A Trial in Philadelphia

[BVS]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

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.

Sure they do. Where have you been? They deal with emergency issues all the time in clinics. Go to your local emergency clinic and ask them what they deal with, and then ask them if they have the same building standards as a surgical center.

Originally Posted by nathan1977

I have also yet to see dermatologist's offices or dentist's offices that have been deemed "houses of horrors."

Well it may have not made national news yet, but it sure has made local news but a dermatologist here in TX just got sentenced for sexual assault and unwarranted procedures. More than 2 dozen women in 30 years came forward. It's resulted in 3 suicides so far. Once again, nothing to do with the standards as far as equipment and building code, but if the state were policing their doctors correctly this could have been taken care of years ago, the first complaint was in 1986.

Originally Posted by nathan1977

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.

Then Nathan, be honest with your elected officials and tell them they need to focus their concern on policing those who practice medicine first. Ask Perry how it is he allowed unlicensed "doctors" to perform butcher sessions under his watch? This law wouldn't have changed that.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by BVS

Well it may have not made national news yet, but it sure has made local news but a dermatologist here in TX just got sentenced for sexual assault and unwarranted procedures. More than 2 dozen women in 30 years came forward. It's resulted in 3 suicides so far. Once again, nothing to do with the standards as far as equipment and building code, but if the state were policing their doctors correctly this could have been taken care of years ago, the first complaint was in 1986.

Ugh. That's horrible and heartbreaking.

I don't think it's a secret to anyone that women's health care in this country is lackluster at a variety of levels. My aunt fought for years to get her fibromyalgia recognized by her health insurance. My wife has been appalled for years by the sometimes blatant sexism that she's received from health care providers -- part of why she's resorted to naturopathy. So I guess we all have to address what concerns we have about different aspects of women's health as best we can. At your recommendation, I just sent an email to Gov. Perry's office expressing my disappointment at this situation. Thanks for flagging it for me.

In the meantime, driving home tonight I heard a report on NPR that around 60% of Americans polled fluctuate between pro-choice with restrictions and pro-life with exceptions. I felt like it described how I feel most days. Made me feel like maybe the conversation we're having here is representative of the country as a whole.

[trojanchick99]

Yes, Women's healthcare in this country has been substandard. And yet, Republicans througout this country are still trying to make it worse. The growing trend of requiring transvaginal ultrasounds before an abortion can be performed makes me sick.

As others have written in this thread, the TX law is just another attempt to limit access to health care which may include abortions for the women of Texas. You know that "abortion clinics" also provide other healthcare, for which there is usually no or a very small charge. These clinics will now no longer be able to provide that healthcare because legislators who don't even know what a freaking rape kit does think they know better than doctors.

You can see why many women are upset right?

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

Legislators in PA put higher standards into place

My state is insanely corrupted by GOP politics. This means nothing.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by trojanchick99

You can see why many women are upset right?

Of course. Can you see why many people -- men and women -- are passionately concerned about this issue on the other side?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

Of course. Can you see why many people -- men and women -- are passionately concerned about this issue on the other side?

Of course.

Can we admit now that what's going on in TX is not about women's health and entirely about reducing the aggregate number of abortions -- and achieving bragging rights for the base for the '14 midterms -- by hook or by crook?

[martha]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

by hook or by crook?

An unpleasant, yet apt, image for this topic.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

Of course.

Can we admit now that what's going on in TX is not about women's health and entirely about reducing the aggregate number of abortions -- and achieving bragging rights for the base for the '14 midterms -- by hook or by crook?

Was that the motivation in PA?

Do I believe there is a political bent to this issue? Sure. Do I believe it's representative of the tension that exists in the country? Sure. Do I believe that, according to statistics, the majority of Americans seem to want more restrictions and regulations on abortion, to maintain the health and safety of those seeking abortions as well as for the unborn babies that may be at risk due to the actions of butchers like Karpen and Gosnell, while at the same time protecting a woman's right to choose? Sure. Do I believe that the majority of Americans, in wanting to do so, are waging a war against women, or are pawns in a diabolical GOP-led plot to force women into back-alley abortions? No. I do not.

