A Trial in Philadelphia

[Irvine511]

in fairness, nathan has conceded that it isn't about women's health but on finding a "middle ground" on forcibly removing the actual number of abortions performed in Texas.

i'd rather we work on finding common ground when it comes to reducing the need for abortions, but that's much less emotional.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by nbcrusader

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

These aren't upgrades like buy a new sterilization device and widen a door, they would have to provide new ventilation, hospital grade equipment, and more than likely lots of new construction. Upgrades that no other clinic or doctor's office will be held to in the entire country. If your child's preschool had to be upgraded to the standards of a state university they'd be forced to close their doors. We're forcing the standards of an apple onto an orange in order to eradicate the orange.

[nbcrusader]

Originally Posted by BVS

These aren't upgrades like buy a new sterilization device and widen a door, they would have to provide new ventilation, hospital grade equipment, and more than likely lots of new construction. Upgrades that no other clinic or doctor's office will be held to in the entire country. If your child's preschool had to be upgraded to the standards of a state university they'd be forced to close their doors. We're forcing the standards of an apple onto an orange in order to eradicate the orange.

Complying with the existing regulations for other out-patient surgery centers (Ambulatory Surgical Centers) is not a preschool to university leap.

The existing regulations are, as defined by statute, for the safety and welfare of patients. If a procedure is complicated or there is an emergency, I'm sure we'd all like to see the patient in the safest environment possible.

The cost of upgrades will eat into a clinic's profit margin, but that is something every business faces.

[martha]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

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?

You are a snake-oil salesman and you always have been. You take the smooth-talking "middle ground" to disguise your intentions.

No one who is really concerned about women's health really thinks that limiting access to abortion will somehow keep women alive. The next internet search you make should be statistics for what was going on before Roe V. Wade made abortion actually safe and legal, not the kind of "safe and legal" you and Rick Perry hide behind. No amount of your smooth talk can fool anyone here.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

Some incredibly dear friends of ours agonized through a nine-month pregnancy in order to hold their baby girl for 10 hours.

Other friends delivered twins at 30 weeks destined to live for 45 minutes.

Some other friends had a baby girl at 30 weeks and were told by their doctor to abort her. That was two years ago. She is a healthy, thriving baby now.

I don't believe in pitting one story against another. Let's figure out how to sort this out together.

Actually, you did. Since you didn't mention the condition of the last baby while she was in utero, we would have to assume that her condition wasn't as bad as not having a brain develop at all. That means these were two entirely different scenarios.

What worked for your friends doesn't work for others. Some people can't imagine carrying a pregnancy to term, only to deliver a child that won't live even 24 hours. Even to me, that sounds like an agony, and I hope to never be in that situation. Why should laws determine what is the right way to handle a devastating situation like that?

[Jive Turkey]

Are women dying all over the place because of this alleged lack of safety regulations?

[martha]

Originally Posted by Pearl

Why should laws determine what is the right way to handle a devastating situation like that?

"Pro-life" legislators should decide. Get with the program.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by Pearl

Why should laws determine what is the right way to handle a devastating situation like that?

Because even in the most dire medical situations, there are still ethics that must govern these decisions. Those ethics are wrestled with and defined by government officials, health practitioners, lawyers, and other standard-bearers. Otherwise why have laws in the first place?

The issue of standards when it comes to patient care is understandably thorny, but given the increasing role that the government is playing in health-care (and that's not a criticism on my part), it's one that's not going away.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

Are women dying all over the place because of this alleged lack of safety regulations?

Well, PA raised the standards for abortion-providers after the murders at Gosnell's clinic, and there was a notable lack of an outcry about infringement on abortion access. But I'd prefer not to wait for women to die before raising those standards.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

But I'd prefer not to wait for women to die before raising those standards.

Are we really waiting for women to die? Or are the current regulations safe and the new suggested regulations just backdoor fuckery? The answer is obvious when you consider those involved

[martha]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

Are women dying all over the place because of this alleged lack of safety regulations?

Originally Posted by nathan1977

Well, PA raised the standards for abortion-providers after the murders at Gosnell's clinic, and there was a notable lack of an outcry about infringement on abortion access. But I'd prefer not to wait for women to die before raising those standards.

As usual, question not answered.

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

But I'd prefer not to wait for women to die before raising those standards.

Dear Lord, you have no idea what you're talking about.

This was not a bill proposed by people in the medical community who are concerned about the safety of women in these clinics. This was a bill proposed by staunch conservative politicians. That should tell you all you need to know. This was never about safety. This was about politics.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

Because even in the most dire medical situations, there are still ethics that must govern these decisions. Those ethics are wrestled with and defined by government officials, health practitioners, lawyers, and other standard-bearers. Otherwise why have laws in the first place?

