The question should be obvious. The emergent care requirement is arbitrary if there is no true need for it. IOW, cite the scores of women that were medically impacted by the lack of emergent care. If there is a significant number of people that were suffering because these facilities were lacking the proper ability to perform the procedure (including the after effects) then you have a point. If not then the claim that these facilities were inadequate and that the new requirements are not arbitrary is false.
So in your medical opinion women receiving abortions do not need emergent care. If they die they die. wow
My Doctor Online
snips:
What could possibly go wrong he says...
The interesting part is that I most certainly did not say that nothing can go wrong nor did I ever imply that the procedure was 100 percent safe. Driving to the clinic is not safe either. Nor is a million other things that you routinely do. Certain restrictions (like seatbelt) are imposed when there is shown that significant gains can be made in safety. The fact that you have to outright lie about my statements and set up straw men simply shows my supposition is correct: you have no data whatsoever showing that there is any such needs for the increased precautions or that there were a significant number of women suffering adverse effects because the regulations were not in place. After all, YOU stated that:
It did not restrict access, it simply set a bar for safety that was a bit higher than the coat hanger shops the abortion mills were running.
‘Coat hanger shops’ – if those were really so bad then where are all the women that were affected by the absence of these new regulations? How many women are now going to be ‘rescued’ from those terrible conditions? If you are arguing with more than emotion here then you should have no problem citing a reliable source with concrete evidence that the increased care was necessary because women were suffering in its absence otherwise the restrictions are asinine. If you have such data then the restrictions might very well be reasonable.
From what I have seen so far, however, they are nothing more than an attempt to restrict access and they are doing exactly that. I highly doubt that the courts will allow it to stand.
It would be like me requiring you to wear a hard hat to enter a store – after all SOMETHING might fall on you. Never mind actually showing a real need before making arbitrary requirements.
