House Passes Protect Life Act Restricting Abortion Coverage

By Jeralyn, Section Legislation
Posted on Thu Oct 13, 2011 at 11:20:21 PM EST
Tags: Protect Life Act, abortion (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The House tonight passed the Protect Life Act. The vote was 251 to 172. Only 15 of the "aye" votes were Democrat. 170 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted against the bill. Who were the bad apples? You can view the vote here or here.

The bill is H.R. 358, Protect Life Act. [More...]

What's in the bill?

The bill, HR 385, prohibits women who are under the Affordable Care Act to purchase health insurance plans that cover abortion, even though most health insurance plans do in fact cover abortions.

It also makes it legal for hospitals, such as those who may find abortions morally objectionable, to deny abortions to pregnant women with life-threatening conditions. Current law requires hospitals to give a patient whatever care they need in life-threatening situations, but the Protect Life Act relieves hospitals of their medical obligations.

The bill stands no chance in the Senate and Obama would surely veto it. Still, it's an indication of just how dangerous it is to put Republicans in office.

< Why Not HOLC? | State Patrol to Evict Occupy Denver Protesters After 11 pm >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

House Passes Protect Life Act Restricting Abortion Coverage | 22 comments (22 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Unfortunately, it's also dangerous (5.00 / 3) (#1)
by shoephone on Fri Oct 14, 2011 at 12:38:36 AM EST

to have those 15 fake House Democrats in office. This insanity is just more reason for a revolution in this country. And what can you say about Heath Shuler except that he's still a traitor and should be formally tossed out on his butt.

I have never despised politics and politicians as much as I do these days.

Unfortunately, (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by lentinel on Fri Oct 14, 2011 at 05:40:37 AM EST

or not, I feel the same way as you, Shoephone.

I wonder whether this OWS movement will evolve into some kind of revolution. I can feel the government slowly but surely gearing up to either take it over and misdirect it or figure a way to crush it and the people who are active in it.

In any case, for me, the word revolution is becoming more and more the only solution for this total takeover of our government by forces that I would have to label as fascist.

I know that's a rough word with all kinds of WW2 connotations, but that is the way I feel.


Careful, your comment (none / 0) (#10)
by KeysDan on Fri Oct 14, 2011 at 09:51:44 AM EST

may be "droned" with all other comments "droned" along with it. Collateral damage sometimes happens in the pursuit of justice, law and order.


: Who (none / 0) (#17)
by lentinel on Fri Oct 14, 2011 at 12:29:14 PM EST

are you saying might send in the drones?
Yikes.

How many of these? (2.00 / 0) (#22)
by diogenes on Fri Oct 14, 2011 at 06:20:01 PM EST

"It also makes it legal for hospitals, such as those who may find abortions morally objectionable, to deny abortions to pregnant women with life-threatening conditions."
Most religions would give an abortion to someone with a condition whose likelihood of death to the mother can be shown with a reasonable degree of medical certainty (51%). That said, VERY few abortions done for health of the mother reasons meet such criteria.
For all of our information, is there a list of the last one thousand abortions done in some hospital and the medical diagnoses (if any) which necessitated the abortion? How about just a list of the third trimester abortions with detailed medical indications for the abortion and just the name of the mother blacked out?

: Obfuscation will get you nowhere (none / 0) (#24)
by shoephone on Fri Oct 14, 2011 at 11:33:45 PM EST

How about dealing with the fact that abortion is a legally protected right?

Bachmann didn't vote. (none / 0) (#2)
by oculus on Fri Oct 14, 2011 at 02:21:30 AM EST

: Interesting... (none / 0) (#5)
by lentinel on Fri Oct 14, 2011 at 05:45:47 AM EST

I wonder why.
You'd think that she would be riding in on horseback.

I know (none / 0) (#4)
by lentinel on Fri Oct 14, 2011 at 05:44:25 AM EST

that some will say that I am grinding an axe, but this is the kind of thing that I wish our president would speak out against.

Alert the people that this kind of vote is coming up - take a stand against it. Try to instill a sense of honor and urgency in the populace.

SAY SOMETHING.

But no.

He is just a template.

You assume (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by jbindc on Fri Oct 14, 2011 at 06:48:27 AM EST

He disagrees with the results.


You're right (none / 0) (#8)
by lentinel on Fri Oct 14, 2011 at 09:07:26 AM EST

that my post is prefaced on that assumption.

But it is not really my assumption.

I assume that he is on the wrong side of just about every issue.

But there are many that think that he is an alternative to that which is flailing at us from the republican right.

The more that Obama is AWOL on issues that matter to people who are not caught up in right wing ideology, the more it is apparent that he does not represent any kind of choice whatsoever.


