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

[WorldWatcher]

You are not going to quote it?

23 And now on the first one, I've asked you to
24 give a single example of an instance where there was a
25 benefit, and you say, I think quite honestly, there is
1 no such burden.


>>>>

 

[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.

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​

That is not evidence, not even close to being evidence, copy and paste the evidence in your link. There is none.
Justice Alito, does not accept the lack of evidence and wants to know why it is not part of the record. You can not just state that they closed because of the law, you have to prove it.

I really don't understand why you
21 could not have put in evidence about each particular
22 clinic and to show why the clinic closed. And as to
23 some of them, there is there's information that they
24 closed for reasons that had nothing to do with this law.
25 Now, maybe when you take out all of those, Alderson Reporting Company 1 there still would be a substantial number, and enough to
2 make your case. But I I don't understand why you
3 didn't put in direct evidence.

 

[elektra]

First and foremost, that the Law is Rational, is unchallenged

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

the law has a rational basis and you haven't challenged that,

 

[Montrovant]

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.

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

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.

What are you talking about? I've quoted from the link I provided. Do I need to do so again?

From the colonoscopy link : "Death occurred in about 1/30,000 to 1/3,000 colonoscopies."

From the liposuction link : "Some of the studies indicate that the risk of death due to liposuction is as low as 3 deaths for every 100,000 liposuction operations performed. However, other studies indicate that the risk of death is between 20 and 100 deaths per 100,000 liposuction procedures. One study suggests that the death rate is higher in liposuction surgeries in which other surgical procedures are also performed at the same time. In order to understand the size of the risk, one paper compares the deaths from liposuction to that for deaths from car accidents (16 per 100,000). It is important to remember that liposuction is a surgical procedure and that there may be serious complications, including death."

From your own link, which you quoted in post #61 : "During 1988–1997, the overall death rate for women obtaining legally induced abortions was 0.7 per 100,000 legal induced abortions."

So we have colonoscopy deaths at between 3.3 and 33.3 per 100,000, liposuction deaths between 3 and 100 per 100,000, and abortion deaths at 0.7 per 100,000. Which part of the statistics provided here, which I have quoted previously, do you take issue with?

 

[OKTexas]

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?

I'll let one of your fellow pro abortionist answer that one.

Abortion is a unique procedure with unique risks.

 

[OKTexas]

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.


>>>>>

Once again, no one is denying anyone access to abortions, the State is simply trying to make sure the providers are properly equipped and staffed to handle complications. Like Electra said:

Abortion is a unique procedure with unique risks.

 

[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.



>>>>

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

So why are you objecting to doctors having the equipment to handle those risk.

 

[Montrovant]

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.


>>>>>

Once again, no one is denying anyone access to abortions, the State is simply trying to make sure the providers are properly equipped and staffed to handle complications. Like Electra said:

Abortion is a unique procedure with unique risks.

What are the risks unique to abortion which this bill addresses? How does having the doctor performing an abortion have hospital admitting privileges alleviate the unique risks? If the risks are not unique to abortion, why is only abortion targeted with these regulations?

 

[CowboyTed]

Wow is all I can say.
Listening to the News out of Texas today I was surprised that the people who claim to be saving a Women's life and health are protesting against Regulations that will require Doctors to perform abortions in a Hospital type of surgical room instead of a simple office.

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

The advocates argue, this is about Health, in many cases life saving procedures.
So how is it that Democrats who are all about Health and Science are suddenly against REGULATIONS?

Photo: More rallies outside US Supreme Court building in Washington, DC, before abortion case set to be argued Wednesday morning - @oyez

Editor's note: The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments this morning in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, a case that could determine how far states may go in regulating abortions without violating a woman’s constitutional rights. Two provisions of a Texas law are being challenged: one that requires abortion clinics to meet standards of ambulatory surgery centers, and one that requires abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

View attachment 65563

It is bullshit... This is just regulation to close clinics not to save lives...

 

[Contumacious]

Wow is all I can say.
Listening to the News out of Texas today I was surprised that the people who claim to be saving a Women's life and health are protesting against Regulations that will require Doctors to perform abortions in a Hospital type of surgical room instead of a simple office.

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

The advocates argue, this is about Health, in many cases life saving procedures.
So how is it that Democrats who are all about Health and Science are suddenly against REGULATIONS?

