Washington governor issues directive requiring hospitals to commit ‘emergency’ abortions

[Stone]

Washington governor issues directive requiring hospitals to commit ‘emergency’ abortions
A policy statement reaffirms and clarifies the requirements under state law for hospitals to provide emergency abortion services in anticipation of a Supreme Court ruling backing conscience rights.



Washington Gov. Jay Inslee
shutterstock.com

un 18, 2024
OLYMPIA, Washington (LifeSiteNews) — Washington Democrat Gov. Jay Inslee has issued a directive meant to force hospitals to provide “medically necessary” abortions in anticipation of a pending Supreme Court ruling about medical conscience rights that many in the abortion lobby fear will not go their way.

“I hereby direct the Department of Health to issue a policy statement reaffirming and clarifying the requirements under state law for hospitals to provide emergency abortion services,” reads Inslee’s June 11 directive. “Further, I direct the Department of Health to take enforcement action, in accordance with applicable law, against those hospitals that do not provide such required care.”

“Ideological politicians are relentlessly interfering with the most private and crucial health care decisions a doctor and their patient will ever make, and now they’re doing so even when the life of a mother hangs in the balance,” the governor added in a press release. “Fortunately, we’ve taken numerous steps in Washington to make sure patients in Washington are not subject to these horrors. Hospitals and clinics in Washington have become a haven for patients seeking the abortion care they can no longer access in other states. We will meet every challenge to women’s right of choice with an unwavering affirmation that Washington is and will remain a pro-choice state.”

The move is meant to prepare for the outcome of a current case at the nation’s highest court regarding the Biden administration’s efforts to force emergency room doctors in Idaho to participate in abortions under the guise of “medical necessity.”

In August 2022, the administration filed a lawsuit contending that the federal Emergency Medical Treatment & Active Labor Act (EMTALA) overrides Idaho’s pro-life laws and requires emergency room doctors to commit abortions that would otherwise be illegal under state law. A lower court sided with the White House, prompting the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case and allow Idaho to continue to enforce its pro-life laws until it is resolved.

In April, Idaho Republican Attorney General Raúl Labrador, along with attorneys from Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and the law firm Cooper & Kirk, filed their reply brief laying out the case that the administration misreads and misapplies EMTALA in numerous ways, including that the law does not require procedures that violate state law, does not mandate services a particular hospital does not offer, and in fact requires hospitals to provide care for preborn children. The justices heard oral arguments later that month.

“We want the highest standard of care for women, and we do make an exception for abortion to save the life of the mother,” including in cases of ectopic pregnancy, Esther Ripplinger, president of Human Life of Washington, told NBC News in response to Inslee’s move. “But when you say ‘health’ is threatened — that’s an interesting proposal, because now, ‘health’ can mean, ‘Oh, I’ve got a headache, I need an abortion.’… We need to be very specific about what is that emergency and what is not.”

While some emergency situations in pregnancy can necessitate treatments indirectly resulting in a child’s death, numerous medical experts attest that intentionally killing a preborn baby is never medically necessary. Regardless, every state in the union with abortion prohibitions currently in effect also permits doctors to administer life-saving, non-abortive treatment to pregnant women even if it comes at the expense of a baby’s life.

Pro-abortion activists have long sought to keep abortion debates focused on such situations to divert attention from the vast majority of abortions that are sought for far less “sympathetic” reasons. They have gotten mileage out of that approach, which has helped defeat pro-lifers in recent state ballot referendums and convinced national Republicans to take a more moderate stance on life this year.

However, data released late last month by the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute, covering roughly 123,000 abortions across eight states in 2021 (the last full year that Roe v. Wade mandated legal abortion nationwide), found that alleged “risks to a woman’s life or a major bodily function” constituted just 0.3 percent of women’s reasons for abortion.