You know, with so much pressure coming (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Anne on Fri Oct 14, 2011 at 10:24:33 AM EST

from the anti-choice factions, it really is not enough for the WH to just announce that Obama would veto this bill if it passes. And yes, I know there are those out there who will claim that I am never satisfied with Obama, no matter what he does, but I think those people need to ask themselves some questions.

Like, if Obama has such a deep and firm commitment to women's reproductive choice, why has he not used his political clout, the bully pulpit, to work the Congress, out in front, or behind the scenes, such that maybe no bill ever made it out of committee, or onto the floor, or to a vote - much less a successful vote?

Sure, he could take the position that he has all these other important things to deal with, and the bill's not likely to pass the Senate anyway, so why not just put it out there that he plans to act as a backstop, just in case? Shouldn't that be enough for me?

Well, it just isn't. I mean, if he's willing to say that he'll veto the bill, he can't be all that worried about losing votes from the anti-choice people, can he? So, if he's not worried about alienating them, then why not take an active and principled stand on this issue? Why keep hope alive that, with just a few tweaks and changes and horse-trading, they can eventually come up with a bill the president will feel more comfortable signing?

I guess this is just too much to ask; god, I am just so demanding...


: True (none / 0) (#15)
by MKS on Fri Oct 14, 2011 at 11:40:49 AM EST

: Jumping the Shark (none / 0) (#20)
by MKS on Fri Oct 14, 2011 at 04:45:35 PM EST

So, Obama should have prevented a vote on the bill in the House?
And just how does he do that? Because he is charming? Because he should be able to get the bill tabled by negotiating with the Republicans? Just what would one have to give up to prevent a vote?
Obama cannot be faulted on this vote.
And, having the vote was a good thing for the pro-choice side. A wake-up call...
It will hopefully eliminate the idea that Romney would be just the same as Obama on choice....
Yes, it can and would be a lot worse with a Republican Congess and Mitt Romney as President. Any other conclusion is delusional.

He issued a veto threat (none / 0) (#16)
by MKS on Fri Oct 14, 2011 at 11:41:09 AM EST

He also promised (5.00 / 0) (#18)
by jbindc on Fri Oct 14, 2011 at 02:35:44 PM EST

to close Guantanamo within a year of being elected.

So what?

His words mean nothing.


: So go ahead and vote for Romney (none / 0) (#19)
by MKS on Fri Oct 14, 2011 at 04:39:58 PM EST

Since he of course won't hurt choice or appoint anti-choice judges.....
Issuing a Veto Threat is beyond just words because it does have an effect on lawmakers.
And, do you think Sotomayor and Kagan are anti Roe?

WH statement he would veto (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by MO Blue on Fri Oct 14, 2011 at 08:24:31 AM EST

this bill if need be although I doubt it would make it through the current Senate.

Wednesday, the White House released a statement saying that if passed, President Barack Obama would veto that bill, H.R. 358.

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 358 because, as previously stated in the Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 3, the legislation intrudes on women's reproductive freedom and access to health care and unnecessarily restricts the private insurance choices that women and their families have today.
Longstanding Federal policy prohibits Federal funds from being used for abortions, except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered. The Affordable Care Act preserved this prohibition and included policies to ensure that Federal funding is segregated from any private dollars used to fund abortions for which Federal funding is prohibited. The President's Executive Order 13535 reinforces that Federal funding cannot be used for abortions (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) and ensures proper enforcement of this policy. H.R. 358 goes well beyond the safeguards found in current law and reinforced in the President's Executive Order by restricting women's private insurance choices. link

Obama would IMO need to veto to maintain the rationale that he needs to be reelected in order to protect Roe v Wade.


Ah, good point (none / 0) (#9)
by sj on Fri Oct 14, 2011 at 09:50:39 AM EST

Obama would IMO need to veto to maintain the rationale that he needs to be reelected in order to protect Roe v Wade.

lol! By the same token, the Repuglicans (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Mr Natural on Fri Oct 14, 2011 at 10:53:20 AM EST

continue their kabuki theatrics, knowing that if roe v wade ever fell, they would lose most of the cretins who vote for them.


: And a fundraising issue (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by jbindc on Fri Oct 14, 2011 at 11:00:17 AM EST

: It would be fair to say that both (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by MO Blue on Fri Oct 14, 2011 at 11:17:22 AM EST

parties rely on Roe v Wade and other social issues to garner campaign contributions and votes so that they can gain or retain their seat in the political arena. Once elected both parties, regardless of the kabuki theatrics, pass corporate centric legislation that promotes the standard "shared sacrifice" agenda of ordinary folks sacrificing so that the top 1% get our share.