A Trial in Philadelphia

[Galeongirl]

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.

 

[anitram]

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.

 

[nathan1977]

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?

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]

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?

 

[anitram]

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.

 

[nathan1977]

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.

 

[anitram]

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]

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.

 

[nathan1977]

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*

 

[Galeongirl]

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.

 

[nathan1977]

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.)

 

[trojanchick99]

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.

 

[nathan1977]

unrealistic and unnecessary standards.

I wonder how the 6 clinics that are following such standards are making it work.

 

[BVS]

Can anyone show me a summary of these standards?

 

[nathan1977]

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

 

[BVS]

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

Link not working.

Why would one think that the standards of a clinic and an ambulatory surgical center be the same? That's similar to saying that a pre-school should have the same minimum standards of an Ivy League college since they're both places of education.

I don't mind re-examining the standards of these clinics, but making the standards so high and cost prohibitive is done so with only one motive in mind. Would you think that an OB/ GYN's office standards need to raised to almost that level? How about a dermatologists office, or even a dentists office, they have procedures done in those offices that are much more prone to infection or complications than what's done at a clinic that provides abortions.

 

[nathan1977]

Link not working.

I don't mind re-examining the standards of these clinics, but making the standards so high and cost prohibitive is done so with only one motive in mind.

A safe surgical environment for patients?

Would you think that an OB/ GYN's office standards need to raised to almost that level? How about a dermatologists office, or even a dentists office, they have procedures done in those offices that are much more prone to infection or complications than what's done at a clinic that provides abortions.

I don't know...OSHA has some pretty high standards for medical and dental offices. http://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3187/osha3187.html

 

[PhilsFan]

A safe surgical environment for patients?

Who said it was unsafe before?

 

[BVS]

I don't know...OSHA has some pretty high standards for medical and dental offices. http://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3187/osha3187.html

But not that of a surgical center, right?

 

[maycocksean]

I think the reason for the disconnect in this discussion is abundantly clear.

Nathan, you may be technically correct in your argument, but your inability (or refusal) to see what is clearly the motive behind this legislation is preventing others from taking your arguments at face value. It comes across as disingenuous. Suddenly, the pro-life legislators that sponsored this bill are primarily concerned with making sure that women are not injured when they go to get an abortion? Really? And the fact that almost all the abortion in clinics would have to shut down under the law is just an unfortunate, unintended consequence? Really?

No one thinks you're that dumb. Which is why no one is buying the plaintive, humble-guy "hey why can't we just talk about this" routine. It's not my intent to be harsh--you know I have mad respect for you--but I don't see much movement on either side of this discussion if there aren't some concessions.

 

[nathan1977]

We all have to try to meet in the middle somewhere, Sean. Abortions that are safe and legal is a pretty good place to start, regardless of the motives behind the the legislators. If TX is indeed growing blue but still solidly red, why not start there? And why not start with a piece of legislation that actually maybe got some stuff righter than usual, and that makes at least a modicum of sense?

If real reform on a controversial issue is going to be achieved, it's not always going to be on the Left's terms.

 

[Irvine511]

Except that for most Americans, this issue isn't all that controversial, and is in fact settled law. What becomes controversial are efforts to chip away at rights in order for some conservatives to avoid being primaried.

It also lets us know what really matters to the conservative base, and it isn't debt or jobs or the Middle East.

 

[nathan1977]

Except that for most Americans, this issue isn't all that controversial, and is in fact settled law.

Oh come now Irvine. You of all people should know the power of speaking out against settled laws.

 

[Irvine511]

Oh come now Irvine. You of all people should know the power of speaking out against settled laws.

Roe is widely considered settled law.

 

[PhilsFan]

Abortions that are safe and legal is a pretty good place to start, regardless of the motives behind the the legislators.

But that's not what the issue here is.

 

[nathan1977]

Roe is widely considered settled law.

