Do doctors have an obligation under federal law to keep their patients alive, even if their patients happen to be pregnant women? Do doctors have an obligation to prevent maiming – or irreversible organ damage, or other kinds of serious bodily harm – and if so, does that obligation extend even to women? Do women have a right to access medically necessary care even if they are pregnant? No, according to the US fifth circuit court.
That’s the conclusion reached by a three-judge panel recently in Texas v Becerra, a case in which Texas sued the Biden administration over guidance that directed all hospitals receiving federal funds to perform “necessary stabilizing treatment” on patients – including abortions on pregnant patients undergoing medical emergencies.
The case was about whether Federal rule making outweighs State law. As medical care – let alone abortion – is not one of the enumerated powers then no.
Shrug.
I would have said “depends who is paying”. If these procedures are directly funded by Washington then yes. Otherwise the Govt can just withdraw its subsidies.
Imagine if even a tiny fraction of this energy was spent on raising children, instead of constantly trying to get them killed and dumped as medical waste.
No doubt the Feds want to force their policies on Texas, but not to piss off Texan voters by depriving their hospitals of funds.
One does wonder which desire will triumph. Since I understand there’s a presidential election this year, I’d guess they’ll go for pandering to the Texan voters.
You wonder if these people just completely do not understand exactly what “federation” means, or they do and just utterly loathe the fact they live in a federation. I lean towards the latter. *ANY* form of non-centralised mass control is loathed by these people. Even down to the level of individual thought is loathed by these people.
Jgh – Yarp, but that’s because the Left don’t want federalism, democracy, or any of that nonsense.
They want dead, brainwashed, or raped kids.