martha
Blue Crack Supplier
Who knew?
Gov. Scott Walker signed a bill Friday requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges, and abortion clinics responded by immediately suing state officials over the measure.
The law — signed Friday by Walker in a private ceremony — would cut the number of clinics offering abortions in Wisconsin from four to two, and one of the remaining clinics will have to dramatically cut the number of abortions it provides, according to the operators of the clinics. The law is to take effect Monday.
...
Huyck said if the suit does not block the law, Planned Parenthood would have to close its Appleton abortion clinic and offer at least 50% fewer abortions at its Milwaukee facility. Affiliated would have to close its Milwaukee clinic, according to the suit.
That would mean abortions in Wisconsin would not be available north of Madison, and after the 19th week of pregnancy would not be available anywhere in the state, according to the suit.
The clinics are asking the court to immediately block the law, contending it violates the constitution's due process guarantee, puts an undue burden on a woman's right to choose abortion and unconstitutionally treats doctors who perform abortions differently than doctors who perform other services.
...
Abortion is an outpatient service that rarely requires hospitalization, she said. When it does, patients quickly get into nearby hospitals without problems under the current system, she said.
She said getting admitting privileges would be impossible in some cases because some hospitals require physicians to admit a certain numbers of patients annually, and abortion doctors rarely have reason to admit patients to hospitals.
Larry Dupuis, an American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin attorney representing Affiliated Medical Services, said it would take that clinic months to obtain admitting privileges, if they could be obtained at all. Meanwhile, women with scheduled abortions would not be able to get them.
...
The law requires women seeking abortions to get ultrasounds and requires doctors providing them to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles.
The law's critics call the ultrasound provision an unnecessary infringement on the doctor-patient relationship but do not plan to challenge it in court at this time. Supporters say the provision makes sure women seeking abortions have as much information as possible.
Other states in recent years have also enacted ultrasound requirements. Wisconsin would become the ninth state to have such a law. Under the provision, the person performing the ultrasound must describe the dimensions of the fetus, its external features and its heartbeat. The ultrasound monitor would be in view of the woman, but she would not be forced to look at it.
Huyck said if the suit does not block the law, Planned Parenthood would have to close its Appleton abortion clinic and offer at least 50% fewer abortions at its Milwaukee facility.
The law's critics call the ultrasound provision an unnecessary infringement on the doctor-patient relationship but do not plan to challenge it in court at this time.
This bill is also not related to a woman's right to choose.
O
You have said that you and I define "rare" differently, as well as the routes to "rare" (though I have to say, we agree on more than we disagree in terms of the value of and need for education, as well as economic assistance for those in need). Maybe we also define "safe" differently? From my perspective, the best choice is an informed one. Maybe we have different views on that.
The Wisconsin Medical Society, the Wisconsin Association of Local Health Departments and Boards, the Wisconsin Academy of Family Physicians, the Wisconsin Hospital Association, and the Wisconsin Public Health Association all declined to endorse the proposals when Republicans fast-tracked the bills through the legislature in June.
Or PP could use some of its $150M profit to raise the standards of its clinics.
My wife has been pregnant four times (three kids and one miscarriage). With every pregnancy, when we've thought she was pregnant, the first thing we've done after taking an EPT is schedule a doctor's visit which includes an ultrasound to confirm the pregnancy. This is a normal -- and critical -- part of the process for OB/GYNs. Does PP really want to interfere with that or -- more foolishly -- call it illegal? (Clearly not.)
Information about a fetus's viability is also important medical information. What the patient chooses to do with that information remains hers. Should she not be presented with it?
You have likened this process to dentistry. When I got my wisdom teeth out, I got all kinds of pamphlets and information about the process, including any risks; should those wishing to have an abortion receive less information?
You have said that you and I define "rare" differently, as well as the routes to "rare" (though I have to say, we agree on more than we disagree in terms of the value of and need for education, as well as economic assistance for those in need). Maybe we also define "safe" differently? From my perspective, the best choice is an informed one. Maybe we have different views on that.
The right to choose is different from the right to access. The right to choose remains Constitutionally-protected; I did not realize that the government was also Constitutionally-mandated to also provide access to abortion. That's a pretty big stretch.
