies and labor. This should never have gotten this far up the corruption chain.”
Shhhh. Don’t tell them or their heads would explode.
BY the way. I like the “white coats” with packaging creases in them. Almost as if they came right out of a brand new package like Obama handed out to actors pretending they are some sort of qualified doctor.
“Not an emergency,” and not a justiciable matter.
We have state legislatures to deal with such matters.
Those among us who regularly attend the annual March for Life have seen these type individuals before. Always angry, ugly, profane, vulgar, and obscene.
Error on your part. First, I am absolutely prolife.
The error you made fails to take account of tubal pregnancies. Some states are denying necessary surgery to women with tubal pregnancies.
For those who don’t know, sometimes the fertilized egg doesn’t move through the fallopian tube and into the uterus. The baby begins to grow until it eventually ruptures the fallopian tube, and the mother bleeds rather pŕofusely. She can bleed to death in a very short time.
The fallopian tube is about the thickness of a human hair. It goes from the ovary where the eggs live, to the uterus where it emplants and grows.
Some states are calling this vital, absolutely necessary procedure, an abortion. While it technically ends that pregnancy, it’s onè of those rare situations where medically necessary surgerý must happen. It’s not likr some miscarrìages where the baby will pass.
This is not a willful, selfish choice. It’s an unfortunate fact of life. It happens.
I’m sure there may be other situations where a medically necessary need to deliver a baby before term, exists for the life of mom, but tubal pregnancies come to mind first and foremost.
The difference between an elective abortion and an early termination of a pregnancy, is that the elective abortion results in the deliberate killing of a child unwanted by the mother. An early termination of a pregnancy is usuallý to preserve the lives of both mother and baby, when a life threatening problem exists. Thinķ eclampsia.
Yet, these women are being killed by legislators.
As a public, we need to see the difference between the two. We also need to pay attention to language. A baby is not the pregnancy. Dehumanizing is a way to mentally remove the consiousness from a devious act. Using the latin term fetus is a way to dehumanize a human baby. Women shouldn’t have a right to abortion, and abortion isn’t medical care. It’s deliberate murder. But medically necessary procedures aren’t abortions either.
It's a mess, of which Obama Care was really the final disastrous movement.
Which States are doing that?
Oh yes. I know. I wandered into nostalgic times when we lived in a Free Republic.
Secondly, tubal or ectopic (in the wrong place) pregnancies are almost (99,999 out of 100,000) never viable. Although there are cases of ectopic (abdominal only, not tubal) pregnancies that went to term and were successfully delivered, no one would advise that such a pregnancy be carried to term, as far as I know. It would be too hazardous to the mother for any physician to advise anything but surgery to remove the ectopic fetus.
So such a law to prevent such surgery has never been passed nor would it ever have been passed.
No physician would, under pain of being charged with criminal negligence, refer or send away, or refuse to emergently treat an ectopic, 'tubal' pregnancy. ER doctors and GYN doctors and general surgeons see ectopic pregnancies nearly every week in big hospitals. Fortunately, labs like hemoglobin level and HCG, plus CT scan or pelvic ultrasound, make the diagnosis pretty foolproof.
Yes it is sad, yes such surgery is to save the life of the mother, yes it ends the viability of the fetus, but no, it is not against the laws of any church including Catholicism, which is stricter than most churches on such issues.
No law prohibits women with ectopic pregnancy from having surgery to remove the fetus. No legislature would ever pass such a law. Nor would any legislature allow any doctor to refuse to treat an ectopic pregnancy patient. Regards, c
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.