Kamala Harris: I Would Force Doctors to Perform Abortions
[guest post by JVW]
Not only does she want to codify Roe into national law, she would compel health professionals to violate their own consciences in pursuit of untrammeled abortion rights:
Vice President Kamala Harris said Tuesday night she would reject religious exemptions for abortion as president, effectively forcing health-care providers to perform the medical procedure in violation of their moral conscience.
The Democratic presidential nominee has been adamant about passing a bill that would codify Roe v. Wade into law, despite the Supreme Court overturning that decision in 2022. In an interview with NBC News anchor Hallie Jackson, Harris indicated she would refuse to compromise with Republican lawmakers on the abortion legislation.
“I don’t think we should be making concessions when we’re talking about a fundamental freedom to make decisions about your own body,” Harris said when asked if she would consider religious exemptions for abortion in the likelihood of a divided government.
Sure, the Harris campaign will very likely now start to quietly walk back their candidate’s loose language: of course we won’t force a health care provider to violate his or her conscience. And it is better than even money that the mainstream media will accept this correction and chalk it up to the Vice-President’s “misunderstanding” of the question. But as we freely acknowledge the rather authoritarian impulses of the GOP nominee for President and his penchant for discomforting statements with respect to civil rights, let’s also recognize that his opponent is in fact no better than he is on those matters.
Bake that cake. Kill that child.
– JVW
Gotta busy day ahead today, so I probably won’t be able to participate much in the comments thread on this post.
JVW (5978dd) — 10/23/2024 @ 8:11 amMore direct link.
BuDuh (4214e4) — 10/23/2024 @ 8:25 amCheney all for it. Her transformation to the left continues apace.
NJRob (017960) — 10/23/2024 @ 8:38 amSpeaking of President Biden, as loopy and unpredictable as he can be I just don’t see him answering that question as poorly as his Vice-President did.
JVW (5978dd) — 10/23/2024 @ 8:40 amThere was already a Supreme Court case regarding Obamacare and a hospital’s conscientious objection to certain medical procedures, so Kamala is being stupid and wrong in bringing this up, and at a time she should be broadening her appeal.
Fortunately, as long as there’s an amputated-but-still-alive filibuster, abortion legislation won’t get passed.
Paul Montagu (a28670) — 10/23/2024 @ 8:47 amYour headline has the potential to be misleading. For a second there, I thought you were going to tell us that Harris had reversed her position on laws requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges.
https://rollcall.com/2020/03/03/supreme-court-revisits-abortion-issue-over-louisiana-law/
SaveFarris (79ab12) — 10/23/2024 @ 9:00 amInteresting point, SaveFarris. I am going to change the wording in the headline:
ORIGINAL: Kamala Harris: I Would Require Doctors to Perform Abortions
UPDATED: Kamala Harris: I Would Force Doctors to Perform Abortions
Normally I would use the word “compel,” but I’m already using that in the lead sentence and I hate being repetitive.
JVW (5978dd) — 10/23/2024 @ 9:26 amAbsolutely disqualifying.
whembly (477db6) — 10/23/2024 @ 10:30 amShould a pregnant patient taken to an emergency room require an abortion due to complications be allowed to die because it’s a religious-affiliated hospital or the doctors on staff have religious objections to abortion?
SamG (4e6c22) — 10/23/2024 @ 10:44 amThey don’t have to walk back anything. Because she plainly didn’t say that.
You can claim anything, especially if you don’t pay attention to the words they say.
In this reality, words have meaning.
Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a) — 10/23/2024 @ 11:22 amShould a pregnant patient taken to an emergency room require an abortion due to complications be allowed to die because it’s a religious-affiliated hospital or the doctors on staff have religious objections to abortion?
My understanding of these situations is as follows: (1) religious hospitals can make every effort to save the life of the mother but must also make every attempt to spare the life of the child, and (2) in the vast number of situations, especially those involving late-term pregnancies, the child can be delivered before the woman is treated. What a religious hospital can’t do is deliberately end the life of the child in order to save the mother.
