A Trial in Philadelphia

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

Alisha Snow's testimony might qualify her?

Video: Planned Parenthood Official Argues for Right to Post-Birth Abortion | The Weekly Standard

Maybe.

But then maybe not. The way it's framed, sure that sounds like crazy talk. But if you read carefully, it's clear to me that Snow is not just saying," look just kill it. That's what they were trying to do, so go ahead and finish the job."

In a situation like that there may be many extenuating circumstances that might complicate the issue, including the viability of the baby (is the child going to last longer than a few minutes/hours/days anyway). What is the health of the child? Has it properly developed and will it continue to develop if placed under intensive preemie care? There are a lot of possibilities so maybe it's not so evil and heartless to suggest that the doctor and mother in question need to have the flexibility to make that decision. Doctors and parents already have that flexibility when dealing children that are born early that aren't the product of an unsuccessful abortion.

Personally, I would want a baby that survives an abortion to be given the chance to live. It could always be adopted (by a gay family even!) But I don't know that I'd want that enshrined into inflexible law.

I guess that makes me the opposite of Nathan. Privately pro-life, but publicly pro-choice?

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

I agree that the power of relationships and experiences can change hearts and minds. This goes both ways, too -- Norma McCorvey being a prominent example.

True. Though I doubt her story will warm many hearts in here.

But, hey the point is that people can change their minds. I'm getting ready to do a blog on the topic of how we come to the point of changing our minds on major issues. I'll post a link when I get it done.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by maycocksean

In a situation like that there may be many extenuating circumstances that might complicate the issue

I think that this is so important. Personal circumstances are just that, personal. They can never be fully understood by outsiders - not the facts, not the emotions involved or anything.

I had a host of medical procedures this past year, including two surgeries, one of which was minor (day) and one which was major and removed 15 benign tumors from my abdomen. Without boring people with details, I had to attend at one of North America's premier fertility centres to undergo scans and exams on several occasions. For me, this was not related to trying to get pregnant or anything like that - it's that they had specialized equipment and expertise which they could extend to me outside of the context of assisting me with pregnancy (or termination thereof). It was a bit of a strange experience because everyone else there whom I encountered in the various waiting rooms, recovery rooms, changing areas, etc was there either because they were desperate to have a baby and were spending tens of thousands of dollars to that end or because they were terminating. Keep in mind, the ones terminating were particularly tragic cases of women who had subjected themselves to months or maybe years of painful, intrusive and expensive fertility treatments only to experience heartbreaking loss down the line. You'd see their face and it's all you needed to know. And some of them were over 20 weeks (or so I'm assuming based on their size).

I am so glad they had a choice in the matter. That's really the essence of my pro-choice views. People should behave in accordance with their own situations, not with what the rest of us think is ideal.

[Popmartijn]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

That's a really wrenching position to be in. To me, doesn't it then behoove the clinics who want to provide this service to make sure that they're corresponding with all standards?

Again, the TX law would require the 38 non-compliant clinics to become as compliant as the 6 that would remain open.

But one of the issues here is that the aim of the TX legislation is not to make sure that clinics are compliant to some arbitrary standard (after investing maybe millions), but to make sure that all clinics will have to close as to make abortion impossible in TX. As the sponsors of the legislation have stated, it's not about providing a safe enough environment, but about changing goalposts in such a way until there's no official abortion.
Yes, 5 or 6 clinics may stay open for now. Until they find some other rule to have them closed for not meeting standards.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

That's a really wrenching position to be in. To me, doesn't it then behoove the clinics who want to provide this service to make sure that they're corresponding with all standards?

Wait a minute - these clinics, as far as I'm aware, already are complying with all the current standards. It strikes me as disingenuous to imply there is a lack of compliance when the proposed new standards don't even pass muster with the relevant professional organizations in the medical community. It strikes me as even more disingenuous to vocalize compassion for those put in a tough spot by this legislation (that again, is viewed as unnecessary and ill advised by the majority of experts in the medical community), and then suggest the solution is for everyone to, essentially, comply and just deal with it. It gets right back to the argument of eliminating access.