Photo: More rallies outside US Supreme Court building in Washington, DC, before abortion case set to be argued Wednesday morning - @oyez

Editor's note: The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments this morning in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, a case that could determine how far states may go in regulating abortions without violating a woman’s constitutional rights. Two provisions of a Texas law are being challenged: one that requires abortion clinics to meet standards of ambulatory surgery centers, and one that requires abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

View attachment 65563

Shut the fuck

The theocratic Republic of Texas wants to"regulate" abortion out of existence.

.

 

[OKTexas]

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.


>>>>>

Once again, no one is denying anyone access to abortions, the State is simply trying to make sure the providers are properly equipped and staffed to handle complications. Like Electra said:

Abortion is a unique procedure with unique risks.

What are the risks unique to abortion which this bill addresses? How does having the doctor performing an abortion have hospital admitting privileges alleviate the unique risks? If the risks are not unique to abortion, why is only abortion targeted with these regulations?

Hemorrhage is the greatest risk, then you have adverse reactions to anesthesia to cardiac arrest. Very few clinics even had crash carts with a defibrillator. Also a doctor having admitting privileges insures continuity of care, doctors don't want it because hospitals generally require doctors to carry liability insurance. The abortionist prefer pushing off problem patients to other doctors to save money.

 

[elektra]

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.

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

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.

What are you talking about? I've quoted from the link I provided. Do I need to do so again?

From the colonoscopy link : "Death occurred in about 1/30,000 to 1/3,000 colonoscopies."

From the liposuction link : "Some of the studies indicate that the risk of death due to liposuction is as low as 3 deaths for every 100,000 liposuction operations performed. However, other studies indicate that the risk of death is between 20 and 100 deaths per 100,000 liposuction procedures. One study suggests that the death rate is higher in liposuction surgeries in which other surgical procedures are also performed at the same time. In order to understand the size of the risk, one paper compares the deaths from liposuction to that for deaths from car accidents (16 per 100,000). It is important to remember that liposuction is a surgical procedure and that there may be serious complications, including death."

From your own link, which you quoted in post #61 : "During 1988–1997, the overall death rate for women obtaining legally induced abortions was 0.7 per 100,000 legal induced abortions."

So we have colonoscopy deaths at between 3.3 and 33.3 per 100,000, liposuction deaths between 3 and 100 per 100,000, and abortion deaths at 0.7 per 100,000. Which part of the statistics provided here, which I have quoted previously, do you take issue with?

I never addressed your liposuction link, not once.

The colonoscopy link, your link, is a different link that you have refused to quote, you know that, and now that you lump the 2 together you are a liar.

Lie if you wish, as you have, we can see that your argument us vased on lies.

 

[elektra]

Wow is all I can say.
Listening to the News out of Texas today I was surprised that the people who claim to be saving a Women's life and health are protesting against Regulations that will require Doctors to perform abortions in a Hospital type of surgical room instead of a simple office.

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

The advocates argue, this is about Health, in many cases life saving procedures.
So how is it that Democrats who are all about Health and Science are suddenly against REGULATIONS?

Photo: More rallies outside US Supreme Court building in Washington, DC, before abortion case set to be argued Wednesday morning - @oyez

Editor's note: The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments this morning in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, a case that could determine how far states may go in regulating abortions without violating a woman’s constitutional rights. Two provisions of a Texas law are being challenged: one that requires abortion clinics to meet standards of ambulatory surgery centers, and one that requires abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

View attachment 65563

Shut the fuck

The theocratic Republic of Texas wants to"regulate" abortion out of existence.

.

You want to eat what?

 

[elektra]

Wow is all I can say.
Listening to the News out of Texas today I was surprised that the people who claim to be saving a Women's life and health are protesting against Regulations that will require Doctors to perform abortions in a Hospital type of surgical room instead of a simple office.

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

The advocates argue, this is about Health, in many cases life saving procedures.
So how is it that Democrats who are all about Health and Science are suddenly against REGULATIONS?

Photo: More rallies outside US Supreme Court building in Washington, DC, before abortion case set to be argued Wednesday morning - @oyez

Editor's note: The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments this morning in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, a case that could determine how far states may go in regulating abortions without violating a woman’s constitutional rights. Two provisions of a Texas law are being challenged: one that requires abortion clinics to meet standards of ambulatory surgery centers, and one that requires abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

View attachment 65563

It is bullshit... This is just regulation to close clinics not to save lives...

Life, not even the woman's life is important to you.

 

[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.

