A Trial in Philadelphia - Page 7 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-01-2013, 03:27 PM   #91
Galeonbroad
 
Galeongirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Schoo Fishtank
Posts: 70,773
Local Time: 09:34 PM
Of course it is the government's task to make sure medical procedures are taken care of properly. But shutting down clinic after clinic after years of not properly adressing issues isn't the way to do it! They should have regular checks on clinics to make sure they're conform the safety standards, or, dare I say, just do it as most other countries do. Abortion is a relatively standard medical procedure, so why have a specialised clinic rather than having it done in the hospital? That takes care of the clinic issue, so everyone happy right?


Oh wait... that would raise even more outrage of those opposing abortion.


To those, I have the same thing to say as the ones who oppose gay marriage. If you're against abortion, Don't get one! But stop trying to tell ME what to do with my life and my body.
__________________

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraceRyan View Post
And if U2 EVER did Hawkmoon live....and the version from the Lovetown Tour, my uterus would leave my body and fling itself at Bono - for realz.
Don't worry baby, it's gonna be all right. Uncertainty can be a guiding light...
Galeongirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 03:34 PM   #92
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 03:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post

Your posts make me wonder: is it not possible to be reasonable on this issue?
Just like your posts make me wonder whether you can be realistic on this issue?

I agree with you in principle. But until you recognize that there are, generally conservative forces, all around your country who are trying to pass bills, like the one in Texas, stuffed with unnecessary provisions which are aimed to at least indirectly curtail access to abortion, there can be no discussion.

So long as you're continuing to maintain, over and over again that this has NOTHING to do with a woman's right to choose, no, you know what, we can't have a reasonable discussion.
__________________

__________________
anitram is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 03:40 PM   #93
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 08:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galeongirl View Post
Of course it is the government's task to make sure medical procedures are taken care of properly. But shutting down clinic after clinic after years of not properly adressing issues isn't the way to do it!
Is it wiser to allow clinics who are operating beneath health-code standards to continue to operate, or for those clinics to be forced to come up to code (and to not allow them to operate until they can do so)? Other hospitals, ERs etc have been shut down for being below-code; should abortion clinics be any different?

Quote:
If you're against abortion, Don't get one! But stop trying to tell ME what to do with my life and my body.
I don't think it's in anyone's interest -- women, the government, health-care providers etc -- to offer women sub-standard care. No one is saying what you can or can't do with your body. What SB5 is about -- mind-bogglingly, given the conservatism that otherwise governs the state -- is that if you choose to get this procedure done, you deserve to have it done safely and up to the rigorous health standards that it deserves. Standards, incidentally, that are being ignored by at least one abortion-provider in Houston.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 03:43 PM   #94
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 08:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Just like your posts make me wonder whether you can be realistic on this issue?
Can you demonstrate where I have been unrealistic?

Abortion should be safe.
Abortion should be legal.
Abortion should be rare.

It is the role of government to make sure that abortions are safe. Where they are not safe, the government has a role to play to ensure that they are. How is this unreasonable? Do you believe the government doesn't?
__________________
nathan1977 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 03:50 PM   #95
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 03:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Can you demonstrate where I have been unrealistic?
Yes. In your statement that this has "nothing to do with a woman's right to choose."

I will put it to you plainly. As a lawyer, I read and consider this law in terms of the implications, both in implementation and legislative intent, as I would any other piece of legislation. And in my professional legal opinion this piece of legislation does not pass the smell test. Not necessarily every word of it, but the intent behind a number of the provisions is not as it seems.

You can go on and continue to label me unreasonable if it makes you feel better. I don't care. It is still my opinion that what the drafters of this legislation are trying to accomplish, as an indirect benefit is not what you think it is.
__________________
anitram is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 03:53 PM   #96
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 08:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Yes. In your statement that this has "nothing to do with a woman's right to choose."
Can you enlighten me how it does? Because of all the laws that would have robbed women of the right to choose in TX, a law that forces non-compliant abortion clinics to provide ambulatory care for any woman who is going in for an invasive procedure that carries a degree of risk (a standard that hospitals and ERs have to hold to), doesn't seem to be one of 'em.

In my mind, a very simple solution is as follows. Planned Parenthood made a record $150M profit last year. Why not magnanimously offer to use some of that funding to bring these clinics up to code? TX can have public safety, PP can step in as a crusader for women's health, everybody wins.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 03:59 PM   #97
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 03:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Can you enlighten me how it does?
I don't think that there is a point as I don't get the sense that you'll budge.

I said before, it is tantamount to constructive dismissal. The fact that you would shut down the vast majority (all but 5 or 6) clinics and most of these do not have the money to bring themselves to a standard of an ambulatory centre, which by the way neither the Texas Hospital Association nor the Texas District of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists think that it is necessary, tells you all you need to know. Do you think that medical associations (both providers and services), which bear the brunt of the costs associated with medical malpractice are lying here or pushing a political agenda? Have you at all considered their view and why they hold it?

It is my opinion that a case like Gosnell is being take an extrapolated to every clinic out there that does not meet the standards of an ambulatory centre, regardless of whether those standards are medically necessary. The side benefit of this is an effective near-ban on abortion altogether in the state of Texas.

