Pro-Abortionists are against regulations! Major decisions in Texas.

[OKTexas]

I have spent hours responding to the long list of hurdles, that you folks somehow disqualify me or anyone from discussing abortion.

I have had to exchange posts a few times simply to clarify a point on your numbers.

Abortions result in major complications and deaths, admitting privileges establish a relationship between doctors and hospitals. Admitting Privileges are not some new trick recently invented. Need I site the history, need I research all the details, the case histories of malpractice lawsuits when these rules and regulations of hospitals are utilized or become important? Need I research how these rules and regulations relate to Insurance policies, liabilities.

Abortion is not the simple as simple as taking a pill, nor is it the same as colonoscopy.

I get it, you will not give one inch in the battle to keep abortion as easy as pie, available anywhere at anytime.

Either way, this regulation does not close any abortion clinic, they can move, spend a little money, improve and provide better care. People die from abortions, they are not statistics.

You aren't being intellectually honest.

If a woman wants an abortion she shouldn't have to wait a month or drive 400 miles.

There is no place in TX that is 400 miles from a hospital.

That's what I heard on radio and saw on TV. Texas is pretty big. I'll try to find link tomorrow

There might and I stress might be a few places that are a couple of hundred miles from a TX hospital, but even those places are closer than that to hospitals in neighboring States.

Just forcing poor women into having kids they don't want to have. Undue burdons.

But this won't stop rich girls.

It won't stop anyone, just makes it safer.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It won't stop anyone, just makes it safer.

Actually Electra posted a link earlier which shows that is incorrect, it makes things less safe. You should go check out her post.

"CONCLUSION: Although primary prevention of unintended pregnancy is optimal, among women who choose to terminate their pregnancies, increased access to surgical and nonsurgical abortion services may increase the proportion of abortions performed at lower-risk, early gestational ages and help further decrease deaths. (Obstet Gynecol 2004; 103:729–37. © 2004 by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists."


>>>>

 

[OKTexas]

It won't stop anyone, just makes it safer.

Actually Electra posted a link earlier which shows that is incorrect, it makes things less safe. You should go check out her post.

"CONCLUSION: Although primary prevention of unintended pregnancy is optimal, among women who choose to terminate their pregnancies, increased access to surgical and nonsurgical abortion services may increase the proportion of abortions performed at lower-risk, early gestational ages and help further decrease deaths. (Obstet Gynecol 2004; 103:729–37. © 2004 by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists."


>>>>

I guess you buy that propaganda, no one is stopping anyone from getting services in a timely manner, any OB/GYN can prescribe drugs to induce a miscarriage, you don't have to go to a abortion provider for that. Surgical abortions carry significantly higher risk and should be preformed in a facility that can handle complications. The doctor should have admitting privileges to insure continuity of care, should complications arise. This isn't freaking rocket science.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I guess you buy that propaganda, no one is stopping anyone from getting services in a timely manner, any OB/GYN can prescribe drugs to induce a miscarriage, you don't have to go to a abortion provider for that. Surgical abortions carry significantly higher risk and should be preformed in a facility that can handle complications. The doctor should have admitting privileges to insure continuity of care, should complications arise. This isn't freaking rocket science.

I'm not into buying "propaganda" like the type being used to defend the law.

As I've previously said I don't have an issue with admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles, Ambulatory surgical Facilities requirements, etc. However they should apply to all similar levels of ambulatory medical procedures aimed at providing safe medical care.

But anyone with a dim light to be illuminated by knows it's not really about providing safe ambulatory outpatient services, it's about restricting access to abortion by placing obstructions in the abortion providers path. If it was truly about providing safer outpatient level surgical care, then it would apply across the board to all similar types of providers.


So please, don't try selling your own brand of propaganda, we know what it is really about.



>>>>

 

[Montrovant]

The problem is that hospital boards will refuse admitting privileges to abortion doctors creating a backdoor ban.

