Did a Georgia Hospital Break Federal Law When It Failed to Save Amber Thurman? A Senate Committee Chair Wants Answers.
The Georgia hospital that failed to save Amber Thurman may have broken a federal law when doctors there waited 20 hours to perform a procedure criminalized by the state’s abortion ban, according to Sen. Ron Wyden, chair of the Senate Finance Committee.
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA, requires hospitals to provide emergency care to stabilize patients who need it — or transfer them to a hospital that can. Passed nearly four decades ago, the law applies to any hospital with an emergency department and that accepts Medicare funding, which includes the one Thurman went to, Piedmont Henry in suburban Atlanta. The finance committee has authority over the regulatory agency that enforces the law.
In a letter sent Monday, Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, cites ProPublica’s investigation into Thurman’s death, which was found preventable by a state committee of maternal health experts. The senator’s letter asks Piedmont CEO David Kent whether the hospital has delayed or denied emergency care to pregnant patients since Georgia’s abortion ban went into effect. (Kent did not respond to requests for comment.)
That's a long list of problems that FDR didn't put any effort into solving, at all.
Congratulations. He started with nothing. We started with a LOT.
If you support everything FDR did, but nothing more, then by definition you are neither to the left nor the right of FDR.
If you support everything FDR did, except you also support the tiniest bit of health care reform, then by definition you are to the left of FDR.
Yeah. Thanks for addressing my points on how much we didn't gain and how much we've lost.
Believe it or not, there is another political party in the US. They are supported by half the country and are successfully advancing their agenda, in part because people like you don't put any effort into stopping them.
I'm doing my part.
Unless you vote for Democrats, you really aren't.
That's what they've been telling me since Nixon, Dems keep moving right.
No, they aren't.
If you're old enough to remember Nixon then you're old enough to remember Phil Gramm, Zell Miller, and Sam Nunn. All of them Democrats who were more conservative than any Democrat today.
More recently, Lieberman, Manchin, and Sinema all left the party. Every time a conservative Democrat leaves, the party center of gravity moves left.
Right. That's why people today can afford a mortgage, vehicle, kids, higher education for them, health care and decent food, like they could then. How dare I believe my lying eyes.
Your eyes will tell you that Republicans successfully fought all those things, yet you refuse to believe them.
Did Dems codify Roe in 50 years? Keep tuition affordable? Chemicals out of food? Fund the EPA? Correct the climate? Crack down on big industry polluters? Give meaningful punishment for price gouging? Meaningfully address health (ACA means fa if people are still dying from preventable causes)? Keep carcinogens out of our food and water supply? Our air? Shore up voting? Reign in big banks? Did they address over criminalization? Get rid of prison slavery? Wage slavery? Stop couping other countries? Show up unions? Hire more air traffic controllers? Stop supporting genocide? The list is interminable. You can have the last word. You can keep people blind. I won't.
If you've really old enough to remember Nixon, then you should know that Democratic administrations are only able to accomplish one major legislative initiative, and sometimes not even that.
If you expect Democrats to make major progress on multiple problems at once, then you simply don't understand how US politics work. The system is not meant to deliver rapid progress at the national level. That's why many of the things on your list are addressed at the state level instead.