A Trial in Philadelphia

[BVS]

Originally Posted by nbcrusader

Are Texas health & safety standards too high for all non-abortion medical clinics?

We're not comparing it to other clinics, we're comparing it to surgical centers, apples and oranges. They should currently be up to the standards of other clinics.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by BVS

Why should the health and safety requirements be any different than an OB's office, Dermatologist's office, or any other doctor's office where riskier procedures are being performed?

Because unless I am very, very mistaken (it's been a long time since I've gone to the dentist or the dermatologist), the possibility of a baby being born out of a botched skin blot exam or a root canal is incredibly rare.

And these safety standards make sense not only because of the woman who is undergoing the procedure, but the five-month-old baby that could also be potentially delivered.

Does that answer the question a little better?

[nbcrusader]

Originally Posted by BVS

We're not comparing it to other clinics, we're comparing it to surgical centers, apples and oranges. They should currently be up to the standards of other clinics.

Fair enough - isn't abortion a form of out-patient surgery?

[anitram]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

These safety standards make sense not only because of the woman who is undergoing the procedure, but the five-month-old baby that could also be potentially delivered.

Let's go with this line of thought - you are addressing 1% of cases.

What about the other 99%? Routine d&c procedures done at 6, 7 weeks? You are a man, so you've not had one, but I can tell you as a woman who has had two done (no, not for reasons of abortion, lest you label me a baby killer). I was essentially able to hop out of bed as soon as the general anaesthetic wore off and went right home. After the last one I had (which was on May 14 of this year), I had the surgery done at 7:30 am, was home by 11 am, and then I went out to Sherwin Williams to buy paint supplies. I managed to get the tape on around the baseboards, doors, ceiling, etc, but I was still a bit sleepy from the anaesthetic so I painted the next day.

We are not talking about major surgery here. I was FAR more mobile and feeling great after this than after my wisdom tooth extraction, after which I couldn't eat for days, etc.

[Irvine511]

is an abortion at 6 or 7 weeks any more intrusive or dangerous than a colonoscopy?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by nbcrusader

Fair enough - isn't abortion a form of out-patient surgery?

No. There are much more invasive procedures requiring open tissue and stitching in dermatologists and dentists offices.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

Because unless I am very, very mistaken (it's been a long time since I've gone to the dentist or the dermatologist), the possibility of a baby being born out of a botched skin blot exam or a root canal is incredibly rare.

I had a cousin that was born right there in the OBs office due to a complication. These offices have the standards and regulations that could handle this. Hell, you just commented on a documentary where children are being born in kiddie pools and communes, should we have your home regulated?

All I'm saying is that these clinics having the same regulations as a doctors office or other clinics, which is how they should be operating, are reasonable standards that have the health of the women in mind. This bill, not so much.

[nbcrusader]

Originally Posted by BVS

No. There are much more invasive procedures requiring open tissue and stitching in dermatologists and dentists offices.

And there are far less invasive. Do we set the standard for what generally happens, or for the cases that require higher degrees of care? I would think we would tend to err on the side of caution.

[Irvine511]

i'd love to regulate handguns out of practical existence.

i'm sure anti-choice folks feel the same way.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by nbcrusader

And there are far less invasive. Do we set the standard for what generally happens, or for the cases that require higher degrees of care? I would think we would tend to err on the side of caution.

Which is what we do now.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by anitram

Let's go with this line of thought - you are addressing 1% of cases.

21+ weeks, sure. Other statistics are that 4% of abortions are performed between 16-20 weeks. (And that's without considering the abortion-providers who are performing abortions illegally, or who are just not being investigated at all.) Do I think that 5% of abortions should require increased health standards? Do you think they shouldn't?

[anitram]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

Do I think that 5% of abortions should require increased health standards? Do you think they shouldn't?

I think they should require the standards that the licensed and in good standing ob/gyns who perform such procedures find to be adequate and reasonable. Since the Texas District of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, supported also by the Texas Hospital Association, hold that the 38 clinics that would be forced to shut down are meeting the necessary health standards for the procedures carried out there, that's good enough for me.

[martha]

I like how Nathan's anecdotes were all about those families choosing to continue the pregnancies, yet he's willing to deny any choice to other families.

Oh wait. No, he's not. He's just asking that the clinics be held to "standards" that will close them down and take choice away from most women.

[nbcrusader]

Originally Posted by anitram

I think they should require the standards that the licensed and in good standing ob/gyns who perform such procedures find to be adequate and reasonable. Since the Texas District of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, supported also by the Texas Hospital Association, hold that the 38 clinics that would be forced to shut down are meeting the necessary health standards for the procedures carried out there, that's good enough for me.

Required to make upgrades does not equate to "forced to shut down".

I guess if there is a problem exacerbated by a lesser health & safety standards, the patient can always sue.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by martha

Oh wait. No, he's not. He's just asking that the clinics be held to "standards" that will close them down and take choice away from most women.

As nbcrusader pointed out, these clinics have the option to raise their standards or not. If they choose to comply, there's no problem. The burden of compliance is not on the women, but on those who want to profit from them. If those clinics choose not to comply, aren't they in fact the ones taking away choice from women by refusing to provide them services in a safe environment, as defined by the politicians who have been elected to look out for the interests of their constituents?

[anitram]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

As nbcrusader pointed out, these clinics have the option to raise their standards or not.

If the doctors that, you know, actually PERFORM these procedures in Texas don't think that the clinics need to raise their standards, who are you to say that they do?

Don't you think that an ob/gyn who carries the brunt of the medical malpractice risk would choose a prudent path?

[Popmartijn]

https://twitter.com/DavidHDewhurst/s...63442497302528

We fought to pass SB5 thru the Senate last night, & this is why! #StandWithTXChildren #txlege pic.twitter.com/fJbQSJur7i

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by anitram

If the doctors that, you know, actually PERFORM these procedures in Texas don't think that the clinics need to raise their standards, who are you to say that they do?

You're right. I suppose we could listen to this guy. He seems reputable.
Douglas Karpen: Second 'house of horrors' abortion clinic is investigated in Texas | Mail Online

And in any event, this argument is circular, since one could easily counter with the question that, if the lawmakers actually responsible for the health and well-being of their citizens think that the clinics need to raise their standards, who are you to say that they don't?

[anitram]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

You're right. I suppose we could listen to this guy. He seems reputable.

Great, you've found a lunatic (extra bonus points for linking to a story in what is one of Britain's worst rags).

Which means that the public opinion American Congress of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians doesn't matter.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

And in any event, this argument is circular, since one could easily counter with the question that, if the lawmakers actually responsible for the health and well-being of their citizens think that the clinics need to raise their standards, who are you to say that they don't?

Lawmakers who have correct intentions listen to the experts. Are you not familiar with how laws are generally drafted? There is input from expert communities on healthcare laws, just like there would be consultation with bar associations, with tax experts and practitioners if it were a tax act, etc.

Bringing us back to the point of what is the actual purpose here? You can continue to naively think that it's the health of women seeking abortions. The rest of us can read between the lines a bit better.