HR 358 Protect Life Act

[dellinger63]

I guess the Democratic version of death panels. No mention of the EMTALA law. No mention of not transporting a mother to another hospital etc. In fact the bill offers protection for both entities providing insurance and the women who purchase such insurance. The bill actually states in part

"Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as prohibiting any non-Federal entity (including an individual or a State or local government) from purchasing separate coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this subsection, or a qualified health plan that includes such abortions, so long as--

‘(A) such coverage or plan is paid for entirely using only funds not authorized or appropriated by this Act; and

‘(B) such coverage or plan is not purchased using--

‘(i) individual premium payments required for a qualified health plan offered through an Exchange towards which a credit is applied under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or

‘(ii) other non-Federal funds required to receive a Federal payment, including a State’s or locality’s contribution of Medicaid matching funds."

The next section assures the rights of any non-Federal entity (Private or State) to offer women such coverage.

As far as forcible rape is concerned it's found in an exemption and reads:

if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest; or

in the case where a pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

Now I agree 'forcible' might not be the best word perhaps 'reported' should be used instead.

BTW at least we can read the bill and know what's in it before even a vote is taken. All of a sudden Democrats want to be diligent? Where were they when we were buying $300 dollar cars for 2K and intentially ruining them?

[Riot]

[quote][quote]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

No mention of the EMTALA law.
No mention of not transporting a mother to another hospital etc.

It's the part of the bill that releases hospitals from EMTALA requirements. But that doesn't matter any more. Because ...

The Republicans got all puffy and changed the House rules this session to read that no bill can be introduced without citing the "constitutional authority" to permit it's introduction (a bow to the Tea Party)

In committee, this bill was challenged Friday by a Democrat on point of order, as this "constitutional authority" wasn't listed on this Republican bill as the Republicans now require.

Apparently, there isn't one

So the bill has to be withdrawn until the Republicans can come up with something

BWAAAHAAAAAA Oh, you funny Republicans, you're gonna shoot yourselves in the back all by yourselves You guys are just not good at this whole "governing" thing.

http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/oop...onents-forget-

[dellinger63]

[quote=Riot;752283][quote]

It's the part of the bill that releases hospitals from EMTALA requirements. But that doesn't matter any more. Because ...-[/url]

Except it's not and was never there. The entire bill, less than two pages is available online. Nowhere in the bill was EMTALA even mentioned. It was manufactured by the left. In fact as I said the bill assures that privately insured women are exempt and both private and State entities providing such coverage are not interferred with. In addition minors, victims of incest, and any woman disabled or a victims of rape are also exempted.

[Riot]

[quote=dellinger63;752294][quote=Riot;752283]

Except it's not and was never there. The entire bill, less than two pages is available online. Nowhere in the bill was EMTALA even mentioned. It was manufactured by the left. In fact as I said the bill assures that privately insured women are exempt and both private and State entities providing such coverage are not interferred with. In addition minors, victims of incest, and any woman disabled or a victims of rape are also exempted.

Sigh ... yes it is there, it is the language in the bill that amends the PPACA. No, it does not mention EMTALA directly, that is the indirect result of the amendments if adopted.

As I said, however, this bill is toast until the Republicans follow their own rules

[dellinger63]

[quote=Riot;752297][quote=dellinger63;752294]

Originally Posted by Riot

it does not mention EMTALA directly,

Thank You

Your honor the people will rest!!!!!

[Riot]

Dell said:

Thank You

Your honor the people will rest!!!!!

But that's not what I said, Dell. You can't simply ignore the rest of it. What I really said, was:

yes it is there, it is the language in the bill that amends the PPACA. No, it does not mention EMTALA directly, that is the indirect result of the amendments if adopted.

Dell, if you can't understand, "If A then B, and if B then C, so if A then C" is true, I can't help you.

[SOREHOOF]

[quote=Riot;752283][quote]

It's the part of the bill that releases hospitals from EMTALA requirements. But that doesn't matter any more. Because ...

The Republicans got all puffy and changed the House rules this session to read that no bill can be introduced without citing the "constitutional authority" to permit it's introduction (a bow to the Tea Party)

In committee, this bill was challenged Friday by a Democrat on point of order, as this "constitutional authority" wasn't listed on this Republican bill as the Republicans now require.

Apparently, there isn't one

So the bill has to be withdrawn until the Republicans can come up with something

BWAAAHAAAAAA Oh, you funny Republicans, you're gonna shoot yourselves in the back all by yourselves You guys are just not good at this whole "governing" thing.

http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/oop...onents-forget-

Do you have a problem with the Constitution? Or just the "Tea Party?" Repubs? I'm happy they are at least acknowledging that there is, in fact, a Constitution that limits their ability to make or change Laws at whim. You think it's funny that it bit the Repubs, I'm amazed that a Dem realized it. Good for both of them. It's a good start when these Scam Artists have to admit they don't have the authority to do what they are trying to do. It will bite the Dems too, Riot! Be patient!