Which makes no sense what-so-ever. "Admitting privileges" sounds like an important medical thing which most people don't even understand. All it means is that the doctor has the abiity to admit and order tests for patients as if (s)he were a staff member of the hospital. It does not mean that if there were a complication with a laser eye surgery, oral surgery, liposuction, colonoscopy, or abortion that if the patient went to the hospital they they would not bee seen or helped. Of course the would.

It's an attempt to restrict the access to clinics that do abortion.


>>>>

But it does mean that if your Doctor has admitting procedures with a hospital, that hospital is better prepared, as is the doctor better prepared, to meet all needs of the Mother when complications that threaten life, arise.

I think, continuity is one term being used in the courts as well as abandonment, as in Mothers who have been abandoned. You would think those who support abortion would want the best Health Care for patients, this is just one more tool, to help.

The only real inconvenience would be the Mother would have to be close to a hospital to have an abortion? I would prefer to be close if I had a stroke, here the Mother has a choice, she can choose to have a baby or an abortion where her life could be saved.

How, specifically, does a doctor performing abortions having admitting privileges at a hospital help the pregnant women? Any hospital will admit a woman who has an emergency due to a complication from abortion.

Second, you have fluctuated wildly in your own numbers, first claiming 700 abortion related deaths per 100,000, then switching to 0.7 abortion related deaths per 100,000.

.7 of a 100000 is 700?

If you mean 0.7% of 100,000, you should say that. This is what you wrote :

This report lists the rates at .7 to 1.5 deaths per 100,000 abortions.

You got me, I forgot the %, so sorry.

Your comparison is still way off. Your link, it specifically states this is data for a period from 1966 to 2001:

When to Worry About the Risks of Colonoscopy

When researchers reviewed colon cancer screening data from 1966 to 2001, they discovered the following:

• Perforation occurred in 0.029 percent to 0.72 percent of colonoscopies.
• Heavy bleeding occurred in 0.2 percent to 2.67 percent of colonoscopies.
• Death occurred in about 0.003 percent to 0.03 percent of colonoscopies.

Yes, and as I have said more than once, that long period of statistics makes it difficult to say if the numbers are accurate for today.

What about the link regarding liposuction? What about any other outpatient procedures which do not require the doctor performing the procedure to have hospital admitting privileges? You seem to be avoiding answering the important question of how abortion differs from those other procedures so that it requires such admitting privileges. For that matter, you have not actually said how having those admitting privileges increases the safety of women undergoing an abortion.

I have spent hours responding to the long list of hurdles, that you folks somehow disqualify me or anyone from discussing abortion.

I have had to exchange posts a few times simply to clarify a point on your numbers.

Abortions result in major complications and deaths, admitting privileges establish a relationship between doctors and hospitals. Admitting Privileges are not some new trick recently invented. Need I site the history, need I research all the details, the case histories of malpractice lawsuits when these rules and regulations of hospitals are utilized or become important? Need I research how these rules and regulations relate to Insurance policies, liabilities.

Abortion is not the simple as simple as taking a pill, nor is it the same as colonoscopy.

I get it, you will not give one inch in the battle to keep abortion as easy as pie, available anywhere at anytime.

Either way, this regulation does not close any abortion clinic, they can move, spend a little money, improve and provide better care. People die from abortions, they are not statistics.

The link you posted back in post #61 says that there are 0.7 abortion-related deaths per 100,000 abortions. Is that a great deal more than other outpatient, no hospital admission privilege required procedures? It is a smaller number than the stats I found and linked to for liposuction and colonoscopy (two examples another poster gave of procedures done outside a hospital setting which do not have the same requirements as abortions do under the bill in question). If deaths are not the issue, what is?

If the worry is about emergency care due to complications, no admitting privileges are needed. Hospitals will not turn away a patient with a medical emergency. Whether the doctor has admission privileges or not, the patient will be accepted in the ER if they have a medical emergency.

Do you need to cite history or research details? No, of course not. However, if you do not have any specifics as to why requiring hospital admission privileges is important, why should anyone simply take your word for it? For example, I live with a former ER and current surgery center nurse who is against abortions. She didn't see any need for abortion doctors to have hospital admission privileges when I brought the subject up to her.