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by maycocksean

I guess that makes me the opposite of Nathan. Privately pro-life, but publicly pro-choice?

No wait, that would make us more or less the same. . . :what's the smilie for duh again?:

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by anitram

I think that this is so important. Personal circumstances are just that, personal. They can never be fully understood by outsiders - not the facts, not the emotions involved or anything.

I had a host of medical procedures this past year, including two surgeries, one of which was minor (day) and one which was major and removed 15 benign tumors from my abdomen. Without boring people with details, I had to attend at one of North America's premier fertility centres to undergo scans and exams on several occasions. For me, this was not related to trying to get pregnant or anything like that - it's that they had specialized equipment and expertise which they could extend to me outside of the context of assisting me with pregnancy (or termination thereof). It was a bit of a strange experience because everyone else there whom I encountered in the various waiting rooms, recovery rooms, changing areas, etc was there either because they were desperate to have a baby and were spending tens of thousands of dollars to that end or because they were terminating. Keep in mind, the ones terminating were particularly tragic cases of women who had subjected themselves to months or maybe years of painful, intrusive and expensive fertility treatments only to experience heartbreaking loss down the line. You'd see their face and it's all you needed to know. And some of them were over 20 weeks (or so I'm assuming based on their size).

I am so glad they had a choice in the matter. That's really the essence of my pro-choice views. People should behave in accordance with their own situations, not with what the rest of us think is ideal.

I really appreciate you sharing your experiences -- and for what it's worth, I'm sorry to hear about some of the procedures you've had to deal with and hope things are going better.

[anitram]

Thanks nathan. I'm a super fast healer and was back to running 3-4 miles within 4 weeks. Surgeon says I'm good as new.

[martha]

Originally Posted by Diemen

disingenuous

This word comes up a lot when a certain poster is involved. In fact, before Sean used it, I was thinking it as well.

[martha]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

I agree that the power of relationships and experiences can change hearts and minds. This goes both ways, too -- Norma McCorvey being a prominent example.

But wanting something outlawed for everyone because you think you made the wrong CHOICE isn't always the way to go either, is it?

[martha]

Originally Posted by anitram

I am so glad they had a choice in the matter. That's really the essence of my pro-choice views. People should behave in accordance with their own situations, not with what the rest of us think is ideal.

Yes. Or what random state legislators think is ideal.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by Diemen

Wait a minute - these clinics, as far as I'm aware, already are complying with all the current standards. It strikes me as disingenuous to imply there is a lack of compliance when the proposed new standards don't even pass muster with the relevant professional organizations in the medical community.

Health standards are constantly changing. I know that I would be concerned with going to any clinic that was compliant with decade or two-decade-old standards. So I don't see changing standards, on principle, to be onerous. And it's clear from the legal investigation into Karpen that there is a regulation problem in TX as there was with Gosnell in PA, which in turn led to their higher standards (without much of an apparent public outcry.)

I'm not trying to be purposefully obtuse -- there are intense political pressures on both sides of this issue. I'm just wondering if there is a way to appease both sides, or if the political pressure has overshadowed the issue. Or if, at this point, the pressure *is* the issue. As nbcrusader pointed out, there's a lot of money to be made when you can demonize your opponent.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by maycocksean

No wait, that would make us more or less the same. . . :what's the smilie for duh again?:

I have no idea, but I wish they had one. I would use it a lot. :-)

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by martha

This word comes up a lot when a certain poster is involved. In fact, before Sean used it, I was thinking it as well.

I don't think Nathan is being intentionally disingenuous, if that's what your getting at. I believe Nathan when he says he's trying to be a realist and find common ground, but we all come to the table with our own agendas, common ground or no.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by Diemen

I don't think Nathan is being intentionally disingenuous, if that's what your getting at. I believe Nathan when he says he's trying to be a realist and find common ground, but we all come to the table with our own agendas, common ground or no.

