Can states provide abortions to pregnant women in an emergency? Supreme Court hears arguments
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 тра 2024
- The Supreme Court appeared skeptical that state abortion bans conflict with federal healthcare law during oral arguments on Wednesday. The case could determine when doctors can provide abortions to pregnant women with medical emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
STAY CONNECTED AND STAY AHEAD WITH FOX 5 DC
Subscribe to FOX 5 DC on UA-cam » ua-cam.com/channels/x5dc.html?su...
Read the latest local and national news on fox5dc.com » fox5dc.com/
Watch FOX 5 DC programming live » fox5dc.com/live
Get your local forecast from the FOX 5 DC Weather team » www.fox5dc.com/weather
Learn how to follow us on social media, download our news and weather mobile apps, find us on your Smart TV and sign up for our daily newsletter » fox5dc.com/connect-with-fox-5...
Follow FOX 5 DC on Facebook » / fox5dc
Follow FOX 5 DC on Twitter » / fox5dc
Follow FOX 5 DC Instagram » / fox5dc
Vote in the daily FOX 5 DC InstaPoll » fox5dc.com/instapoll
FOX 5 DC, WTTG-TV and FOX 5 PLUS, WDCA-TV are owned-and-operated TV stations of the Fox Broadcasting Company. We are located in Washington, D.C. and serves the entire Washington metropolitan area (including Northern Virginia, Maryland, and the Martinsburg, West Virginia area). Our studio is based in Bethesda, Maryland.
STOP POLITICIANS FROM MAKING MEDICAL DECESSIONS!
Oh? Like making medical malpractice punishable by law? Or outlawing electroshock therapy? Or lobotomies?
why doesnt a womans health matter until she is close to death? Who will pay the bill
to be airlifted to the hospital (between 12k and 25k)?
That’s just a pro kill babies defense.
@@leggs0312 that's an interesting non answer
How doesn’t women’s health matter until she’s close to death??? Presumably if she’s pregnant she’s getting prenatal care? And nobody is trying to deny that? Because prenatal care doesn’t include abortion.
IT'S A DOCTOR'S PROFESSION FOR CARING FOR THE SICK AND PROVIDE THE CARE THEY NEED POLITICIANS ARE NOT DOCTORS SO STOP DECIDING MEDICAL DECISIONS FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE IN NEED OF THEM
No reasonable person would agree that you have the right to make 'medical decisions' to kill some other person for your own convenience; so the only reason you can even try to use that argument is because you reject that the baby is a person. But the other side of that argument believes it IS a person; so to them, your argument is silly.
Oh? Like making medical malpractice punishable by law? Or outlawing electroshock therapy? Or lobotomies?
No like telling people that they are the ones who can decide what someone can do about their body and what they can't
@@user-dc1me2me2y some procedures aren’t elective, for example, you can’t just have your legs and arms amputated because you ask so
No they are not but politicians are doctors and they don't have any right to say who should be able to what they choose to to with the biological choices that they make women have a right to say when they would have a child not the law
I bet if males carried children we wouldn’t even be having this discussion!!!
Males are forced to support their children financially. Their money, their choice?
Absolutely we would. This is a ridiculous proposition. If men were simply 100% self interested we would be FOR abortions because that's cheaper than paying child support. If you're going to try to reduce the whole argument down to something that simple and venal, then at least be honest with your own argument.
No, the right to life means NOBODY can kill someone else.
Yes pretty much as all about control. Two men have already in the U.S. for publicly but they are rare cases of intersex men with both genitalia and barely enough to make a case.
Hmmm I’m sure you feel the same way about the death penalty or cops killing people or soldiers killing enemies of our country.
No one has a right to kill someone😂
LOLS -- the legality of it doesn't matter if the doctors with these skills have left the state. Huh, Idaho?
Child support at conception and mandatory vasectomies after a certain number of children. It takes two to make a baby.
“After a number of children” doesn’t solve the issue, you can not want children and have two.