Perhaps there is an insurance or liability related reason for these doctors to have admission privileges. That is not a question of the health or safety of women having abortions, which is what you have been saying makes this a reasonable regulation. Nor does it explain why such would only be important in the case of abortions and not other outpatient, non-hospital procedures.

I never said that abortion was the same as a colonoscopy. I merely used statistics about deaths due to colonoscopy complications as a comparison.

Not agreeing with this bill means I "will not give one inch in the battle to keep abortion as easy as pie, available anywhere at anytime."? That's quite a stretch.

So forcing businesses to move and/or spend more money to operate, with little or no discernible improvement to health care, is something you approve of? People die from colonoscopies, they are not statistics. People die from liposuction, they are not statistics. People die from dental procedures, they are not statistics. Despite the various procedures done outside a hospital by doctors who are not required to have admission privileges, you seem to have no problem with that. Only in the case of abortion do you see this regulation as important, from what you have said here.

 

[OKTexas]

I guess you buy that propaganda, no one is stopping anyone from getting services in a timely manner, any OB/GYN can prescribe drugs to induce a miscarriage, you don't have to go to a abortion provider for that. Surgical abortions carry significantly higher risk and should be preformed in a facility that can handle complications. The doctor should have admitting privileges to insure continuity of care, should complications arise. This isn't freaking rocket science.

I'm not into buying "propaganda" like the type being used to defend the law.

As I've previously said I don't have an issue with admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles, Ambulatory surgical Facilities requirements, etc. However they should apply to all similar levels of ambulatory medical procedures aimed at providing safe medical care.

But anyone with a dim light to be illuminated by knows it's not really about providing safe ambulatory outpatient services, it's about restricting access to abortion by placing obstructions in the abortion providers path. If it was truly about providing safer outpatient level surgical care, then it would apply across the board to all similar types of providers.


So please, don't try selling your own brand of propaganda, we know what it is really about.



>>>>

Ok, let's agree to disagree on that. Now tell me where the feds get the constitutional authority to interfere with a States powers to regulate professionals practicing within their borders? Keep in mind the clients have no standing in this area, it's between the State and the professionals wishing to practice within the State.

 

[Seawytch]

ISurgical abortions carry significantly higher risk and should be preformed in a facility that can handle complications. The doctor should have admitting privileges to insure continuity of care, should complications arise. This isn't freaking rocket science.

Actually, that's not the case.

Medication abortions also had a higher rate of complications compared to aspiration or surgical abortion. This was mostly due to needing an aspiration after medication abortion, a well known, but not serious, risk of the method. ​

And if your concern is with the patient, why aren't regulations such as these being applied to clinics that perform more risky surgeries?

 

[alang1216]

life saving health procedures need to be performed in Hospitals or Clinics that are designed for surgical/emergency procedures.

No one disputes this but abortions are hardly "life saving". Should every medical procedure be done in a hospital or is there something special about abortions that doctors and the medical don't understand? Seems this is a case of government/politics/religion getting between a doctor and a patient. Just what opponents of Obamacare complain about.

There was a quote from Mother Teresa that I have always appreciated:

“It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.”
“There are two victims in every abortion: a dead baby and a dead conscience.”
Mother Teresa

This just shows me that this law is really an attempt by Texas to establish a theocracy. Is there a strict Constitutionalist in the house?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Ok, let's agree to disagree on that.

You are free to disagree of course. But it's Electra's link, not mine. And it was a point conceeded during Oral Arguments that was brought out multiple times during questioning and the state had no response showing that admitting priviliges and the 30 mile rule in any way improved overall medical care.

As a matter of fact during arguments Justice Beyer pointed out, and the state had no come back, that that there was no case in Texas or the entire US where the admitting priviliage and 30 mile rule would have changed the response or outcome of any needed followup care.

Now tell me where the feds get the constitutional authority to interfere with a States powers to regulate professionals practicing within their borders?

This thread is about the Texas law under current juris prudence, not a relitigation of Roe or Casey. Texas is trying to backdoor restrictions to get around those rulings.

Keep in mind the clients have no standing in this area, it's between the State and the professionals wishing to practice within the State.