JVW (5978dd) — 10/23/2024 @ 11:25 am“I don’t think we should be making concessions when we’re talking about a fundamental freedom to make decisions about your own body,” Harris said when asked if she would consider religious exemptions for abortion in the likelihood of a divided government.
Help walk me through how VP Harris isn’t explicitly saying that she does not want to negotiate with pro-lifers or sign a bill which gives health professionals the option of opting out of performing abortions. Because your assertion that she “plainly” didn’t say what she is quoted as saying is absolutely baffling to me.
JVW (5978dd) — 10/23/2024 @ 11:30 am@10
This is an absolutely toxic hypothetical with zero basis in truth.
In no religious-affiliated hospital or staff would refuse to save the mother during any complications, even if it causes the death of baby.
whembly (477db6) — 10/23/2024 @ 11:35 am@12
That’s incorrect JVW.
A religious hospital can, and must (morally and legally), save the mother even if such acts would kill the baby.
whembly (477db6) — 10/23/2024 @ 11:37 amLet me rephrase. The words your claiming coming from her mouth are coming from inside your head.
“I don’t think we should be making concessions when we’re talking about a fundamental freedom to make decisions about your own body,” =/= forcing doctors to perform abortions
Your taking 2+2=4ceing doctors to perform abortions. The answer is just the 4
Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a) — 10/23/2024 @ 11:37 amAsk me how I would know this?
whembly (477db6) — 10/23/2024 @ 11:38 am@12 that would depend on the gestational age of the unborn child: what if it’s pre-viability?
But the answer you give at the end says to me that “Yes, a pregnant woman with complications from pregnancy that is brought to a religious hospital or to one with staff that refuse to perform abortions can let the patient die.”
How is it pro-life to allow both mother and child to die rather than save the mother’s life?
SamG (4e6c22) — 10/23/2024 @ 11:41 am@18
It’s not.
And religious hospitals and/or anti-abortion staff will do everything they can to save the mother, even if it means delivering the pre-viable baby.
whembly (477db6) — 10/23/2024 @ 11:46 amHarris has repeatedly said she doesn’t think religious people need to abandon their deeply held beliefs in order to support greater access to abortion.
Words said vs words not said
Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a) — 10/23/2024 @ 11:47 am@10 wanna bet? It’s not even a hypothetical: it happens.
Here’s a case from CA where the hospital refused to provide service and sent the patient elsewhere: https://www.forbes.com/sites/maryroeloffs/2024/09/30/california-sues-catholic-hospital-for-refusing-to-provide-abortion-to-save-patients-life/
Here’s an article on Catholic hospitals refusing to treat patients as needed for emergency complications because the treatment is abortion: https://www.ansirh.org/news/catholic-hospitals-sued-refusing-emergency-care-pregnant-wome
And another: https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/catholic-hospitals-affiliates-ethical-religious-directives-reproductive-care/
SamG (4e6c22) — 10/23/2024 @ 11:48 amI must say that a protest vote for Harris is turning into quite an episode.
Despite the most meticulously crafted argument that a vote for Harris does not equal responsibility for her policies- how about nooooo https://youtu.be/xagjS7zWGAM cowboy up and own it.
steveg (e2b12d) — 10/23/2024 @ 12:02 pmGod knows I’m gonna hear about my vote for Trump if he wins- a vote which I will own
Yes, I will make that bet.
The distinction is whether or not the mother’s life is at risk and whether or not hospitals/staff are playing games. There are a lot… A LOT of cya’s going here.
The reporting on these cases shouldn’t be taken at face value either as they’re there to construct a narrative. I guarantee you there are more to these stories. Just like that GA mother who died recently due to complications to chemical abortions.
If you don’t believe me, and would rather believe the text on the stories you posted… fine. But, humor me this.
I can tell you, with 100% certainty that these hospital organizations get fundings from their state as well as federal programs.
No public hospital can survive with these funding streams.
Therefore, when these organizations accept state or federal dollars, laws like EMTALA are in effect where it is REQUIRED by the ED to stabilize the patient regardless of whether the patient can pay.
