It would be cool if she won, but I don’t think she will. Super easy to argue that her circumstances had not yet reached the level of “medical emergency”.
It would also be super easy to argue the hospital is at fault given they were cited by the HHS secretary for refusing to provide care required by federal law.
It still matters because the Federal courts can set precedent that the Federal law (obviously, that’s how Federalism works) overrides state abortion bans.
This is the link I was talking about. I probably should have been clearer. But this isn’t just the plaintiff’s opinion, it’s a clear statement by the HHS secretary.
Unfortunately the HHS Secretary isn’t empowered to create law, nor are they empowered to interpret law. They can only share opinions, provide guidance, create policy, etc. So no, in this case, you are not quite right.
Further, as the other user pointed out: the hospital would rather be sued by the individual for violating their rights than by the state for violating the law. Regardless of potential precedent or final outcome, one is far, FAR more costly than the other.
As they say, when the punishment is less than the profit, it’s not a punishment, it’s a business expense
Ultimately, laws can only be judged on their ability to create outcomes. This one has failed miserably
My point is that this isn’t some random person stating as much. It’s an actual finding by the federal government, and adding to that the lawsuit makes it crystal clear the hospital is in the wrong.
If I tell my doctor friend Bob not to call 911 unless there’s an emergency, my other friend Tom has a seizure that Bob believes may kill him, and Bob doesn’t call 911, is that my fault or Bob’s?
The fact that numerous abortions have happened in ban states and nobody has been charged so far is evidence that emergency allowances aren’t some draconian measure.
And you don’t seem to be listening to people who are telling you that the law doesn’t have to be draconian to cost people their lives.
If some number of hospitals conclude that the cost of letting people die and settling wrongful death cases is lower than the cost of defending patients’ rights to an abortion under their specific circumstances, then those hospitals will set policy that prohibits providing those abortions. Because they are profit-driven, not charities (a separate but related problem)
I will say it again: if the cost is less than the profit, it’s not a punishment, it’s a business expense. Put another way, if actually breaking law A costs less than defending accusations of breaking law B, they will break law A every time.
I’m really tired of trying to explain to people that laws and politics do not exist in a bubble.
“At the time of the discussion, Farmer was medically stable, with some vaginal bleeding that was not heavy.
“Therefore contrary to the most appropriate management based (sic) my medical opinion, due to the legal language of MO law, we are unable to offer induction of labor at this time,” the report quotes the specialist as saying.”
Again, she was stable at the time. The law required that they not perform an abortion.
A political official saying something is not the law. Filling a lawsuit is not the law.
And you apparently didn’t read the rest of the article which states in no uncertain terms the hospital was wrong, nor do you know the statements of her lawsuit: she was refused even routine care for her miscarriage even though she was told several times she was in danger.
You presented it as a law being broken. The only law broken would have been if doctors performed the abortion early because she voted to make it illegal.
She’s suing the hospital, and good on her. If this goes to trial, precedent will be established either way.
It would be cool if she won, but I don’t think she will. Super easy to argue that her circumstances had not yet reached the level of “medical emergency”.
So fucked are we
It would also be super easy to argue the hospital is at fault given they were cited by the HHS secretary for refusing to provide care required by federal law.
It doesn’t really matter since the right to abortions was added to the state constitution.
It still matters because the Federal courts can set precedent that the Federal law (obviously, that’s how Federalism works) overrides state abortion bans.
And as the article I posted explains, those hospitals broke federal law when they refused to provide the abortion.
As your own link said, they didn’t break the law.
She was stable. The law says the hospital had to wait until she was in danger.
A lawsuit from a pro lifer who is suing because she wanted an abortion isn’t proof they broke the law.
This is the link I was talking about. I probably should have been clearer. But this isn’t just the plaintiff’s opinion, it’s a clear statement by the HHS secretary.
Unfortunately the HHS Secretary isn’t empowered to create law, nor are they empowered to interpret law. They can only share opinions, provide guidance, create policy, etc. So no, in this case, you are not quite right.
Further, as the other user pointed out: the hospital would rather be sued by the individual for violating their rights than by the state for violating the law. Regardless of potential precedent or final outcome, one is far, FAR more costly than the other.
As they say, when the punishment is less than the profit, it’s not a punishment, it’s a business expense
Ultimately, laws can only be judged on their ability to create outcomes. This one has failed miserably
My point is that this isn’t some random person stating as much. It’s an actual finding by the federal government, and adding to that the lawsuit makes it crystal clear the hospital is in the wrong.
If I tell my doctor friend Bob not to call 911 unless there’s an emergency, my other friend Tom has a seizure that Bob believes may kill him, and Bob doesn’t call 911, is that my fault or Bob’s?
The fact that numerous abortions have happened in ban states and nobody has been charged so far is evidence that emergency allowances aren’t some draconian measure.
And you don’t seem to be listening to people who are telling you that the law doesn’t have to be draconian to cost people their lives.
If some number of hospitals conclude that the cost of letting people die and settling wrongful death cases is lower than the cost of defending patients’ rights to an abortion under their specific circumstances, then those hospitals will set policy that prohibits providing those abortions. Because they are profit-driven, not charities (a separate but related problem)
I will say it again: if the cost is less than the profit, it’s not a punishment, it’s a business expense. Put another way, if actually breaking law A costs less than defending accusations of breaking law B, they will break law A every time.
I’m really tired of trying to explain to people that laws and politics do not exist in a bubble.
I’ve already quoted from that exact link.
From link you were talking about:
“At the time of the discussion, Farmer was medically stable, with some vaginal bleeding that was not heavy. “Therefore contrary to the most appropriate management based (sic) my medical opinion, due to the legal language of MO law, we are unable to offer induction of labor at this time,” the report quotes the specialist as saying.”
Again, she was stable at the time. The law required that they not perform an abortion.
A political official saying something is not the law. Filling a lawsuit is not the law.
And you apparently didn’t read the rest of the article which states in no uncertain terms the hospital was wrong, nor do you know the statements of her lawsuit: she was refused even routine care for her miscarriage even though she was told several times she was in danger.
The doctors said she wasn’t in immediate danger.
You presented it as a law being broken. The only law broken would have been if doctors performed the abortion early because she voted to make it illegal.