1. I disagree with your premise since the intent of the law is to obstruct access by the patients, they would have standing.

2. Secondly it is irrelevant since the petitioners in this case are the some of the medical facilities impacted by the law as shown in the court documents of lower courts and the petition for writ of certiorari.


>>>>>

 

[elektra]

I guess you buy that propaganda, no one is stopping anyone from getting services in a timely manner, any OB/GYN can prescribe drugs to induce a miscarriage, you don't have to go to a abortion provider for that. Surgical abortions carry significantly higher risk and should be preformed in a facility that can handle complications. The doctor should have admitting privileges to insure continuity of care, should complications arise. This isn't freaking rocket science.

I'm not into buying "propaganda" like the type being used to defend the law.

As I've previously said I don't have an issue with admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles, Ambulatory surgical Facilities requirements, etc. However they should apply to all similar levels of ambulatory medical procedures aimed at providing safe medical care.

But anyone with a dim light to be illuminated by knows it's not really about providing safe ambulatory outpatient services, it's about restricting access to abortion by placing obstructions in the abortion providers path. If it was truly about providing safer outpatient level surgical care, then it would apply across the board to all similar types of providers.


So please, don't try selling your own brand of propaganda, we know what it is really about.



>>>>

You are selling your own brand of propaganda, get over it, Abortion is a unique procedure with unique risks.

 

[elektra]

Ok, let's agree to disagree on that.

You are free to disagree of course. But it's Electra's link, not mine. And it was a point conceeded during Oral Arguments that was brought out multiple times during questioning and the state had no response showing that admitting priviliges and the 30 mile rule in any way improved overall medical care.

As a matter of fact during arguments Justice Beyer pointed out, and the state had no come back, that that there was no case in Texas or the entire US where the admitting priviliage and 30 mile rule would have changed the response or outcome of any needed followup care.

Now tell me where the feds get the constitutional authority to interfere with a States powers to regulate professionals practicing within their borders?

This thread is about the Texas law under current juris prudence, not a relitigation of Roe or Casey. Texas is trying to backdoor restrictions to get around those rulings.

Keep in mind the clients have no standing in this area, it's between the State and the professionals wishing to practice within the State.

1. I disagree with your premise since the intent of the law is to obstruct access by the patients, they would have standing.

2. Secondly it is irrelevant since the petitioners in this case are the some of the medical facilities impacted by the law as shown in the court documents of lower courts and the petition for writ of certiorari.


>>>>>

My link does not state what you say it does.

 

[elektra]

The problem is that hospital boards will refuse admitting privileges to abortion doctors creating a backdoor ban.

Which makes no sense what-so-ever. "Admitting privileges" sounds like an important medical thing which most people don't even understand. All it means is that the doctor has the abiity to admit and order tests for patients as if (s)he were a staff member of the hospital. It does not mean that if there were a complication with a laser eye surgery, oral surgery, liposuction, colonoscopy, or abortion that if the patient went to the hospital they they would not bee seen or helped. Of course the would.

It's an attempt to restrict the access to clinics that do abortion.


>>>>

But it does mean that if your Doctor has admitting procedures with a hospital, that hospital is better prepared, as is the doctor better prepared, to meet all needs of the Mother when complications that threaten life, arise.

I think, continuity is one term being used in the courts as well as abandonment, as in Mothers who have been abandoned. You would think those who support abortion would want the best Health Care for patients, this is just one more tool, to help.

The only real inconvenience would be the Mother would have to be close to a hospital to have an abortion? I would prefer to be close if I had a stroke, here the Mother has a choice, she can choose to have a baby or an abortion where her life could be saved.

How, specifically, does a doctor performing abortions having admitting privileges at a hospital help the pregnant women? Any hospital will admit a woman who has an emergency due to a complication from abortion.

.7 of a 100000 is 700?

If you mean 0.7% of 100,000, you should say that. This is what you wrote :

This report lists the rates at .7 to 1.5 deaths per 100,000 abortions.

You got me, I forgot the %, so sorry.

