Washington governor to force hospitals to commit ’emergency’ abortions for ‘health’

Washington Governor Jay Inslee has announced that state law will require hospitals to commit abortions in emergency situations, in advance of an upcoming Supreme Court decision.

The Supreme Court is expected to give a decision in the Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States cases in June, which will determine whether or not Idaho emergency room doctors can intentionally end the lives of preborn children by abortion for allegedly “medically necessary” reasons. The Biden Department of Justice (DOJ) previously sued the state of Idaho, arguing that Idaho’s Defense of Life Act violates the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). The state of Idaho then asked the Supreme Court to weigh in.

Inslee said this move is meant to preempt whatever the Supreme Court’s decision may be. “This is a preventative against the Supreme Court decision,” he said. “If your health is going to be damaged in any way as a result of not getting emergency services, you ought to have that right to get those emergency services.”

He has issued a directive ordering the Washington health department to take action against hospitals that will not commit abortions, claiming in a press conference, “A woman’s right of choice is still under attack in the state of Washington, a reality we simply have to face. We have been locked in this battle to protect a women’s right of choice. We’re making it clear so that everybody will understand the rules. We’re understanding how draconian this has been in women’s rights across the state of Washington.”

READ: Study author: Out-of-state abortions up 50% in Washington… so more abortion businesses are needed

The Washington State Hospital Association released a statement supporting Inslee’s initiative, but also noted they are already required by law to provide emergency care to someone experiencing pregnancy complications. The problem is that “health” is often used as a vague excuse to allow abortions for virtually any reason, as local pro-life advocates have pointed out.

“We want the highest standard of care for women, and we do make an exception for abortion to save the life of the mother,” Esther Ripplinger, president of Human Life of Washington, said. “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.”

Emergency treatments for pregnancy complications are, and always have been, legal. Induced abortion — the intentional and direct killing of a preborn child — isn’t necessary to save a pregnant woman’s life. Miscarriage treatments, emergency deliveries, and treatment for ectopic pregnancies are not abortions and are legal in every state.

Ingrid Skop, the vice president and director of medical affairs for Charlotte Lozier Institute, also explained that induced abortion (intentional killing) is not necessary in emergencies. “As a practicing OB-GYN, I care for both a mother and her unborn child, and in my 30 years of practice, I have never had to resort to an abortion to save a woman’s life. In fact, about 90% of my obstetric peers refuse to perform elective abortions,” she has previously said, concluding, “Abortion advocates have one goal: to spread confusion through lies. They want to increase abortions on demand at any time in pregnancy, and they will do whatever it takes to achieve that goal. It’s crucial that Americans, especially women, start questioning the abortion advocates weaponizing that confusion for their own benefit, rather than the pro-life protections that very clearly protect pregnant women facing heartbreaking situations.”

The DOJ put a pro-life grandmother in jail for protesting the killing of preborn children. Please take 30-seconds to TELL CONGRESS: STOP THE DOJ FROM TARGETING PRO-LIFE AMERICANS.