This November, vote as if it's the last time Republicans allow you to vote
I don't think the government should have the right to tell people they can't ANY medical treatment.
Unfortunately it could lead to illegal, dangerous, underground, back alley abortions.
I feel sorry for the USA... I dunno what to say anymore.
what’s the case called?
What were those inalienable rights again?
The unborn say:
You can’t de-fetus.
Oh heck ya... or lose your Wallet
To their health and in cases of rape!!!
Do you know the percentages of rape victims and abortion? It's miniscule and the baby is still a human and still murder, give it up to adoption find a family yourself to give your baby to if you don't want a baby that is a result of grape. The only reason for it is to save the mother's life
GOD I hope not
I’m sure they could
Father, I ask that you wrap your arms around our Supreme Court Justice’s tonight.. Please talk to them and bring guidance and truth with your Word.. Father, I ask that you please help them in making Godly decisions for our Country.. In Jesus name, I pray.. Amen!!!
I thought it was up to the states?
Yeah they left it up to the states in the Bible belt there’s about 20 states that it is against the law. While I had a family member that lost three pregnancies and was denied medication on the third at a Kroger. We thought that she got her much needed medication but not without going to the attorney general and the governor. She finally had a fourth child happy and healthy as she always prayed for. under this band she would’ve died three times before she could deliver her much wanted prayed for beautiful baby! stay out of our bedrooms and stay out of our bodies vote blue let’s go ladies!❤
Because it was allowed federally, most states never bothered to change state laws. Republicans are trying to sneak one by.
@@rottdog7864 what do you mean “it was allowed federally” that’s not how laws work.
VOTE BLUE 💙 🗳 ☑️ 💙 🗳 ☑️ 💙
Vote Red, save a life.
Whatever happened to the rights of all humans to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? That includes the rights of the unborn human!
Republicans took them away. They gave them to corporations that are "people" now.
ALL Humans, you say? So, asylum seekers? Palestinian children? ALL?
Emergency abortion..?
Never heard of it.
IT IS MY THAT VIEW THAT MEN AND WOMEN IN THE USA SHOULD BE FREE TO HAVE ABORTION.
IT IS ,AFTER ALL , " MY BODY, I DECIDE".
The baby isn't the mother's body.
Yea emergency like if the pregnancy continues the mom will die.
@@Mythryl12 Unfortunately he would rather live in ignorance stating the same stupid slogan over and over again than recognize basic truths. It would be funny to listen to, but unfortunately these people vote.
@@Mythryl12 the fetus has no vote on this matter.
@@Mythryl12 unfortunately my reply got erased by YT .
THE fetus has no vote in this matter. The placenta , the umbilical cord ,the appendix has no vote in this matter
ONLY THE PERSON WHO IS PREGNANT HAS A VOTE IN THIS MATTER🤣🤣🤣
If you can let specific scenarios fly you should allow anyone, its either everyone or no one. Cant believe our government thinks like children
What if the obstetrician were female? After all no man would be involved in the loss of the unborn and would still be in accordance with the Hebraic law?
The OB-GYN’s gender doesn’t matter. Both male and female OB-GYN’s have faced major when dealing post ROE problems when trying or attempting to perform medical emergency abortions.
The justices are skeptical because there is no such law that would prevent a doctor from intervening in a medical emergency. Zero states have laws that would prevent that.
They already _are_ preventing doctors from acting on behalf of the mothers' health.
Hospitals are making decisions based on lawyers' advice rather than doctors' because of the risk of prosecution.
Untrue. For example, here in Texas, a woman who *wanted* to have a child, was seeking an abortion. The child she was carrying had such severe issues, it had no chance to live. But that's not all, carrying it to term would also risk her life, and even if she lived she was unlikely to be able to have another child in the future. She sought an exception here in Texas. Her case went to the Texas Supreme Court, and they denied her.
Another woman was actually in the process of a miscarriage, and the hospital made her wait in the parking lot for a couple of days until the miscarriage became life threatening before it would help her, because of the state laws.