So why are you objecting to doctors having the equipment to handle those risk.

I have not objected.

 

[HenryBHough]

Seems strange that a state would invoke regulations to save the lives of murderers.

 

[Montrovant]

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.
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.

What are you talking about? I've quoted from the link I provided. Do I need to do so again?

From the colonoscopy link : "Death occurred in about 1/30,000 to 1/3,000 colonoscopies."

From the liposuction link : "Some of the studies indicate that the risk of death due to liposuction is as low as 3 deaths for every 100,000 liposuction operations performed. However, other studies indicate that the risk of death is between 20 and 100 deaths per 100,000 liposuction procedures. One study suggests that the death rate is higher in liposuction surgeries in which other surgical procedures are also performed at the same time. In order to understand the size of the risk, one paper compares the deaths from liposuction to that for deaths from car accidents (16 per 100,000). It is important to remember that liposuction is a surgical procedure and that there may be serious complications, including death."

From your own link, which you quoted in post #61 : "During 1988–1997, the overall death rate for women obtaining legally induced abortions was 0.7 per 100,000 legal induced abortions."

So we have colonoscopy deaths at between 3.3 and 33.3 per 100,000, liposuction deaths between 3 and 100 per 100,000, and abortion deaths at 0.7 per 100,000. Which part of the statistics provided here, which I have quoted previously, do you take issue with?

I never addressed your liposuction link, not once.

The colonoscopy link, your link, is a different link that you have refused to quote, you know that, and now that you lump the 2 together you are a liar.

Lie if you wish, as you have, we can see that your argument us vased on lies.

I haven't lied. Go look at post #117 where I quote from the colonoscopy link. Further, I provided the link and pointed out the numbers provided on the site. You can easily open the link and see that is says exactly what I've quoted it as saying, that death occurred in about 1/30,000 to 1/3,000 colonoscopies. You must have looked at the site since you talked about the period of time from which the statistics were obtained.

You, on the other hand, have posted a quote from your own link which says that death occurred in abortions 0.7 times per 100,000 legal abortions, yet you have claimed the number is 700 times per 100,000 abortions. Perhaps you should worry about your own possible lies rather than falsely accusing me of lying.

By the way, here is post #117 :

Third, the link I provided said that death occurred in about 0.003 to 0.03 percent of colonoscopies, not of every 100,000 colonoscopies. It went on to say that death occurred in between 1/3,000 and 1/30,000 colonoscopies. That would be between 3.3 and 33.3 deaths per 100,000 colonoscopies, .

Wrong again, your link covers the total for a period of 35 years, if I average 5,000,000 per year, it would be well over 150,000,000 procedures.

Your link:
When to Worry About the Risks of Colonoscopy

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

• Death occurred in about 0.003 percent to 0.03 percent of colonoscopies.

You just quoted me saying exactly the same thing the article does, and somehow that is wrong?

According to the link I provided, a colonoscopy related death occurs once in every 3,000 to 30,000 colonoscopies. That is between 3.3 and 33.3 deaths in every 100,000 colonoscopies.

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.

Put another way:

• Perforation occurred in about 1/3,450 to 1/139 colonoscopies.
• Heavy bleeding occurred in about 1/500 to 1/37 colonoscopies.
• Death occurred in about 1/30,000 to 1/3,000 colonoscopies.

I pointed out that the long time period looked at makes it a bit difficult to know if those numbers apply today.

I'll ask again, what statistics which I have provided are you questioning?

 

[Montrovant]

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.


>>>>>

Once again, no one is denying anyone access to abortions, the State is simply trying to make sure the providers are properly equipped and staffed to handle complications. Like Electra said:

Abortion is a unique procedure with unique risks.

What are the risks unique to abortion which this bill addresses? How does having the doctor performing an abortion have hospital admitting privileges alleviate the unique risks? If the risks are not unique to abortion, why is only abortion targeted with these regulations?

Hemorrhage is the greatest risk, then you have adverse reactions to anesthesia to cardiac arrest. Very few clinics even had crash carts with a defibrillator. Also a doctor having admitting privileges insures continuity of care, doctors don't want it because hospitals generally require doctors to carry liability insurance. The abortionist prefer pushing off problem patients to other doctors to save money.

So any procedure with similar risks should also fall under these same regulations? Or is it only abortion which should require it?

 

[hazlnut]

Wow is all I can say.
Listening to the News out of Texas today I was surprised that the people who claim to be saving a Women's life and health are protesting against Regulations that will require Doctors to perform abortions in a Hospital type of surgical room instead of a simple office.