These patients must be stabilized. So, the providers has to make the judgement call as to how much risk is involved.
So, the stakes are high, not only the patient’s life, but the hospital organization’s funding stream if they’re found in violation in state/federal statutes. Which such organization can lose their accreditation and even the license to operate.
In my career, I’ve never seen nor heard of an ED provider refusing to save a mother’s life, even if such procedure would kill a pre-term baby.
There’s always more to those stories.
whembly (477db6) — 10/23/2024 @ 12:16 pmDoes Trump plan to have maternity wards in the concentration camps?
nk (a57409) — 10/23/2024 @ 1:24 pm“I don’t think we should be making concessions when we’re talking about a fundamental freedom to make decisions about your own body,” =/= forcing doctors to perform abortions
But what prefaced that response, Colonel Klink? The following question, and I’m going to put it in bold so that you can’t overlook what she was being asked:
So, I’m sorry but it seems that there are really only two possibilities here:
1) Kamala Harris doesn’t understand what religious exemptions means because just like every other issue her knowledge is incredibly superficial and doesn’t extend any father than being able to blandly repeat the preferred Democrat trope, or
2) Kamala Harris got caught up in her penchant of avoiding a difficult question by answering some other hypothetical question that exists only in her mind. In that case I have no sympathy for her because that’s an obnoxious tic which her interviewers have been letting her get away with in these past few weeks when she has finally deigned to be questioned.
You claim that “Harris has repeatedly said she doesn’t think religious people need to abandon their deeply held beliefs in order to support greater access to abortion,” but you don’t provide any links to that assertion. This bit from the Washington Post about Kamala Harris’ abortion platform says nothing about religious exemptions for healt care professionals. Nor does this piece from Politico.
I did a search on “will Kamala Harris support religious freedoms” and pegged the date from 10/19/23 to 10/20/24, so that I didn’t get a bunch of hits from the last 24 hours regarding what she said to NBC yesterday. The best article I found was from The Desert News of Salt Lake City and they had this to say:
So again, Colonel Klink, I challenge you to cite these “repeated” times that Kamala Harris has advocated for religious freedom for health care professionals, because I sure can’t seem to find them.
JVW (d17bc5) — 10/23/2024 @ 10:26 pmName once she’s said what you are saying. Ever.
Conflation doesn’t count. Again 2+2=picnic chicken
Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a) — 10/23/2024 @ 10:30 pmThe reporting on these cases shouldn’t be taken at face value either as they’re there to construct a narrative. I guarantee you there are more to these stories. Just like that GA mother who died recently due to complications to chemical abortions.
Especially when the “reporting” comes from a site run by the University of California San Francisco which advertises itself as “advancing new standards in reproductive health” [reproductive health being the academic euphemism for “abortion on demand”] and details a lawsuit filed by the ACLU.
And here’s the lede paragraph from the “article” coming from the Kaiser Family Foundation, who critics have claimed is not a neutral arbiter of abortion politics:
Even if we give nurse midwife Beverly Maldonado the benefit of the doubt that the story is true exactly as she relates it, the subsequent paragraphs establish that the baby had a heartbeat. And the rest of the article is just bitching that women who want to have abortions or be sterilized have to go to hospitals not run by the Catholic Church to get what they want. Oh, the horrors! Maybe all of these rich leftists who are giving Kamala Harris $1 billion to run her putrid campaign can shake loose a few bucks to open hospitals where abortion is treated as the sacrament that progressives believe it to be, instead of trying to force someone else to do their dirty work.
JVW (d17bc5) — 10/23/2024 @ 10:45 pmHow about this, your not voting for her, and you’ve found a reason. Doesn’t matter if it’s real, you feel it, so it’s real enough for you.
If this issue overwhelms all of the reason’s the other guy is terrible for you, then by all means, vote Trump.
Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a) — 10/23/2024 @ 10:45 pmAgain, don’t believe the reports of actual events, dozens of them, because it’s inconvenient for your argument.
Invent Harris saying a thing instead, because it’s convenient for your argument.
Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a) — 10/23/2024 @ 10:48 pmIf this issue overwhelms all of the reason’s the other guy is terrible for you, then by all means, vote Trump.
I’m not voting Trump. I’ve said that numerous times. Nor did I vote for him in the previous two elections.
You on the other hand are clearly voting for Kamala Harris. That’s fine; other readers here and perhaps even a blogger or two will do the same. But don’t think that I don’t notice you lying to yourself about her beliefs or her actions just because you desperately want to assuage your guilt at casting your ballot for such a conniving, dishonest, and unqualified hack. That’s your cross to carry.
JVW (d17bc5) — 10/23/2024 @ 10:54 pmMy eyes are wide open, ears too.
When I see an interview, in living color, and then people say that the words she said, are completely different, it’s easy to call out the invention.
Anyone that isn’t Trump gets my vote. There’s never been a chance to choose another R for the last 3 elections. If Trump loses this time, and he’s alive in 4 years, guess who the MAGAGOP will nominate.
Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a) — 10/23/2024 @ 11:11 pmHarris has repeatedly said she doesn’t think religious people need to abandon their deeply held beliefs in order to support greater access to abortion.
As in: As long as they perform the abortion, they can keep their beliefs.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 10/24/2024 @ 2:20 pmWaPo opinion columnists on Harris’s town hall, and what’s wrong with her campaign (free link):
They all agree that she’s the better choice, and they all agree she’s not making the case.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 10/24/2024 @ 2:27 pmKlink is the Harris-whisperer.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 10/24/2024 @ 2:28 pm32. It’s a pickle, Kevin.
Do you say “I’m not Satan” or do you say “I’m not Satan, I’m Santa”?
If you say the second, people will want to know what goodies you’ll bring them: “But I don’t want a Barbie, I want a G.I. Jane.” “My mommy won’t let me keep a pony in my room.”
Harris’s strongest appeal is “I’m not Trump” and she may very well be right in not wanting to complicate it.
Let Trump be the one who points out the things about her that his voters don’t like but her voters do and see where it gets him.
nk (7c7790) — 10/24/2024 @ 2:53 pmHarris’s strongest appeal is “I’m not Trump” and she may very well be right in not wanting to complicate it.
If that’s the best she can do, she will lose. Not one living voter remains who has not heard that argument. If they are still undecided, saying it louder won’t help. Seeking to know what she intends to offer, they will probably accept what Trump is saying about her.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 10/24/2024 @ 3:03 pmI know that people who once quoted every election betting site as favoring Harris are now STFU about it.
Because Trump is leading on EVERY exchange 60-40.
This election was always Harris’ to lose, and she is accomplishing that by her refusal to inform voters about her plans, letting Trump define her.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 10/24/2024 @ 3:10 pmThe betting odds have been distorted by a French whale, so I wouldn’t put too much faith in them.0
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 10/24/2024 @ 3:24 pmBetting sites. There are long odds and short odds, and people prefer to make $5 by betting $4 than to make $4 by betting $5.
nk (7c7790) — 10/24/2024 @ 3:27 pmThe betting odds have been distorted by a French whale, so I wouldn’t put too much faith in them
This does not explain the other 7 exchanges. And this only affected polymarket by a couple of points.
There is remarkable agreement just the same. Still, it’s routine to blame “bias” for poll results you don’t like.
BetOnline 59 40
Kevin M (a9545f) — 10/24/2024 @ 4:27 pmBetfair 57 39
Betsson 61 40
Bovada 60 40
Bwin 60 41
Points Bet 59 42
Polymarket 59 37
Smarkets 57 40
Question: Could I see the hands of those who think that “I’m not Trump” will be sufficient to sway the uncommitted at this point? Some of them may be undecided between Harris and Stein, or between Harris and Hamas.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 10/24/2024 @ 4:30 pmBetting sites aren’t polls, as Polymarket noted above:
Rip Murdock (69aa54) — 10/25/2024 @ 7:34 amBetting markets also only reflect the opinions of foreigners, since US citizens cannot access these platforms.
Rip Murdock (69aa54) — 10/25/2024 @ 8:04 am