Saturday, February 5, 2011

GOP's Pitts: 'I'd Love To Gain... Complete... Control Of You'

That would be Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Perdition), and the quote is from a Cole Porter song which, because of that one line, I could never hear as a love song. But Pitts's attitude toward women isn't far from that line. Read Evan McMorris-Santoro of TPM:

New GOP Bill Would Allow Hospitals To Let Women Die Instead Of Having An Abortion
Evan McMorris-Santoro | February 4, 2011, 4:10PM

The controversy over "forcible rape" may be over, but now there's a new Republican-sponsored abortion bill in the House that pro-choice folks say may be worse: this time around, the new language would allow hospitals to let a pregnant woman die rather than perform the abortion that would save her life.

The bill, known currently as H.R. 358 or the "Protect Life Act," would amend the 2010 health care reform law that would modify the way Obamacare deals with abortion coverage. ... But critics say a new language inserted into the bill just this week would go far beyond Stupak, allowing hospitals that receive federal funds but are opposed to abortions to turn away women in need of emergency pregnancy termination to save their lives.

... [explanation of EMTALA here]

Pitts' new bill would free hospitals from any abortion requirement under EMTALA, meaning that medical providers who aren't willing to terminate pregnancies wouldn't have to -- nor would they have to facilitate a transfer.

The hospital could literally do nothing at all, pro-choice critics of Pitts' bill say.

"This is really out there," Donna Crane, policy director at NARAL Pro-Choice America told TPM. "I haven't seen this before."

You see where this is going, don't you? Roe v. Wade still enables a woman's right to choose abortion, and few people... until now... have questioned a woman's right to have an abortion to save her own life. But make no mistake, women: Joe Pitts would KILL YOU before he would allow you to have an abortion. Mr. Obama, there is no room for compromise on this one: either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. It's time to put your foot down. (If you like, I can put my foot down in your behalf; I guarantee you I have a much bigger boot...)

AFTERTHOUGHT:  Something like this bill is the law in some South American countries, countries which have no separation of church and state, and which therefore implement some version of Catholic law as civil law. (And all the GOPers here are so worried about Sharia law... would Catholic law be any better?) The reasoning is as follows: the mother about to die in childbirth has had a chance to redeem herself and be saved and sent to Heaven; the infant, if it fails to survive birth, has not; therefore priority must be given to saving the life of the infant. I know a doctor in such a country who quietly saved a mother at the expense of the infant's life; the doctor told me that the woman's other six children needed a living mother more than they needed a dead mother and a seventh sibling. But common sense and religion often don't coincide, and the doctor must keep quiet about the decision. American women: how would you like to see such a system implemented here? Right. I thought not.


  1. Obviously, you're not Catholic. There are a lot of priests like the one you described. Most today aren't zealots or overly dogmatic and understand a lot. In fact, most that I know have a strong social conscience.

    If I were you, I would be more worried about the religious right and they don't like us Catholics much.

    I'd tell you more but not here in this forum.

  2. No, Kay, I'm not Catholic. I'm not "even" Christian, though I detest it when someone states it that way; it's such a put-down of other religions. I'm not Jewish, and I'm not Muslim, and I'm not Hindu, and I'm not Buddhist.

    In terms of denomination, I am a UU, a Unitarian Universalist: to give you a reference point, John and Abigail Adams were Unitarians (as were a total of four US presidents), and I'll discuss it more with you if you wish when you contact me on "another forum," e.g., my public email, which is...

    Of course many if not most Catholics have a social conscience: I've frequently stood side-by-side with Catholics at anti-death-penalty demonstrations, and most of them also take seriously directives to do good works of all sorts. But I've also found a surprising degree of political overlap between the most conservative Catholics I know and the religious Right which you, um, rightly single out for concern.

    And abortion is an issue unto itself. I have never once succeeded in having a rational discussion of abortion with a Catholic, and I'm never the one who first becomes irrational. By now I think it must come with the territory; for Catholics and for me there's simply nothing to discuss regarding abortion, and I don't even try... EXCEPT when religious conservatives of any sort attempt to inject their religion into other Americans' daily lives through legislation regarding abortion. And so here we are again; I hope we're not trying to square that circle.

    Please send me an email.



• Click here to view existing comments.
• Or enter your new rhyme or reason
in the new comment box here.
• Or click the first Reply link below an existing
comment or reply and type in the
new reply box provided.
• Scrolling manually up and down the page
is also OK.

Static Pages (About, Quotes, etc.)

No Police Like H•lmes