The issue of standards when it comes to patient care is understandably thorny, but given the increasing role that the government is playing in health-care (and that's not a criticism on my part), it's one that's not going away.

But that leans more toward the government telling people how they should feel and think in such a situation.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

This was never about safety. This was about politics.

Bingo.

[maycocksean]

This is a remarkably toxic topic for debate. It seems that neither side is willing to give any quarter, as if to concede any point to the opponent constitutes a fatal weakness that the opponent will use to defeat us somehow.

Is it really helpful to insist on characterizing all pro-life advocates have the primary goal of restricting women's rights? Is it really so hard to understand that when they think of a fetus as a human being it's hard to accept abortion? What about the people in other countries who oppose abortion because it is used to get rid of unwanted females? What do we think about that?

Likewise, is it so hard for pro-life supporters to understand the feeling that the health and needs of the mother might carry a little weight than a fetus not yet fully formed? Is it so difficult to see that insisting on always placing the rights of baby above the rights of the mother implies a disregard for one of the two people in this equation?

What's needed, if we're to make any kind of progress on this issue as a nation (and in this thread) is some sort of concessions (and by that I mean of the "I see your point, or I can see why that's valid" variety). Otherwise we'll never get anywhere.

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

This was not a bill proposed by people in the medical community who are concerned about the safety of women in these clinics. This was a bill proposed by staunch conservative politicians.

Conceding this point would be a great start for our conservative posters on the forum.

[Popmartijn]

And we're off! Lunatics spreading like an Arizonian bushfire...
North Carolina Lawmakers Push Surprise Abortion Bill

A bill restricting abortions that popped up in the state Senate without public notice Tuesday evening and received swift approval would force clinics to meet expensive license requirements and make it more difficult for doctors to perform the procedures.

Under the bill, which was tacked onto another measure dealing with Islamic law, abortion clinics would have to meet license standards similar to those of ambulatory surgical centers. According to legislative staff, only one clinic in the state currently meets that standard. The state’s four Planned Parenthood clinics don’t meet it. The bill would also require doctors to be present when women take drugs that induce abortions.

Good to see that anti-abortion legislation is an Islamic thing.

Some other choice quotes from that article:

The proposed abortion restrictions were brought up in a Senate committee meeting at 5:30 p.m. The committee was scheduled to discuss a bill disallowing the use of Islamic law in family matters such as divorce, child custody and alimony. The abortion legislation was attached to that bill.

A few hours later, Senate Republicans voted to waive their rules to allow a floor vote. Lobbyists that supported the bill, including representatives from N.C. Values Coalition, the N.C. Family Policy Council and N.C. Right to Life, were at the committee meeting. Lobbyists opposed to the bill were not told it was being debated.

Democracy at its finest.

And some more background info regarding abortion procedures:

The provision putting more restrictions on the use of the drug RU486, which induces what are called medical abortions, and the stepped-up requirements for clinics were debated for the first time Tuesday.

In a medical abortion, women take two drugs over the course of three days. It takes up to 24 hours for the second pill to work.

Melissa Reed, vice president of public affairs for Planned Parenthood Health Systems, said about half the abortions in the state were done using RU486.

Oh wait, so about 50% of all abortions do not involve any surgical procedures at all, if I read this correctly. Yet, it will be required that patients go to a de-facto hospital to have a doctor watch that they're taking in a medicine. Can we say, over-kill?

[Pearl]

North Carolina is something like a breeding ground for radical conservative thought. A few months ago, some state lawmakers tried to push a bill to make Christianity the state religion. It is already illegal for someone who doesn't believe in God to hold state offices.

In regards to Sean's post, I agree he has a point that both sides are too venomous in their attacks that common ground cannot be met. I also think it is difficult to be in the middle about this issue. I was never gung-ho about abortion because I do agree that it is a human life, even at 3 months because the fetus is moving around by then. But it was the ignorant and fearful actions from the right that made me side strongly with the pro-choice supporters. Before, I was reluctant to say that I was uneasy with abortion because some on the pro-choice would get all nasty and say I wasn't a real woman and I was against my "sisters". Honestly, I think those kinds of feminists and pro-abortion supporters have deeper issues rather than insisting a woman deserves dominion over her body.

[anitram]

Way to go North Carolina.

Frankly I hope the GOP keeps at it. These abortion bills and the GOP's views on abortion worked so well for them in 2012. Let's hope they roll with it.

[AliEnvy]

Originally Posted by maycocksean

This is a remarkably toxic topic for debate. It seems that neither side is willing to give any quarter, as if to concede any point to the opponent constitutes a fatal weakness that the opponent will use to defeat us somehow.

Honestly, I think deeper than a win/lose stance lies the unwillingness for each side to face its own hypocrisy about the sanctity of life.

No one is comfortable with the taking of human life and agrees it is wrong. Yet the notion that it is acceptable in circumstances of self-defense is just about universal.