To use a different (but, perhaps, relevant) example: the Constitution allows the freedom to bear arms. This however does not restrict the government from putting stronger and better restrictions on who gets to carry a weapon, for the safety of the gun owner, as well as anyone who may be injured by such a weapon. The right to bear arms cannot be equated with the right to bear arms without restrictions, and those restrictions are constantly evolving.
Could it be that medical professionals don't want to endorse intrusive, unnecessary medical tests?
As I have stated previously, an ultrasound for a possibly-pregnant woman contemplating abortion is hardly "unnecessary."
What purpose does it serve? "Oh, look. See? It's a baby"
Honestly though, what is the benefit of a pre-abortion ultrasound?
Besides confirming the pregnancy, you mean?
Are we having abortions to terminate non-pregnancies?
nathan1977 said:The first step after you believe you may be pregnant -- and taking an EPT which can generate false positives -- is to go to a doctor who can confirm whether or not you are indeed pregnant. This is neither invasive nor unnecessary, but rather a crucial step in determining whether you are actually pregnant.
The first step after you believe you may be pregnant -- and taking an EPT which can generate false positives -- is to go to a doctor who can confirm whether or not you are indeed pregnant. This is neither invasive nor unnecessary, but rather a crucial step in determining whether you are actually pregnant.
Do you believe otherwise? Or do you believe that the best choice is the least informed one?
Is there an issue with women going in for abortions only to find out they weren't pregnant to begin with? I've never heard of that. Or is this an attempt by pro-lifers (fuck, I hate that term) to rub their noses in it?
Abortion is a form of outpatient surgery. Yes?
Before you have a surgery (dental, dermatological, etc.), you have an initial exam for the doctor to evaluate you. Yes?
Should abortion be any different?
Even an EPT box tells you to go to an OB/GYN pr consult with your doctor to confirm your pregnancy, for pity's sake. A standard aspect of that exam is an ultrasound. It is neither excessive, unnecessary, nor emotionally abusive. Arguing that it is, flies in the face of common medical practice, and is an overreach that even PP -- with all its vague assertions and implications -- refuses to back up.
Abortion is a form of outpatient surgery. Yes?
Even an EPT box tells you to go to an OB/GYN or consult with your doctor to confirm your pregnancy, for pity's sake. A standard aspect of that exam is an ultrasound. It is neither excessive, unnecessary, nor emotionally abusive.
It's NOT a standard aspect for anyone I've known
As I said, the gestational sac does not form as soon as the HCG rises in the blood serum (produced by the early form of the placenta) and therefore the ultrasound would see nothing.
This may be true in the very early stages of pregnancy, but 40% of abortions take place after the tenth week, at which point not only has the sac formed, but the heart has begun pumping (in week six). And I can certainly testify that whatever you can't see at two weeks, you sure do at eight, ten or twelve.
But if the sole purpose of the ultrasound in the bill is to confirm pregnancy, none of that still makes it a necessary procedure.
Gosnell had a habit of lying to women about whether they were in the third trimester or not
Some inmates who spoke with the Center for Investigative Reporting said they were coerced by doctors into getting tubal ligation surgeries. The procedures allegedly took place between 2006 and 2010 at the California Institution for Women in Corona and Valley State Prison for Women in Chowchilla, which is now a men's prison, according to CIR.
Doctors conducted the surgeries "without required state approvals," and inmates and prison advocates said they were aimed at pregnant prisoners who were "deemed likely to return to prison in the future," CIR found.
Dr. James Heinrich defended the operations: In an interview with CIR, Heinrich said he provided an important service to poor women who faced health risks in future pregnancies because of past Caesarean sections. The 69-year-old Bay Area physician denied pressuring anyone.
Jezebel's Laura Beck reacted with outrage, saying, "Another day, another step toward living in an even more twisted version of The Handmaid's Tale."
Writing for Politicususa.com, Jason Easley said the report offers proof that "forced or coerced sterilizations aren’t something that just happen in other countries. They are happening in the United States of America."
Let's not use Gosnell as an example of an abortion doctor
He's not the rule, but he is sadly not the exception either.
And I can say that each time we had someone there to explain to us exactly what we were seeing, especially since the first time we were six weeks pregnant and had no idea what we were looking at. (It's tricky for those of us who aren't medical professionals.)
He's not the rule, but he is sadly not the exception either.