So was DOMA. Everyone's drumbeat of justice sounds a little different. And given the number of American citizens who consider themselves pro-life, and given the numbers of people who protest every year at the Right to Life rally in Washington, I'm not convinced that it's as settled as you (seemed to dismissively) suggest that it is.

 

[nathan1977]

But that's not what the issue here is.

What is? The 20 week issue? The desire to bring clinics up to code? The desire to codify RU-486's instructions?

By all means, enlighten me.

Until then, I'd rather be technically right than bloody wrong.

 

[BVS]

What is? The 20 week issue? The desire to bring clinics up to code? The desire to codify RU-486's instructions?

By all means, enlighten me.

Until then, I'd rather be technically right than bloody wrong.

Except that you are trying to be right on a technicality when the technicality isn't correct.

I mean look at your response to my medical office question, it was disingenuous as best.

You're not concerned that dermatologist and dentist use more scalpels and have more open tissue procedures and have more infections and more complications than clinics that provide abortions? Yet you're OK with OSHA having lesser standards than a surgical center, but somehow these clinics have to come up to the surgical center standards? That doesn't make sense in anyone's logical mind.

 

[Irvine511]

So was DOMA. Everyone's drumbeat of justice sounds a little different. And given the number of American citizens who consider themselves pro-life, and given the numbers of people who protest every year at the Right to Life rally in Washington, I'm not convinced that it's as settled as you (seemed to dismissively) suggest that it is.

Ok, so you're saying Sean was right. You are being disingenuous.

 

[maycocksean]

We all have to try to meet in the middle somewhere, Sean. Abortions that are safe and legal is a pretty good place to start, regardless of the motives behind the the legislators. If TX is indeed growing blue but still solidly red, why not start there? And why not start with a piece of legislation that actually maybe got some stuff righter than usual, and that makes at least a modicum of sense?

If real reform on a controversial issue is going to be achieved, it's not always going to be on the Left's terms.

Or on the Right's.

If we're going to meet in the middle there at least to be a demonstration of good faith, though: "I'm going to put all my cards on the table and be straight with you. I'm not going to pretend that I'm promoting your agenda when in fact I'm promoting my own." Does that not make sense?

If you were simply to say: "Sure the Texas legislators want to effectively ban abortion in Texas through this legislation, but that doesn't have to be the outcome. This bill has some good stuff in it and that properly applied and funded, could be a win-win for all of us." I bet you'd find your audience immediately more amenable to at least hearing you out. Right now it sounds like the "rare" part for you in safe, legal, and rare, means simply making it more difficult to get an abortion, while for pro-choicers the "rare" comes through reducing the causes of unwanted pregnancy through birth control, education etc etc.

The larger problem with the whole abortion debate in this country is that both sides are arguing from the assumption that their opponents understand and frame the issue the way they do. We argue about all the wrong things; it's even in the names. Pro-life people assume that liberals don't care about innocent baby lives. Pro-choicer people assume that those woman-hating conservatives want to control women's bodies. While the majority of both sides essentially want the same thing.

The actual debate really is over whether abortion is the taking of a human life, and until we can agree on that issue, the rest of the debate won't make much sense at all. If pro-choice people could concede that the start of human life is at the very least fuzzy and that if we start rejoicing at being parents as soon as we find out we are pregnant and mourn a miscarriage like a death, moreso the further along in the pregnancy, than clearly abortion is a very serious thing akin to if not actually the taking of a human life. And if pro-lifers could concede that sometimes ending a human life for the sake of another human life is a necessity. Well then I think we could get somewhere.


I honestly am a little perplexed by the zeal among American Christians over this issue in years since Roe v. Wade. There's really no strong Biblical precedent or emphasis on this topic (indeed all our hand-wringing about the innocent lives is curious, given that in many Biblical stories there seemed to me no special consideration for the "innocent children" when there was an enemy to be slaughtered.) The Catholic church, I get, as it has always had a stringent, but consistent view about when life begins. But the evangelical apoplexy suddenly appearing in the last century seems. . .off to me.