A Trial in Philadelphia

[AliEnvy]

^ I still think there is collective interest in minimizing the need and defining parameters.

[nathan1977]

And what role should the government play in defining how abortions are to be regulated and performed? The case in TX is about this. It has nothing to do with a woman's right to choose, but instead making sure that women are safe and protected when they go through an invasive surgical procedure that carries a degree of risk, as well as making sure that butchers who want to make a quick buck are kept out of the ORs of the world.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

The case in TX is about this. It has nothing to do with a woman's right to choose, but instead making sure that women are safe and protected when they go through an invasive surgical procedure that carries a degree of risk

There are equivalent bills floating around in state legislatures regulating, with similar specificity, other invasive surgical procedures that carry degrees of risk? Really?

The US has the highest rate of c-sections in the world, far exceeding rates that are seen as acceptable by your own medical associations. Do we see bills regulating these?

You are not so naive to believe that it has "nothing to do with a woman's right to choose."

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by anitram

Who is going to be paying for these unnecessary procedures (the transvaginal ultrasounds)?

why, the state of course. they will be free and mandatory.

but all other health care shouldn't be on my dime.

[iron yuppie]

Originally Posted by Pearl

Many fail to realize that few women treat abortion like it's no big deal. Many pro-lifers seem to think all women who have had abortions are promiscuous and have had several abortions in their lives. Boy, are they wrong.

Exactly. When I was pro-life (way back when) this is exactly the realization that changed my position. No one is "pro-abortion," only pro-choice.

[anitram]

Also forgotten, or conveniently not mentioned is this statement:

The Texas District of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) opposes SB 5/HB 60 and other legislative proposals that are not based on sound science or that attempt to prescribe how physicians should care for their individual patients. As a District of the Nation's leading authority in women's health, our role is to ensure that policy proposals accurately reflect the best available medical knowledge.

SB 5/HB 60 will not enhance patient safety or improve the quality of care that women receive. This bill does not promote women's health, but erodes it by denying women in Texas the benefits of well-researched, safe, and proven protocols.

or this by the Texas Hospital Association:

THA agrees that women should receive high-quality care and that physicians should be held accountable for acts that violate their license. However, a requirement that physicians who perform one particular outpatient procedure, abortion, be privileged at a hospital is not the appropriate way to accomplish these goals.

[...]

Should a woman develop complications from an abortion or any other procedure performed outside the hospital and need emergency care, she should present to a hospital emergency department. Requiring that a doctor have privileges at a particular hospital does not guarantee that this physician will be at the hospital when the woman arrives. She will appropriately be treated by the physician staffing the emergency room when she presents there. If the emergency room physician needs to consult with the physician who performed the abortion, the treating physician can contact the doctor telephonically, which is often done in other emergency situations.

[Irvine511]

when it comes to what's happening in TX, it's really not the rightness v wrongness of abortion that's at issue, it's how access to abortion is being reduced in the name of health and safety using Gosnell as a pretext.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by anitram

The US has the highest rate of c-sections in the world, far exceeding rates that are seen as acceptable by your own medical associations. Do we see bills regulating these?

Better even than that -- the NY State Department of Health is so concerned about deficiencies in maternity wards that they have a website where you can research any hospital with such problems.
Hospital Maternity-Related Procedures and Practices Statistics

The website was around even before a case like this, a year ago.
Botched C-Section Procedure Poses More Questions | NBC New York

It's great that women can look up hospitals with documented issues, and that NY State promotes such freedom of information. Should women who want to get an abortion be offered any less?

[anitram]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

It's great that women can look up hospitals with documented issues, and that NY State allows such freedom of information. Should women who want to get an abortion be offered any less?

And that's what SB 5 was about?

Right.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by anitram

And that's what SB 5 was about?

Right.

You realize that the attitude your posts demonstrate are only highlighting the problem, right? Let's figure out how to constructively engage on the issues at hand. Unless you think that women's health isn't one of them? But since you posted to statistics published by the CDC, you surely must recognize that government has at least some role to play in the regulations and policies that govern the health of its citizens. And, being the realist that you are, you must recognize that at least part of the problem that creates a monster like Gosnell is the lack of regulation and follow-through that allowed him to operate with impunity for decades....and that kept politicians from saving the lives of the women and babies he murdered.

If abortion is legal, it should be safe. If an abortion doctor is unsafe, s/he should not be legal. Do you disagree?

Your posts make me wonder: is it not possible to be reasonable on this issue?

[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]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

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]

Originally Posted by 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!

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]

Originally Posted by anitram

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]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

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]

Originally Posted by anitram

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]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

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.