Last week, Joe Biden passed his executive order asking for
the Department of Health and Human Services, as well as other aspects of
the federal government to look into what if anything can be done to bring back some
of the rights that were stripped away with the destruction of Roe V Wade.
I was highly critical of that.
I think a lot of people were.
And I think understandably so
that said, there has already been a little bit that's come from it.
Not much, we're gonna dive into the details and see how much it's worth but
here is the update as of just yesterday.
The Department of Health and Human Services released guidance saying that
health providers who perform abortions in emergency situations are protected under
federal law, regardless of what bans are in place in their states.
This is the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act,
which protects providers when offering legally mandated life or
health saving abortion services in emergency situations.
They specifically say that statute requires that Medicare hospitals provide
all patients and appropriate medical screening examination,
stabilizing treatment and transfer if necessary,
irrespective of any state laws or mandates that apply to specific procedures.
So if this actually works out the way they're implying if on the ground,
you can actually rely on this, then at the very least, even in the many states,
the increasing number of states where abortion has been made illegal, the number
where there's no consideration whatsoever for the health or life of the mother.
Theoretically assuming the medical providers aren't regardless of this so
terrified that they won't go through with it,
you might still have the rights you had for the entirety of your life.
And so Jessica, that is at the very least, something they have scale,
they've rolled back the reduction of rights by a little bit.
>> Yeah, this is the right thing to do, right?
When a social contract is broken and the majority of people would like to continue
exercising your rights, their rights, it's important that you
actually guarantee that there's a way for them to exercise those rights.
Because this ruling is essentially a law that's just written on a piece of
paper and
it's only as valuable as the legitimacy of the people who created it, right?
>> Mhm >> The Supreme Court
at the end of the day, the people who made this decision, it's six people.
And so if the rest of the country decides, this was an overstep of their power and
it's actually good for our government if we guarantee these rights to our people,
I think it's the right thing to do.
And it's what should be done moving forward.
>> Yeah.
And it's something.
>> Yeah.
>> But it's also an indication of where they could potentially go further
because if we believe that Biden approves of this,
which we have to assume at this point that he does,
he is okay with the federal government saying, damn your laws, there are certain
lines that we won't allow you to cross when it comes to revoking your rights.
And, I actually found one particular part of this to be quite interesting.
So, when offering legally mandated life or health saving abortion services.
So let's talk about life, let's talk about health, let's help.
What is how damaging would the threat to the health have to be for this to trigger?
And if we're not just talking about the doctor thinks that the person is
going to die,
but that they might suffer some sort of lingering negative effect of their health.
Health is a little bit broader than just the state of your kidneys or your lungs.
What about your psychological health?
What about your emotional health?
What about your financial health?
Being forced to as a 10 year old give birth to the product of incestuous rape.
So if that doesn't threaten to kill the 10 year old,
are we implying that that's not bad for their health in any way?
No, I think that it clearly is.
And so we've now got an avenue.
The Biden administration can argue that they are considering the whole all
encompassing health of these people, and
they will make sure that they have access to the services that they need.
Now, obviously, this is not something that Biden is saying it's not something that
Biden is likely to do, but if he wanted to actually be bold as bold as they were
claiming over the weekend, he was in the face of the abortion protests.
This is one thing he could do in addition to the many other ideas that have been
provided to him Jessica.
>> Right. That's exactly
I think what's missing here.
Is what's your explanation for how you're going to keep these people safe and
actually enforce this so that, the people that are going to these clinics to get
these abortions aren't met with a bunch of pro life protesters and
people who get violent because they're now emboldened by this ruling.
They really need to back this stuff up with some security plan to ensure that
this actually gets enforced and these people can actually exercise their rights,
because we're entering into a weird territory like the Walgreens, the folks
who work at Walgreens who are denying people picking up their birth control.
A lot of people are taking this into their own hands, and there's got to be some
legitimate backing of people who will keep the people exercising their rights safe.
>> Yeah, 100%. Franken in the chat is saying, so
fetuses are persons, but 10 year olds are not, well, maybe technically they are, but
their rights they're not interesting to the right,
they're not going to prioritize their rights.
Certainly, they will allow the government to do things to you to exercise
control over you that they would not allow 1% of against themselves.
This is all about inflicting pain on people that they look down on.
Women very easily slot into that category for them,
they always have that's what this is about.
It's not about life, it's not about right, It's not about anything.
[MUSIC]