I am certain Texas is not the only one.
@@TheYuleTube Poor attempt to misstate the court's position. The Texas ruling was that the woman did not need a court order since the law already provided for the right of a doctor to intervene if, in that doctor's opinion, the woman's life was at risk. She wanted a court decision to give her a specific exception to the law, and the court found that the existing exceptions would already cover her situation if a doctor saw it that way. She didn't need to go to some other state to get an abortion; she just needed to find a doctor that agreed with her that HER life was in imminent danger and an abortion was medically necessary. I don't know anything about your story about the miscarriage; but I would guess it's one of two things. Either it's missing important details, OR it's a case of someone making a mistake - neither of which contradicts my original claim. There are ZERO states that have laws that do not allow for abortions when they are medically necessary.
@@Mythryl12 Not accurate. It went to the Texas Supreme Court because Dan Patrick sued to stop her from being an exception.
@@TheYuleTube ....which is exactly what I said. She does not need to be an exception to the law, because the law already provides for her to be able to get an abortion under the appropriate circumstances. That was the ruling of the court. It is not relevant how or why the decision came before the court; the only thing that is relevant is what they decided. Regardless of the fact that she was sued, she had her own position that was clearly stated; and her position was that she wanted such an order.
Stop killing babies....every life is precious to God.
Until they are born, then who cares if they end up like the ferals in Romania when they banned!
God himself natural aborts over half of all human fertilized eggs. That factor in?
Every life? Really? I don't think you actually mean that
this is about moms healths at risk!! not about generalized abortion. I love god just as much as you but use some common sense.
the common sense is lacking in this one
That's the only reason for abortion point blank, not as birth control like it's being used as it's murder
MURDER IS MURDER!!
So, our soldiers are going to hell?
You sound dumb and dumber.
Great movie 🎬
Like you'd murder a cow for some juicy steaks. IPOKRITA.
Yes, let’s have the whole country revolve around the needs of the 1.5% of women too irresponsible to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. 🙄
They are talking about medical emergency abortions when in most cases the pregnancy was wanted but complications happened. Not the same as an elective abortion.
Don’t you mean men? The men who are too irresponsible to prevent a pregnancy. If you guys can’t take care of your kids, stop having sex.
Why do you care? Do you lay awake at night worried about the unwanted drug addicted babies in the ICU? The hundreds of thousand of kids in foster care? The pregnant women who do t have health insurance? Since you care so much about babies which I very much doubt
@@michellejohnson5217 uh, no, but we do generally think of every person whos lost their life unjustly because another person wanted to kill them.
I'm writing you today brothers and sisters because I care about you and where you spend eternity. With so many lies going around about what you must do to be saved, I wanted to share the truth about Gods word with you and maybe give you a better perspective on the Gospel (Good news) well the bible says it is appointed to man to die once and then the judgment " yes there is going to be a judgment you see God is a holy God and in him is no darkness at all..the bible says we have violated Gods law (ten commandments) and are guilty of Hell and seperation from God for eternity this originally began in the garden of eden. Heres the Good news though, God loved you enough to send his only son into the world in the flesh to be crucified for our sins..yes that's right christ was sinless and bore our sins in his body, because without the shedding of blood there could be no remission of sin. So he was crucified on our behalf he was dead 3 days and then rose from the dead, victorious having defeated death, and now is seated at the right hand of God interceding on the behalf of the beilever. So that whoever repents of their sins and puts their faith and trust in Jesus christ as lord and savior, will be saved from the judgment of hell and will have everlasting life with God for eternity. Love u. Blessings my freinds the time is at hand;)
I vomited a little in my mouth while reading this
@@davidowens1424 me too
I bet this person watches Joel olsteen. 😂
@@backpackingorbust3875 Absolutely NOT"...False teacher!
@@davidowens1424 that's probably because of your unbelief..satan the god of this world blinds the minds of those who do not believe...least the light of the glorious gospel should shine unto them.