Your comparison is still way off. Your link, it specifically states this is data for a period from 1966 to 2001:

When to Worry About the Risks of Colonoscopy

When researchers reviewed colon cancer screening data from 1966 to 2001, they discovered the following:

• Perforation occurred in 0.029 percent to 0.72 percent of colonoscopies.
• Heavy bleeding occurred in 0.2 percent to 2.67 percent of colonoscopies.
• Death occurred in about 0.003 percent to 0.03 percent of colonoscopies.

Yes, and as I have said more than once, that long period of statistics makes it difficult to say if the numbers are accurate for today.

What about the link regarding liposuction? What about any other outpatient procedures which do not require the doctor performing the procedure to have hospital admitting privileges? You seem to be avoiding answering the important question of how abortion differs from those other procedures so that it requires such admitting privileges. For that matter, you have not actually said how having those admitting privileges increases the safety of women undergoing an abortion.

I have spent hours responding to the long list of hurdles, that you folks somehow disqualify me or anyone from discussing abortion.

I have had to exchange posts a few times simply to clarify a point on your numbers.

Abortions result in major complications and deaths, admitting privileges establish a relationship between doctors and hospitals. Admitting Privileges are not some new trick recently invented. Need I site the history, need I research all the details, the case histories of malpractice lawsuits when these rules and regulations of hospitals are utilized or become important? Need I research how these rules and regulations relate to Insurance policies, liabilities.

Abortion is not the simple as simple as taking a pill, nor is it the same as colonoscopy.

I get it, you will not give one inch in the battle to keep abortion as easy as pie, available anywhere at anytime.

Either way, this regulation does not close any abortion clinic, they can move, spend a little money, improve and provide better care. People die from abortions, they are not statistics.

The link you posted back in post #61 says that there are 0.7 abortion-related deaths per 100,000 abortions. Is that a great deal more than other outpatient, no hospital admission privilege required procedures? It is a smaller number than the stats I found and linked to for liposuction and colonoscopy (two examples another poster gave of procedures done outside a hospital setting which do not have the same requirements as abortions do under the bill in question). If deaths are not the issue, what is?

If the worry is about emergency care due to complications, no admitting privileges are needed. Hospitals will not turn away a patient with a medical emergency. Whether the doctor has admission privileges or not, the patient will be accepted in the ER if they have a medical emergency.

Do you need to cite history or research details? No, of course not. However, if you do not have any specifics as to why requiring hospital admission privileges is important, why should anyone simply take your word for it? For example, I live with a former ER and current surgery center nurse who is against abortions. She didn't see any need for abortion doctors to have hospital admission privileges when I brought the subject up to her.

Perhaps there is an insurance or liability related reason for these doctors to have admission privileges. That is not a question of the health or safety of women having abortions, which is what you have been saying makes this a reasonable regulation. Nor does it explain why such would only be important in the case of abortions and not other outpatient, non-hospital procedures.

I never said that abortion was the same as a colonoscopy. I merely used statistics about deaths due to colonoscopy complications as a comparison.

Not agreeing with this bill means I "will not give one inch in the battle to keep abortion as easy as pie, available anywhere at anytime."? That's quite a stretch.

So forcing businesses to move and/or spend more money to operate, with little or no discernible improvement to health care, is something you approve of? People die from colonoscopies, they are not statistics. People die from liposuction, they are not statistics. People die from dental procedures, they are not statistics. Despite the various procedures done outside a hospital by doctors who are not required to have admission privileges, you seem to have no problem with that. Only in the case of abortion do you see this regulation as important, from what you have said here.

No, your stats stated the opposite, I notice you never ever quoted your stat. I did and you ignore it each time. If you have to ignore your own link, you are now simply a liar.

Either way, you can not post your statistic so that is where your argument lies.

 

[elektra]

]

You are free to disagree of course. But it's Electra's link, not mine. And it was a point conceeded during Oral Arguments that was brought out multiple times during questioning and the state had no response showing that admitting priviliges and the 30 mile rule in any way improved overall medical care.

As a matter of fact during arguments Justice Beyer pointed out, and the state had no come back, that that there was no case in Texas or the entire US where the admitting priviliage and 30 mile rule would have changed the response or outcome of any needed followup care.

