Texas Abortion bill

[JakeStarkey]

Texas laws already protect women in abortion clinics. Nothing in the bill significantly elevated their level of protection. The state can inspect clinics, and the state licenses, and the Medical Association evaluates credentials.

The bill is solely about cutting access, nothing more.

 

[koshergrl]

We already have restrictions on abortions that most Texans support, but on these new more restrictive measures, the polls do not show majority support. Trying to ram these new restrictions through a special session does not rise to the cause of an emergency session.

The only "new restriction" on ABORTION is the 20 week one, that the majority of Texans (and Americans) whole heartedly endorse.

The other so-called restrictions aren't restrictions on abortions, they simply set a medical standard for abortionists that brings them into mainstream medicine.

And it is THAT that has the abortionists shrieking, because they don't WANT to have to meet the same standards as mainstream providers. They don't want to have to show any qualifications at all, they don't want to have to be inspected, they don't want to keep records, and they most certainly don't want to ever be in the hostile HOSPITAL environment, which is competitive and closely monitored. And they don't care if women die so that they can continue as they have. They don't care one bit.

Whatever you want to call it, it does not have majority support among Texans.

Yes, it does. The Republican senators represent their constituents, and they are the majority...and they support it.

Hence the mob thing.

 

[koshergrl]

Texas laws already protect women in abortion clinics. Nothing in the bill significantly elevated their level of protection. The state can inspect clinics, and the state licenses, and the Medical Association evaluates credentials.

The bill is solely about cutting access, nothing more.

It's about saving women's lives, and getting rid of the Gosnells.


I can understand why you object. Can't have that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

False equivalency, kosghergrl. The people do not support the bill. And the senators will find out in their next election.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Texas laws already protect women in abortion clinics. Nothing in the bill significantly elevated their level of protection. The state can inspect clinics, and the state licenses, and the Medical Association evaluates credentials.

The bill is solely about cutting access, nothing more.

It's about saving women's lives, and getting rid of the Gosnells.

I can understand why you object. Can't have that.

Reported. We are talking about access, not about saving women's lives. The bill does nothing to further the latter goal at all. Nothing. And you can't provide info for your point.

 

[koshergrl]

False equivalency, kosghergrl. The people do not support the bill. And the senators will find out in their next election.

No false equivilance. The people didn't block the bill. A loud and aggressive mob did.

The people have already approved the bill. The mob seeks to derail it.

 

[Intense]

Moved to Congress Forum. Zone 3 Posting Rules apply.

 

[JakeStarkey]

False equivalency, kosghergrl. The people do not support the bill. And the senators will find out in their next election.

No false equivilance. The people didn't block the bill. A loud and aggressive mob did.

The people have already approved the bill. The mob seeks to derail it.

The Senate failed, koshergrl. And if it succeeds next week, the courts will derail it.

This bill will never go into action, and this mob of hateAmerica noarbortion activists will be losing their seats in coming elections.

 

[koshergrl]

Texas laws already protect women in abortion clinics. Nothing in the bill significantly elevated their level of protection. The state can inspect clinics, and the state licenses, and the Medical Association evaluates credentials.

The bill is solely about cutting access, nothing more.

It's about saving women's lives, and getting rid of the Gosnells.

I can understand why you object. Can't have that.

Reported. We are talking about access, not about saving women's lives. The bill does nothing to further the latter goal at all. Nothing. And you can't provide info for your point.

Reported for what? Telling you that you're wrong?

 

[Luissa]

Everyone stop reporting everything you disagree with. Review the rules. Stop threatening to report someone. If this keeps up infractions and/or short vacations could be handed out. Stay on topic. Thank you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's about saving women's lives, and getting rid of the Gosnells.

I can understand why you object. Can't have that.

Reported. We are talking about access, not about saving women's lives. The bill does nothing to further the latter goal at all. Nothing. And you can't provide info for your point.

Reported for what? Telling you that you're wrong?

Trying to keep you on topic. The bill does nothing constructively to save women's lives.

 

[mamooth]

BTW, I have maintained all along that the bill would close the abortion clinics that are operating on the fringes of mainstream medicine.

And you're hypocritical in that stance, since no other type of outpatient surgery is required to hold to those the same standards. Oral surgery is more dangerous than abortion. Liposuction is more dangerous than abortion. Yet oddly, you're not screaming to have dentistry and cosmetic surgery only allowable at top-of-the-line surgical centers.

If you cared about health, you'd be demanding that all outpatient surgery be regulated the same way. But you don't. You single out abortion for such special standards. You're using fake concern over health to cover for your real motivation here, which is to ban abortion, period, for any reason you can manufacture.

 

[koshergrl]

BTW, I have maintained all along that the bill would close the abortion clinics that are operating on the fringes of mainstream medicine.

