New Bill, New Attacks on Women's Health

I've been doing some research. I like to do due diligence and confirm things before I fly into a rage. :) Anyway I can't find an actual clip from the bill that says there is no exception if the woman's life is in danger. What section/subsection is it in? This still says there's an exception for life-endangerment (maybe it's an old version?): http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-358

looks like to some people, unborn life is somehow 'more sacred'

JP Stevens, Neither Have I been able to find any language in the bill that eliminates the exception if the woman's life is in danger. I also understand that cases where abortion is required to save a mother's life have all but disappeared from the medical scene, so much so that abortion is not taught - or required to be taught - in most medical schools, if I am correct. But that's a separate issue.

I am struck by the fact that so many of the passionate "pro life" members in the new congress are women, bright, young, talented women. In fact, It seems, at least from my perspective, that the main thrust of the move against liberalized abortion laws is coming from them. In addition to that the polls generally show as many or more women opposed to elective abortion as men. Polls also show a majority of Americans, men and women, opposed to elective abortion, and a greater majority opposed to funding it. So those women are not misrepresenting their constituents or pursuing personal agendas against the female sex, and neither are their male colleagues, as is sometimes claimed.

This seems to be more of a stepping stone type of bill where they will begin with this and gradually whittle it into what they actually wanted in the first place step by step. According to the latest version of this bill, there are exceptions for women whose lives are endangered and for victims of incest, etc., but what strikes me is that this bill, if passed, is likely to benefit insurance companies more than any other group because it seems that any abortion coverage will have to be purchased separately and specifically. At least that's my take on it.

I have also been trying to find a place in this bill where it states a doctor can refuse to perform an emergency abortion.
I can't find it, and the only sources claiming that the bill says that are blogs (and all citing the same source - someone at "NARAL"?)

If anyone finds an authoritative source that says this please share the info...so far I think this is a misunderstanding and people jumped the gun (and understand how to read/interpret bills even less than I do).

ella: NARAL is an authoritative source.

It definitely does not have a "life of the mother" exception. I guess under the new healthcare plan, you'll want to make sure you stay the heck away from Catholic hospitals if you'd like to survive a life-threatening pregnancy.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-358&version=ih&nid=t0:ih:41

Actually I think this is already true today, except now, the Federal government will be paying for doctors to stand around and watch women die.

See Rebecca's link above - the problem is that while
the exception for the life of the mother still exists in what care will be paid for, the new "nondiscrimination" clause allows providers to refuse to provide or refer for that service. It's the "protecting the conscience" crap that has played out at the state and individual employer level previously, especially around emergency contraception prescriptions. If you conscience doesn't allow you to perform an essential function of your job, then GET ANOTHER JOB.