I realize that, but I'm doing my best. I credit FYM with broadening my perspective over the years -- otherwise I wouldn't drop in from time to time. I understand that my posts can sometimes come across as having a superior tone -- perhaps I'm only trying to match the moral superiority that certain posters use with their own posts. Just because we think a thing, does not always make it so. I am reminded of that constantly -- here and elsewhere.

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

Health standards are constantly changing. I know that I would be concerned with going to any clinic that was compliant with decade or two-decade-old standards. So I don't see changing standards, on principle, to be onerous. And it's clear from the legal investigation into Karpen that there is a regulation problem in TX as there was with Gosnell in PA, which in turn led to their higher standards (without much of an apparent public outcry.)

I'm not trying to be purposefully obtuse -- there are intense political pressures on both sides of this issue. I'm just wondering if there is a way to appease both sides, or if the political pressure has overshadowed the issue. Or if, at this point, the pressure *is* the issue. As nbcrusader pointed out, there's a lot of money to be made when you can demonize your opponent.

Did you even read my post?

No medical groups anywhere proposed making these changes. It was purely political. Are you having trouble understanding this?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

Health standards are constantly changing. I know that I would be concerned with going to any clinic that was compliant with decade or two-decade-old standards. So I don't see changing standards, on principle, to be onerous.

If this was truly about the health of the patients then why is there not a push to increase ALL clinics to level of surgical centers?

Originally Posted by nathan1977

And it's clear from the legal investigation into Karpen that there is a regulation problem in TX as there was with Gosnell in PA, which in turn led to their higher standards (without much of an apparent public outcry.)

I think you are confusing two issues here. Gosnell and Karpen didn't exist because of regulation or standard issues with the clinics, they existed due to the fact that the state not being able to choosing not to police their existing standards.

Originally Posted by nathan1977

I'm not trying to be purposefully obtuse -- there are intense political pressures on both sides of this issue. I'm just wondering if there is a way to appease both sides, or if the political pressure has overshadowed the issue.

The answer to this is REAL EASY. You say, OK if you're really concerned about the health of these women than let's let the medical experts and not politicians assess and redevelop if need be the standards of these clinics. But we all know the answer to that, don't we?

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by BVS

You say, OK if you're really concerned about the health of these women than let's let the medical experts and not politicians assess and redevelop if need be the standards of these clinics. But we all know the answer to that, don't we?

I guess I don't see things as clearly as you, in part because of the dual forces at play in terms of my convictions. There are legal ramifications at play here which means that legislators have a responsibility to discern the best way to form laws, and it's a challenge to divorce the issues from the political forces at play.

And of course there are political forces at play --on both sides. PP is no less a political force than Operation Rescue, and they are certainly working hard to stand with Wendy.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

I guess I don't see things as clearly as you, in part because of the dual forces at play in terms of my convictions. There are legal ramifications at play here which means that legislators have a responsibility to discern the best way to form laws, and it's a challenge to divorce the issues from the political forces at play.

And of course there are political forces at play --on both sides. PP is no less a political force than Operation Rescue, and they are certainly working hard to stand with Wendy.

I probably see things a little more clearly as you because I'm not as married to one side or the other. I also once worked in the medical field, and I know the different regulations as to what defines a practice vs a clinic vs a surgical center vs a hospital and what can and cannot take place at each.

I also see that there is no concern about other clinics that perform riskier procedures, and there is no need or want to make them upgrade to a surgical center. This alone should be obvious to you and other supporters who are claiming health reasons.

I think legislators have an obligation to consult with experts, they did not for this politically overreaching move.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by BVS

I also see that there is no concern about other clinics that perform riskier procedures, and there is no need or want to make them upgrade to a surgical center.

Please see my earlier comment regarding the fact that those other centers do not potentially put two lives at risk, depending on how we're defining life. I have also yet to see dermatologist's offices or dentist's offices that have been deemed "houses of horrors." TX legislators expressed concern about the safety of these centers and this procedure, and given what else is happening in their state and others, I don't find that concern unwarranted.

Legislators in PA put higher standards into place; I don't think TX deserves less.

IMHO.