Posted on 04/23/2005 4:18:51 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
The Bush administration issued guidelines yesterday advising physicians and hospitals that under a 2002 law they are obligated to care for fetuses "born alive" naturally or in the process of an abortion, and medical providers could face penalties for withholding treatment.
The law, signed by President Bush nearly three years ago, conferred legal rights on fetuses "at any stage of development." It specifies that a fetus that is breathing, has a beating heart, a pulsating umbilical cord or muscle movement should be considered alive and entitled to protection under federal emergency medical laws and child abuse statutes.
Several physicians interviewed yesterday said that definition appeared overly broad, as muscle twitching can occur after death.
Initially, the Department of Health and Human Services did not see the need to issue guidance on the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. But shortly after his confirmation in January, Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said he "received several inquiries on whether" the department was planning to develop regulations.
"As a matter of law and policy, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will investigate all circumstances where individuals and entities are reported to be withholding medical care from an infant born alive in potential violation of federal statutes for which we are responsible," Leavitt said in yesterday's press release
Leavitt's aides refused to say who made the inquiries or whether the government had received any complaints of abuse or neglect involving a just-born or aborted fetus.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Might this also apply to the postborn who is breathing, has a beating heart and has muscle movement?
should be considered alive and entitled to protection under federal emergency medical laws and child abuse statutes
Like Terri?
Excellent point.
This is ridiculous.
Are we being told that:
the unnamed physicians can't tell the difference between a living human being and a muscle-twitching, dead human being?
The physicians would be smart to keep their identities to themselves, otherwise, they would lose many patients.
How long will it be before a whining liberal takes this law before the Supreme Court to have it declared unconstitutional?
I read the whole piece. It's interesting that when asked about complaints of treatment being withheld, the reporter was told 'no comment.' That sounds fair enough. What patient wants that sort of thing all over the media, but here's the double standard. When the government asked for medical records on partial birth abortion victims, NOW, NARAL, etc., all went ballistic. The government official's reticence in this case may be another small step in ending PBAs. We can only hope.
Hey, these are same docs who claimed there was no difference between Terri Schiavo and a bump on a log!
They must be all be fossils from the Medical Dark Ages of the Pre-medicaltestic Eon.
I won't defend the mothers, and I'm not supporting the doctors...but to answer your rhetorical question: I think they would perform them in the same "cold-blooded" fashion that a surgery to separate conjoined twins knowing that one of the twins will die so the other can live.
For the (would be) mothers though, the tradeoff is ignoble, and instead of trading one twin's life for the other, they trade one child's life for their own selfish convenience.
The most significant impact of the 2002 law, Grimes said, was a record-keeping change. Previously, a miscarriage before viability was classified as a spontaneous abortion. Under the new provision, it is recorded as a live birth followed by a neonatal death, and parents can claim the child as a tax deduction for that year, he said.
This is minutia, but it makes me wonder: does this particular provision hold true for even very early miscarriages that happen at home? If so, how does that even work, given that there may not be proof of the pregnancy on record? It sounds unworkable without one of those intrusive miscarriage reporting systems that was proposed in Virginia.
I think that in those surgeries, the doctors have compassion, even for the twin who dies. OTOH, an abortionist has no compassion. Try reading, if you can stomach it, a medical journal description of a new or variant abortion technique--you get the impression that the abortionists are complete ghouls.
No, they are clones of the Nazi doctors tried in Nuremberg.
from the same article:
"David Grimes, a licensed obstetrician/gynecologist who previously worked for the abortion surveillance division at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said the act and yesterday's instructions were medically unnecessary.
'I don't see this as a big issue; physicians are going to do what's appropriate,' said Grimes, who now practices in North Carolina. 'It's all rhetoric from persons with political views they want to advance.'
He said the act's definition of alive is 'silly,' given that it implies a fetus miscarried at 14 or 16 weeks 'with no chance of survival' would be legally identified as a living person. Most medical experts agree that a fetus delivered before 23 weeks has little chance of survival, he said."
I wonder if this guy who served on abortion surveillance division of CDC performs abortions?
It probably has trimester cut-off and under physican's care clauses.
I understand.
I get the impression that a butcher who kills a bunny or a calf's mother for my date's elegant dinner has a pretty bloody job too, but I'm not going to call him a ghoul.
Nor would I say that doctors which have to harvest organs from children are ghoulish, either.
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.