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

The advocates argue, this is about Health, in many cases life saving procedures.
So how is it that Democrats who are all about Health and Science are suddenly against REGULATIONS?

Photo: More rallies outside US Supreme Court building in Washington, DC, before abortion case set to be argued Wednesday morning - @oyez

Editor's note: The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments this morning in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, a case that could determine how far states may go in regulating abortions without violating a woman’s constitutional rights. Two provisions of a Texas law are being challenged: one that requires abortion clinics to meet standards of ambulatory surgery centers, and one that requires abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

View attachment 65563

These regulations are specifically designed to close down clinics that provide services to poorer women and girls.

Hospitals still provide abortions.


And no one is "pro-abortion"...that's an idiot talking point word from the far-right.

Abortion is a private sadness, no one wants more. We want the freedom to choose -- a very hard choice for most -- and more clinics mean girls can make the choice early in the pregnancy, which everyone agrees is better than 2nd term or 3rd term if that is permitted by the state.

 

[elektra]

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.

What are you talking about? I've quoted from the link I provided. Do I need to do so again?

From the colonoscopy link : "Death occurred in about 1/30,000 to 1/3,000 colonoscopies."

From the liposuction link : "Some of the studies indicate that the risk of death due to liposuction is as low as 3 deaths for every 100,000 liposuction operations performed. However, other studies indicate that the risk of death is between 20 and 100 deaths per 100,000 liposuction procedures. One study suggests that the death rate is higher in liposuction surgeries in which other surgical procedures are also performed at the same time. In order to understand the size of the risk, one paper compares the deaths from liposuction to that for deaths from car accidents (16 per 100,000). It is important to remember that liposuction is a surgical procedure and that there may be serious complications, including death."

From your own link, which you quoted in post #61 : "During 1988–1997, the overall death rate for women obtaining legally induced abortions was 0.7 per 100,000 legal induced abortions."

So we have colonoscopy deaths at between 3.3 and 33.3 per 100,000, liposuction deaths between 3 and 100 per 100,000, and abortion deaths at 0.7 per 100,000. Which part of the statistics provided here, which I have quoted previously, do you take issue with?

I never addressed your liposuction link, not once.

The colonoscopy link, your link, is a different link that you have refused to quote, you know that, and now that you lump the 2 together you are a liar.

Lie if you wish, as you have, we can see that your argument us vased on lies.

I haven't lied. Go look at post #117 where I quote from the colonoscopy link. Further, I provided the link and pointed out the numbers provided on the site. You can easily open the link and see that is says exactly what I've quoted it as saying, that death occurred in about 1/30,000 to 1/3,000 colonoscopies. You must have looked at the site since you talked about the period of time from which the statistics were obtained.

You, on the other hand, have posted a quote from your own link which says that death occurred in abortions 0.7 times per 100,000 legal abortions, yet you have claimed the number is 700 times per 100,000 abortions. Perhaps you should worry about your own possible lies rather than falsely accusing me of lying.

By the way, here is post #117 :

Third, the link I provided said that death occurred in about 0.003 to 0.03 percent of colonoscopies, not of every 100,000 colonoscopies. It went on to say that death occurred in between 1/3,000 and 1/30,000 colonoscopies. That would be between 3.3 and 33.3 deaths per 100,000 colonoscopies, .

Wrong again, your link covers the total for a period of 35 years, if I average 5,000,000 per year, it would be well over 150,000,000 procedures.

Your link:
When to Worry About the Risks of Colonoscopy

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

• Death occurred in about 0.003 percent to 0.03 percent of colonoscopies.

You just quoted me saying exactly the same thing the article does, and somehow that is wrong?

According to the link I provided, a colonoscopy related death occurs once in every 3,000 to 30,000 colonoscopies. That is between 3.3 and 33.3 deaths in every 100,000 colonoscopies.

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.

Put another way:

• Perforation occurred in about 1/3,450 to 1/139 colonoscopies.
• Heavy bleeding occurred in about 1/500 to 1/37 colonoscopies.
• Death occurred in about 1/30,000 to 1/3,000 colonoscopies.

I pointed out that the long time period looked at makes it a bit difficult to know if those numbers apply today.

I'll ask again, what statistics which I have provided are you questioning?

Your link covers a period of 35 years, and you have not shown it to be different than as I qouted.