Sure, the rule wont change, "follow up care". It will just possibly save the life when Emergency Medical Services are needed.

 

[WorldWatcher]

My link does not state what you say it does.

Maybe you didn't read your own post:

"CONCLUSION: Although primary prevention of unintended pregnancy is optimal, among women who choose to terminate their pregnancies, increased access to surgical and nonsurgical abortion services may increase the proportion of abortions performed at lower-risk, early gestational ages and help further decrease deaths. (Obstet Gynecol 2004; 103:729–37. © 2004 by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists."


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Sure, the rule wont change, "follow up care". It will just possibly save the life when Emergency Medical Services are needed.

Here is the transcript from yesterday's oral arguments. IIRC Justice Beyer questions Mr. Keller on that exact point and the State could not provide a single example of when admitting privileges and the 30 mile rule made any difference to patient care.

Why?

Because even if a specific doctor doesn't have admitting privileges the patient can still receive follow-up care at a hospital.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/15-274_l53m.pdf


>>>>

 

[elektra]

Sure, the rule wont change, "follow up care". It will just possibly save the life when Emergency Medical Services are needed.

Here is the transcript from yesterday's oral arguments. IIRC Justice Beyer questions Mr. Keller on that exact point and the State could not provide a single example of when admitting privileges and the 30 mile rule made any difference to patient care.

Why?

Because even if a specific doctor doesn't have admitting privileges the patient can still receive follow-up care at a hospital.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/15-274_l53m.pdf


>>>>

You are not going to quote it?

 

[elektra]

My link does not state what you say it does.

Maybe you didn't read your own post:

"CONCLUSION: Although primary prevention of unintended pregnancy is optimal, among women who choose to terminate their pregnancies, increased access to surgical and nonsurgical abortion services may increase the proportion of abortions performed at lower-risk, early gestational ages and help further decrease deaths. (Obstet Gynecol 2004; 103:729–37. © 2004 by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists."


>>>>

It is not up to the Government to increase access for abortion, it is your Choice.

 

[elektra]

I always wonder why people are too lazy to research the position they take, and refuse to quote the document they link to. I suspect they either cherry pick or have not read their own links.

There is no proof that this Regulation closed Abortion Offices (clinics).


http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/15-274_l53m.pdf

19 JUSTICE ALITO:
Well, there is very little
20 specific evidence in the record in this case with
21 respect to why any particular clinic closed. Basically,
22 your argument is that the law took effect, and after
23 that point, there was a decrease in the number of
24 clinics.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It is not up to the Government to increase access for abortion, it is your Choice.

Obstructing access to clinics to force them to close isn't "increasing access", as a matter of fact it's quite the opposite.

Before the law there were 41 clinics in Texas, now there (IIRC) 18.

That the opposite.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

I always wonder why people are too lazy to research the position they take, and refuse to quote the document they link to. I suspect they either cherry pick or have not read their own links.

There is no proof that this Regulation closed Abortion Offices (clinics).


http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/15-274_l53m.pdf

19 JUSTICE ALITO:
Well, there is very little
20 specific evidence in the record in this case with
21 respect to why any particular clinic closed. Basically,
22 your argument is that the law took effect, and after
23 that point, there was a decrease in the number of
24 clinics.

Ya, you have to hate that...

15 JUSTICE ALITO: Was it that was that
16 their burden?
17 MS. TOTI: No, Your Honor. Not in the first
18 instance, but the plaintiffs came forward with evidence
19 and and the State did not offer anything to to
20 rebut the evidence, which was more than sufficient to
21 support the district court's finding that HB2 was the
22 cause of the clinic closures.
23 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: What what 24 evidence is that?
25 MS. TOTI: There are a couple of things,
1 Your Honor. Prior to HB2, in in the five years prior
2 to HB2, the number of clinics in the State remained
3 fairly stable. In any given year, there may have been a
4 one to twoclinic variance. Following the enactment of
5 HB2, more than 20 clinics closed within a very short
6 period of time. The timing of the closures​