I don't really care to spend more time on this, you can have your opinion and I can have my "unreasonable" one, that's fine, we can agree to disagree.
__________________
anitram is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 04:01 PM   #98
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 03:34 PM
I noticed I didn't address Planned Parenthood - I don't know if that is their national "profit", but I assume so. Not sure why you think they need to drain it in Texas. Furthermore I am not sure why an organization, which performs abortions as a small minority of their services should be told to direct all their funding into that area. Not maternal health or pre-natal health or contraception or STD testing, etc. Seems a little bizarre.

__________________
anitram is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 04:07 PM   #99
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 08:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
I noticed I didn't address Planned Parenthood - I don't know if that is their national "profit", but I assume so. Not sure why you think they need to drain it in Texas. Furthermore I am not sure why an organization, which performs abortions as a small minority of their services should be told to direct all their funding into that area. Not maternal health or pre-natal health or contraception or STD testing, etc. Seems a little bizarre.
Well, seeing as they're currently sinking an awful lot of money into Wendy's campaign chest, and she was trying to protect these clinics, I thought maybe the least they could do was throw a little money at the clinics she was defending too. *shrug*
__________________
nathan1977 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 04:12 PM   #100
Galeonbroad
 
Galeongirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Schoo Fishtank
Posts: 70,773
Local Time: 09:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Is it wiser to allow clinics who are operating beneath health-code standards to continue to operate, or for those clinics to be forced to come up to code (and to not allow them to operate until they can do so)? Other hospitals, ERs etc have been shut down for being below-code; should abortion clinics be any different?



I don't think it's in anyone's interest -- women, the government, health-care providers etc -- to offer women sub-standard care. No one is saying what you can or can't do with your body. What SB5 is about -- mind-bogglingly, given the conservatism that otherwise governs the state -- is that if you choose to get this procedure done, you deserve to have it done safely and up to the rigorous health standards that it deserves. Standards, incidentally, that are being ignored by at least one abortion-provider in Houston.
Of ccourse they should make sure those clinics operate on top notch, but the whole point is that this hasn't happened in the past amount of years! That's the problem here, not the clinics, but the lack of control on them. So first the government sat back just letting them run their course, it turned into shitty quality and endangered lives of women, and NOW they take action by shutting down the clinics.

We have a saying here in Dutch, that says After the cown has drowned, people will close the well. Meaning that first something has to happen before people take action, while if they took action in the first place the accident could've been prevented. I believe that is the case here, if there had been regular checks and tight regulation on the clinics, there would've been WAY less chance that so many clinics operate below health code standards. And if that had happened, they wouldn't have been closed now and the women in need of such a clinic wouldn't have had trouble getting to one.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraceRyan View Post
And if U2 EVER did Hawkmoon live....and the version from the Lovetown Tour, my uterus would leave my body and fling itself at Bono - for realz.
Don't worry baby, it's gonna be all right. Uncertainty can be a guiding light...
Galeongirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 04:21 PM   #101
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 08:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galeongirl View Post
Of ccourse they should make sure those clinics operate on top notch, but the whole point is that this hasn't happened in the past amount of years! That's the problem here, not the clinics, but the lack of control on them. So first the government sat back just letting them run their course, it turned into shitty quality and endangered lives of women, and NOW they take action by shutting down the clinics.
I would humbly suggest that abortion is one of those third rails in American politics. Government officials are likely to get heat for pushing regulation -- shouted down from the right and the left. The situation in TX is one such example. (There are pro-life groups furious at TX politicians for even letting SB5 go to a vote, since they believe it only normalizes a procedure with which they have moral qualms.) There has to be some kind of middle ground on this, but our government has so far proven less-than-effective at finding it -- and activists on both sides have sometimes proven less-than-honest about coming to the table.

And based on three high-profile investigations of such clinics in the last two years, I would also suggest that there are indeed clinics that are the problem -- more interested in making a buck than in quality health-care. Capitalism at its finest. (He said sarcastically, in case anyone was missing the point.)
__________________
nathan1977 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 04:32 PM   #102
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
trojanchick99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Los Feliz, CA (between Hollywood and Downtown LA)
Posts: 8,091
Local Time: 12:34 PM
Galeongirl, part of the problem in the US is many qualified doctors will not perform abortions out of fear of reprisal from protestors or worse. In the '90s we had a rash of murders and bombings which have scared medical professionals from providing that service. Also, there doctors who will not perform the procedure for religious/moral reasons.

Now, I believe all medical care in this country should be done by licensed professionals who are kept to a standard of service. If the AMA believes abortions should only be done in surgical centers/hospitals I would stand by that. But don't pretend that the law in Texas was about women's safety. The INTENT is to limit safe abortions by imposing unrealistic and unnecessary standards.
__________________
trojanchick99 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 04:40 PM   #103
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 08:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by trojanchick99 View Post
unrealistic and unnecessary standards.
I wonder how the 6 clinics that are following such standards are making it work.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 05:29 PM   #104
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 02:34 PM
Can anyone show me a summary of these standards?
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 05:44 PM   #105
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 08:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Can anyone show me a summary of these standards?
The bill reads:

SECTION 4. Section 245.010(a), Health and Safety Code, is
amended to read as follows:
(a) The rules must contain minimum standards to protect the
health and safety of a patient of an abortion facility and must
contain provisions requiring compliance with the requirements of
Subchapter B, Chapter 171. On and after September 1, 2014, the
minimum standards for an abortion facility must be equivalent to
the minimum standards adopted under Section 243.010 for ambulatory
surgical centers.

For more info on those standards:
Pdf - Main - Core Measure Solution Exchange
__________________

__________________
nathan1977 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com