If you do, then we should probably just stop talking in circles and lay this thread to rest, because we aren't going to get anywhere.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

Was that the motivation in PA?

Do I believe there is a political bent to this issue? Sure. Do I relieve it's representative of the tension that exists in the country? Sure. Do I believe that, according to statistics, the majority of Americans seem to want more restrictions and regulations on abortion, to maintain the health and safety of those seeking abortions as well as for the unborn babies that may be at risk due to the actions of butchers like Karpen and Gosnell, while protecting a woman's right to choose? Sure. Do I believe that the majority of Americans, in wanting to do so, are waging a war against women, or are pawns in a diabolical GOP-led plot to force women into back-alley abortions? No. I do not.

If you do, then we should probably just stop talking in circles and lay this thread to rest, because we aren't going to get anywhere.

Restrictions and regulations on abortions themselves, yes, that's what it's about.

You've extrapolated far beyond my question, just as this legislation has intentions far beyond keeping women safe.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

You've extrapolated far beyond my question

Well, you've made a lot of comments and insinuations -- or outright accusations -- about me and my motives and perspective in the course of this conversation. So I just thought I'd address a bunch of them all at once. :-)

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

Well, you've made a lot of comments and insinuations -- or outright accusations -- about me and my motives and perspective in the course of this conversation. So I just thought I'd address a bunch of them all at once. :-)

I think we've revealed them?

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

I think we've revealed them?

Sure. I'm right about in the middle of how the majority of Americans feel about this issue. I'm struggling with how to address it -- with the balancing act of ethical considerations, women's health, a woman's legally protected right to choose, and health standards and regulations that have been problematic (or outright ignored) by clinics in more than one state -- but pretty sure that a hard-line one way or the other isn't the answer. Right where I was when I came into this conversation.

So...Congratulations, I guess?

[Irvine511]

I feel satisfied that we better understand what's going on in TX as well as the obsession with the Gosnell case and that neither are about safety but the manipulation if "safety" to further an agenda.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

Sure. I'm right about in the middle of how the majority of Americans feel about this issue.

I think it's very difficult to really ascertain how most Americans feel about the issue so long as it is in the abstract. If abortion were banned or constructively banned (which is the intended effect of most of these legislative proposals from the GOP), would opinions change? Would there be a case of buyer's remorse if suddenly there was no access? If politicians' daughters couldn't get an abortion, and so on?

When you say "safe, legal and rare" I think that we have a different idea of how to achieve the "rare" bit. To me, it has to do with comprehensive sex education in public school (something the GOP is against), cheap and accessible birth control (again, something the GOP is against and let's not forget Limbaugh's assault on "sluts" on birth control), funding clinics like Planned Parenthood so that poor women and scared teenagers whose parents have buried their heads in the sand like ostriches and are shoving abstinence down the throats of girls who are sexually active (again, something the GOP wants to de-fund, and they've already done that in Texas only to have buyer's remorse now that the costs are high so they are looking to re-fund PP to at least some degree), etc. These are all things that the conservatives are by and large against. To them, rare means shutting down clinics, imposing regulations that are unnecessary, forcing intrusive transvaginal ultrasounds for no medical reason whatsoever because they want to guilt and bully pregnant women and so on.

So when you say "safe, legal and rare" and I agree, I don't think you and I are talking about the same thing.

[martha]

Originally Posted by anitram

Would there be a case of buyer's remorse if suddenly there was no access? I

You could ask South Dakotans about that.

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

Was that the motivation in PA?

Well. I guess we have confirmed that he has put me on ignore.

The ignore button might be the worst invention on this forum. Ignoring ideas is a shitty way to go about a debate.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by martha

You could ask South Dakotans about that.

Oh yes, those were the geniuses who re-defined pregnancy as beginning at conception, a completely scientifically absurd idea.

[Pearl]

I thought that was North Dakota? Or have both Dakota gone to hell?

[martha]

Originally Posted by anitram

Oh yes, those were the geniuses who re-defined pregnancy as beginning at conception, a completely scientifically absurd idea.

And then they backtracked on the law, if I remember correctly.

[anitram]

The voters voted it down in a referendum. Turns out an abortion ban wasn't the utopia they thought it would be.