federal EMTALA requirements have not changed, and continue to require that healthcare professionals offer treatment, including abortion care, that the provider reasonably determines is necessary to stabilize the patient’s emergency medical condition
At the time of the discussion, Farmer was medically stable, with some vaginal bleeding that was not heavy.
Sounds like she was not experiencing an emergency medical condition that would have required stabilization. It could have become more severe, which explains why conventional care would have been abortion, but it was not, at the moment of presentation.
Sure would be nice if they would just let the physicians practice medicine, without having to second guess which law takes precedence.
There’s no need to second guess. The law is explicit. Furthermore, she had been seen by several hospitals and they all denied her treatment. The situation was exacerbated by their negligence.
That’s a misinterpretation of EMTALA and the words of the HHS secretary.
They didn’t say that they would protect providers who perform abortions. They said they would seek civil punishment for those that do not. That’s very different from providing protection.
There were multiple hospitals involved and cited for failing to treat her. One excerpt from one medical report doesn’t refute that. The HHS secretary explicitly said that, under the federal EMTALA, hospitals are required to provide emergency care, which they did not.
The HHS secretary can say whatever they want. It doesn’t mean they know how things will play out in court. Hospitals employ leagues of lawyers to assess legal risk/exposure and with criminal penalties on the table in all of the 14 states where abortion is banned, it appears that they’ve determined its better to pay the fine than have many of their doctors and nurses go to jail.
Nobody has been prosecuted for this since Dobbs. Your alleged legal threat is barely even fiction. The lawyers were wrong in this case, and those who judged it legally acceptable to provide emergency abortions in ban states are right. You are ignoring these obvious facts to hold onto the nonsensical belief that these laws are unjust.
Let’s leave aside that a surgeon cannot operate without the infrastructure a hospital makes available to them in most cases. OR space, equipment, scrub nurses etc. If hospital management decides the risk is too high, the surgeon/obstetrician’s hand are tied.
Let’s say that’s not an issue. Would you risk your career and livelihood in this scenario? It’s easy to talk a big game but the vast majority of people would not. I can’t blame them. I blame the legislators and those that elected them.
Sounds like she was not experiencing an emergency medical condition that would have required stabilization. It could have become more severe, which explains why conventional care would have been abortion, but it was not, at the moment of presentation.
Sure would be nice if they would just let the physicians practice medicine, without having to second guess which law takes precedence.
There’s no need to second guess. The law is explicit. Furthermore, she had been seen by several hospitals and they all denied her treatment. The situation was exacerbated by their negligence.
In your opinion. Unless you’re a Missouri judge, that opinion is not useful.
Your opinion matters as much as mine, the HHS secretary said they’re in the wrong, and it would have been 100% legal by the letter of the law.
That’s a misinterpretation of EMTALA and the words of the HHS secretary.
They didn’t say that they would protect providers who perform abortions. They said they would seek civil punishment for those that do not. That’s very different from providing protection.
See my comment above for more details.
There were multiple hospitals involved and cited for failing to treat her. One excerpt from one medical report doesn’t refute that. The HHS secretary explicitly said that, under the federal EMTALA, hospitals are required to provide emergency care, which they did not.
The HHS secretary can say whatever they want. It doesn’t mean they know how things will play out in court. Hospitals employ leagues of lawyers to assess legal risk/exposure and with criminal penalties on the table in all of the 14 states where abortion is banned, it appears that they’ve determined its better to pay the fine than have many of their doctors and nurses go to jail.
Nobody has been prosecuted for this since Dobbs. Your alleged legal threat is barely even fiction. The lawyers were wrong in this case, and those who judged it legally acceptable to provide emergency abortions in ban states are right. You are ignoring these obvious facts to hold onto the nonsensical belief that these laws are unjust.
Let’s leave aside that a surgeon cannot operate without the infrastructure a hospital makes available to them in most cases. OR space, equipment, scrub nurses etc. If hospital management decides the risk is too high, the surgeon/obstetrician’s hand are tied.
Let’s say that’s not an issue. Would you risk your career and livelihood in this scenario? It’s easy to talk a big game but the vast majority of people would not. I can’t blame them. I blame the legislators and those that elected them.