And you're hypocritical in that stance, since no other type of outpatient surgery is required to hold to those the same standards. Oral surgery is more dangerous than abortion. Liposuction is more dangerous than abortion. Yet oddly, you're not screaming to have dentistry and cosmetic surgery only allowable at top-of-the-line surgical centers.

If you cared about health, you'd be demanding that all outpatient surgery be regulated the same way. But you don't. You single out abortion for such special standards. You're using fake concern over health to cover for your real motivation here, which is to ban abortion, period, for any reason you can manufacture.

Straw man:
Per the CDC's letter, linked earlier, there are no reliable statistics on abortion. This includes death and injury statistics. So your statement about oral surgery and liposuction being safer, while impressive rhetorically, has no standing in the discussion.

And ad hominem:
Regarding my *motivation*, that is completely irrelevant to the discussion. The point of the discussion is that the majority of Texans whole heartedly support a 20-week abortion limit, and increased oversight and accountability of the abortion clinics in operation. If abortion clinics need to close because they cannot come up to a reasonable standard, then they need to close. Others who have higher standards will take their place. The result will be women will receive better care, and fewer will die in hell holes like Gosnell's.

 

[Hyrcanus]

And you're hypocritical in that stance, since no other type of outpatient surgery is required to hold to those the same standards. Oral surgery is more dangerous than abortion. Liposuction is more dangerous than abortion. Yet oddly, you're not screaming to have dentistry and cosmetic surgery only allowable at top-of-the-line surgical centers....

Abortion should be held to the exact same medical standard as all other outpatient surgical procedures.

There is NO logical, rational, scientific, or medical reason to hold abortion to a higher medical standard.

 

[koshergrl]

Requiring them to have admitting privileges isn't a higher medical standard.

My oral surgeon was required to do oral surgery actually IN the hospital, in days gone by. Eventually, he opened a clinic...but he still had to have admitting privileges.

It's just one of those things that keeps all medical professionals on the same page.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Anecdotal evidence is not corroborative evidence.

Nothing in this bill is going to enhance saving women's lives.

It's a charade.

 

[koshergrl]

"Oral and maxillofacial surgeons are respected and valued members of the health care team. Oral and maxillofacial surgeons maintain active staff privileges with local and regional hospitals in their community and practice in a variety of settings including private clinical practice, ambulatory surgical centers and hospitals. "

Dental Students | AAOMS.org

Plastic surgery (liposuction): "Doctors must apply and be granted permission to admit patients into a hospital.
http://www.healthgrades.com/physician/dr-donald-parks-3gnhh/address

I always have corroborative evidence.

 

[mamooth]

Per the CDC's letter, linked earlier, there are no reliable statistics on abortion. This includes death and injury statistics. So your statement about oral surgery and liposuction being safer, while impressive rhetorically, has no standing in the discussion.

So you're waving your hands and invoking a conspiracy, check.

By the way, that CDC letter said _all_ maternal deaths are undercounted. You story on it is evolving. And your really bad train of logic here seems to be "We don't know stats perfectly, therefore we know nothing."

Abortion is safer than childbirth. Thus, by koshrgrl standards, she wants to kill women. Hey, her standards, not mine. She made those standards, she gets to have them applied to her.

And yes, I know she's got endless junk science from the pro-lie websites. Bring it on.

Anyways, she must really adore those back-alley abortions and chopshops, being that she's trying to outlaw legitimate clinics. I wonder, how many of these pro-lifers get a cash kickback from Dr. Gosnell types. Given how much business they drive to them, they've certainly earned such a paycheck.

Regarding my *motivation*, that is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Don't be absurd. Your lack of credibility is entirely relevant. If I show you're wildly inconsistent regarding your motivation, it destroys your claim.

But don't worry. Your Republican heroes will do what such thugs always do, which is cheat and change the rules, and the bill will eventually go through, and you'll loudly cheer the thuggery and cheating, as Republicans always do. And then the bill will then be shot down by the courts.

 

[mamooth]

I always have corroborative evidence.

You mean you always move the goalposts. We we talking about ambulatory surgical center certification, and you switched topics to admitting privileges. Neither of those examples requires ambulatory surgical center certification. Your own quote on the first says a private clinic is quite acceptable.

Besides, Amy already thoroughly destroyed your "admitting privileges" nonsense.

 

[Katzndogz]

Requiring them to have admitting privileges isn't a higher medical standard.

My oral surgeon was required to do oral surgery actually IN the hospital, in days gone by. Eventually, he opened a clinic...but he still had to have admitting privileges.

It's just one of those things that keeps all medical professionals on the same page.

It is one of those things that keeps doctors competent. Doctors are not required to have medical malpractice insurance. Hospitals require doctors to carry insurance. A doctor that is uninsurable will not have admitting privileges anyplace.

The pro aborts don't care who performs abortions. It could be the guy who lost his plumbing job last week.