Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Why would anyone oppose a requirement for Hospital Admission Privileges for medical situations like this?
Why would anyone oppose a requirement for Hospital Admission Privileges for medical situations like this?
In order to get admitting privileges, the hospital requires that the physician will be likely to meet a minimum number for admissions. The vast majority of abortions are uneventful and do not require admission to a hospital, so most will be denied admitting privileges. And the purpose of such laws, they have nothing to do with best practices.
dont let it worry you libs
Roberts has gone totally native
he will vote against saving innocent human life
Why would anyone oppose a requirement for Hospital Admission Privileges for medical situations like this?
theintercept.com
Why would anyone oppose a requirement for Hospital Admission Privileges for medical situations like this?
Maybe you shouldn’t depend on propaganda for info ... Carhart does not have a record of botched abortions.
Late-Stage Abortion Provider Won't Succumb to Protesters Who Forced Him Out of His Last Maryland Clinic
LeRoy Carhart has since 2010 commuted weekly from his home in Nebraska to Maryland to provide late-term abortions.
Why would anyone oppose a requirement for Hospital Admission Privileges for medical situations like this?
In order to get admitting privileges, the hospital requires that the physician will be likely to meet a minimum number for admissions. The vast majority of abortions are uneventful and do not require admission to a hospital, so most will be denied admitting privileges. And the purpose of such laws, they have nothing to do with best practices.
That's not what the OB/GYN's and other clinics with admitting privilege requirements are saying.
"OB-GYNs have come out in support of the bill authored by a woman: Democratic Louisiana state senator Katrina Jackson.
“For those who say, ‘You’re limiting the ability to access abortion,’” she told the National Catholic Register in January, “I would tell them it doesn’t lessen access to an abortion, it lessens access to unsafe abortion, and unsafe, unregulated abortions are not constitutional.”
Why would anyone oppose a requirement for Hospital Admission Privileges for medical situations like this?
Maybe you shouldn’t depend on propaganda for info ... Carhart does not have a record of botched abortions.
Late-Stage Abortion Provider Won't Succumb to Protesters Who Forced Him Out of His Last Maryland Clinic
LeRoy Carhart has since 2010 commuted weekly from his home in Nebraska to Maryland to provide late-term abortions.
Actual transcribed 911 calls are considered to be propaganda to you?
That's fucking funny.
LOL. You actually brought the Constitution to this debate?I'll bet if it is revealed that Rump paid one of his hoes to have an abortion or his daughter had one, then suddenly overnight, abortions will be a-ok!
Heck, the so-called Conservatives are ok with grabbing pussy, paying off porn-stars, cheating, lying, racist remarks, etc. So much for the old moral majority party. So why not abortion?
They just need their tinpot fuhrer to lead the way.
I'll take your bet AND your money.
This is an issue of biology and the Constitution.
The morality aspect that says it is wrong to "murder" someone (especially a child) has already long been established.
Why would anyone oppose a requirement for Hospital Admission Privileges for medical situations like this?
In order to get admitting privileges, the hospital requires that the physician will be likely to meet a minimum number for admissions. The vast majority of abortions are uneventful and do not require admission to a hospital, so most will be denied admitting privileges. And the purpose of such laws, they have nothing to do with best practices.
That's not what the OB/GYN's and other clinics with admitting privilege requirements are saying.
"OB-GYNs have come out in support of the bill authored by a woman: Democratic Louisiana state senator Katrina Jackson.
“For those who say, ‘You’re limiting the ability to access abortion,’” she told the National Catholic Register in January, “I would tell them it doesn’t lessen access to an abortion, it lessens access to unsafe abortion, and unsafe, unregulated abortions are not constitutional.”
The National Catholic Register...I am sure that is unbiased.
Here are some other opinions:
We conducted a case series study to examine how, in the event that hospital care is necessary, women presenting for abortion were transferred or referred to emergency departments. We also assessed whether the process changed after clinics obtained admitting privileges. We found that an abortion provider having admitting privileges doesn’t appear to change how abortion patients receive hospital care.
We found that few patients needed to be transferred to the hospital by ambulance. In addition, patients often sought follow-up care after they had returned home and in these cases admitting privileges do not apply. In such cases patients often go to their closest emergency department and not the hospital at which the abortion provider has admitting privileges. If abortion providers determine there is a problem that requires hospital care when the patient first presents for abortion care, clinics already have protocols in place for communicating with hospitals. The majority of patients referred to hospitals were due to ectopic pregnancy or have other health risks.