[Nascar1966]

[quote=SOREHOOF;752601][quote=Riot;752283]

Do you have a problem with the Constitution? Or just the "Tea Party?" Repubs? I'm happy they are at least acknowledging that there is, in fact, a Constitution that limits their ability to make or change Laws at whim. You think it's funny that it bit the Repubs, I'm amazed that a Dem realized it. Good for both of them. It's a good start when these Scam Artists have to admit they don't have the authority to do what they are trying to do. It will bite the Dems too, Riot! Be patient!

Did you forgot that Riot is a Republican hater? Her Dems can do no wrong.

[Riot]

[quote=Nascar1966;752608][quote=SOREHOOF;752601]

Originally Posted by Riot

Did you forgot that Riot is a Republican hater? Her Dems can do no wrong.

Why are you a deliberate liar, Nascar?

[Riot]

[quote=SOREHOOF;752601][quote=Riot;752283]

Do you have a problem with the Constitution? Or just the "Tea Party?" Repubs? I'm happy they are at least acknowledging that there is, in fact, a Constitution that limits their ability to make or change Laws at whim. You think it's funny that it bit the Repubs, I'm amazed that a Dem realized it. Good for both of them. It's a good start when these Scam Artists have to admit they don't have the authority to do what they are trying to do. It will bite the Dems too, Riot! Be patient!

Excuse me, but nobody is talking about the Constitution here. We are talking about the daily working rules the Congress follows in-house. They are set by the Speaker at the start of each Congress.

This year, to placate the Tea Party, the Republicans made a rule that every bill introduced in the House has to have the "Constitutional authority" outlined and attached to the bill.

The Republicans can't even follow their own rules - aside from setting themselves up with a remarkably silly rule that will be difficult to follow anyway Name the "constitutional authority" for restricting a womans right to have an abortion?

This is why the Founding Fathers gave us three divisions of government, the Judicial being quite important as a brake to the Legislative. It is not the responsibility of the Legislative branch to determine constitutionality. So I guess just making that house rule is kinda in breach of the Constitution? Confusing, eh? <vbg>

And yes, I do have a problem with Tea Party members, because they seem to ignore those parts of the Constitution they don't like. And much of the Bill of Rights.

[Nascar1966]

[quote=Riot;752609][quote=SOREHOOF;752601]

Originally Posted by Riot

Excuse me, but nobody is talking about the Constitution here. We are talking about the daily working rules the Congress follows in-house. They are set by the Speaker at the start of each Congress.

This year, to placate the Tea Party, the Republicans made a rule that every bill introduced in the House has to have the "Constitutional authority" outlined and attached to the bill.

The Republicans can't even follow their own rules - aside from setting themselves up with a remarkably silly rule that will be difficult to follow anyway

And yes, I do have a problem with Tea Party members, because they seem to ignore those parts of the Constitution they don't like. And much of the Bill of Rights.

Did the Dems always follow the rules?

[Riot]

[quote=Nascar1966;752612][quote=Riot;752609]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

Did the Dems always follow the rules?

Their own legislative house rules? I don't know. You check on that and get back to us.

[SOREHOOF]

[quote=Riot;752609][quote=SOREHOOF;752601]

Originally Posted by Riot

Excuse me, but nobody is talking about the Constitution here. If you had bothered to read the link you'd know that before commenting. We are talking about the daily working rules the Congress follows in-house. They are set by the Speaker at the start of each Congress.

This year, to placate the Tea Party, the Republicans made a rule that every bill introduced in the House has to have the "Constitutional authority" outlined and attached to the bill.

The Republicans can't even follow their own rules - aside from setting themselves up with a remarkably silly rule that will be difficult to follow anyway

When you mentioned "CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY" we started talking about the CONSTITUTION. I get the jist about what you are talking about . I looked over the link. For cripes sake Riot I don't have 3 days and a team of lawyers standing by to tell me what it says( to paraphrase one Dem Congressman) I'm asking a question because it seems you don't like the new rule. I think it's great!

[SOREHOOF]

I was commenting on your comment.

[Riot]

[quote=SOREHOOF;752615]

Originally Posted by Riot

I'm asking a question because it seems you don't like the new rule. I think it's great!

No, I have no problem with the Constitution. I kind of like it, myself

[Nascar1966]

[quote=SOREHOOF;752615][quote=Riot;752609]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

When you mentioned "CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY" we started talking about the CONSTITUTION. I get the jist about what you are talking about . I looked over the link. For cripes sake Riot I don't have 3 days and a team of lawyers standing by to tell me what it says( to paraphrase one Dem Congressman) I'm asking a question because it seems you don't like the new rule. I think it's great!

Riot doesnt like the rule because it is Republican sponsored.