—neither transfer agreements nor hospital admitting privilege requirements for abortion providers are grounded in evidence-based practices, especially considering that no hospital can deny a patient emergency care, regardless of the admitting status of the patient’s original physician at that hospital. Rather, these types of requirements serve only to limit abortion providers’ ability to offer the highest-quality reproductive health care for women, including safe abortion services.
No states have laws governing how hospitals and/or their regulatory boards (as individual entities independent of government bodies) implement a fair and objective process of admitting privileges or transfer agreements. Consequently, while hospitals cannot refuse any patient emergency care, they are free to deny admitting privileges to any health care provider via a process that is vulnerable to political interference and may not be based on patient safety or evidence-based standards of care. For example, a physician practicing medicine and providing abortion services in Texas had his hospital admitting privileges revoked in 2014 specifically because he was providing abortions outside of the hospital, which the hospital claimed would be “disruptive to the business and reputation of [University General Hospital Dallas].”[8]
So what has changed? Other than the state? Nothing. Abortion is still legal under the Constitution and you do need doctors to perform this critical service. And the doctors do need hospital admitting privileges.
Why doesn't the state require admitting privileges for podiatrists that remove bunions?
After-birth abortions up to the age of two years old are trendy among the sickos now; if they win on this we'll see a lot more peddling of that psychotic 'progressivism' by next year. According to pagan 'science', babies up to two years old are no different than a month old fetus.
The witches who were screaming "BABY KILLER" at us returning Viet Vets probably all had abortions at one time or another. Too stupid to see the irony of it but then again, nobody with a room-temperature or higher IQ is a leftist. Roberts could go either way. He took a lot of grief from his former conservative allies on the Dreamer decision so maybe he goes with the flow to win back some love from the right wing.
Fortunately religious beliefs can’t be used to ‘justify’ violating citizens’ rights.Correct.‘The Louisiana case stems from a constitutional challenge to a law passed in 2014 by the state's Republican-led legislature that required physicians who perform abortions to hold “active admitting privileges” at a hospital within 30 miles of their facility.’ ibid
A law passed in bad faith having nothing to do with the ‘health and safety’ of women, and everything to do with further eroding the right to privacy.
In Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt the Court struck down a similar Texas law with the same unlawful, bad faith provision, placing an undue – and un-Constitutional – burden on the right to privacy.
If the Louisiana law is allowed to stand, Republican lawmakers hostile to the right to privacy will be able to enact de facto abortion bans through onerous, draconian regulatory measures intended to drive healthcare providers out of business, depriving women of their fundamental right to decide whether to have a child or not.
I read the oral argument in Whole Woman's Health a while back. The "conservatives" on the court only asked procedural questions, but the Texas solicitor general got hammered by the other justices. The law only applied to the performance of abortions, but as the AMA, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and many other health groups told the court in amicus briefs, colonoscopies are rated as more risky. Then he was asked about women who could not get to the only clinic that would remain open. He replied that they could go to New Mexico, which does not have this type of law. Texas presented no statistical evidence or any other evidence that abortions were riskier. The "safety" argument was so totally bogus, but the Texas attorneys had to think of something to defend the law, and they came up with that. They certainly couldn't make an argument based on sectarian religion, so they essentially lied to the court.
Now the hated Justice Kennedy is gone, and the authoritarian right will again attempt to hobble the right to privacy.
I think that there is a religious-rights question here, as well, which concerns me. I am sure that Texans are not all of the same faith, and the anti-abortion folks tie the issue to their religious views constantly, not anything to do with safety and protecting the safety of Texas women.
That’s the problem: the right to privacy can be eliminated via regulatory policy, a de facto overturning of Roe.My eyes will be on Kavanaugh, who vowed to Senator Collins that he respects precedent too much to overturn Roe v. Wade. Of course, this case wouldn't technically overturn Roe v. Wade, but the effect would be the same for many women living in Louisiana. I'm going to be looking for his opinion. There is clearly recent precedent in this case established in the Texas case.
The thread premise is ridiculous – no doctor is allowed to ‘kill children.’Your comment is ridiculous. You are asserting that all LGBTs are pedophiles, while failing to guard against heterosexuals who are pedophiles. Your comments about pagans are absurd. as is your reference to "human sacrifices." Americans, including Roberts, have the right to choose what religion to follow, if any. Why are you so bigoted against Pagans?FRom his ruling essentially opening the door and giving faggot pedophiles unfettered access to children, making it illegal to keep them away from jobs around children, we know he's a degenerate pagan, and will probably vote to make the disgusting human sacrifices so loved by left ans well as right wing neo-pagans as expansive and easy as possible. Just because they mouth a few GOP establishment slogans every now and then doesn't make him wonderful; most right wingers are as pro-pagan as left wing sociopaths are.
