The Republican Lie on Abortion. House Passed 20 Week Abortion Ban. Texas Takes Up Issue. (Representatives, legal)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
These aren't "new" laws to outpatient clinics - they are making the ones for these clinics up to par with all other outpatient clinics. There have been too many incidents of women being serious hurt and dying to these substandards that some clinics (not all) are using. All prior attempts have been met with stiff opposition by the pro-choice crowd (of which I am one) as if these same standards would be tantamount to eliminating a woman's choice. The standards for these clinics need to be the same as a hospital/other clinics so that safe procedures can be done at a better rate than they have been up to now.
Citation to the bold, please?
Also citation to show that these new standards simply bring abortion clinics up to the identical standards as other outpatient clinics.
Also please show me how other outpatient clinics are required to have doctors with admitting privileges in a hospital within 30 miles (in a state the size of Europe).
Again, you can prove it to me that this isn't aimed at getting around RvW. But I require proof, not opinion.
Location: In a Galaxy far, far away called Germany
4,298 posts, read 4,395,258 times
Reputation: 2394
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmqueen
Citation to the bold, please?
Also citation to show that these new standards simply bring abortion clinics up to the identical standards as other outpatient clinics.
Also please show me how other outpatient clinics are required to have doctors with admitting privileges in a hospital within 30 miles (in a state the size of Europe).
Again, you can prove it to me that this isn't aimed at getting around RvW. But I require proof, not opinion.
As for Outpatient Clinics in the state (each state has it's different requirements) requirements for a doctor with admitting privileges, this is a matter of legality that hospitals are doing to avoid lawsuits. Here is a legal link talking about it and explaining the privileges that doctors may/may not have: The Doctor Is In: How Doctors Work with Hospitals - Lawyers.com
As for proving that they aren't trying to get around Roe Vs Wade - I can't do that because it is a given that the pro-life will try to do that. But the efforts to make abortions safe is a legitimate one. Also, from a legal standpoint in that they don't get shut down due to continuous lawsuits. These lawsuits take a big toll on hospitals and an even bigger one on clinics.
Also citation to show that these new standards simply bring abortion clinics up to the identical standards as other outpatient clinics.
Also please show me how other outpatient clinics are required to have doctors with admitting privileges in a hospital within 30 miles (in a state the size of Europe).
Again, you can prove it to me that this isn't aimed at getting around RvW. But I require proof, not opinion.
RvW allows restrictions at the time of viability. There is no need to try and get around anything here. They ruled that the state had a legitimate interest at viablility which they describes as "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid".
That line has decreased over the last 40 years. 20 weeks is a very weak potential but it is there.
I'm pro-choice but, 20 weeks is plenty of time to decide if you want an abortion. I've always been under the impression that the cut off was the first trimester (13 weeks). At 20 weeks the baby is 10 inches long...about the size of a banana...that's way more than a bunch microscopic cells.
As for Outpatient Clinics in the state (each state has it's different requirements) requirements for a doctor with admitting privileges, this is a matter of legality that hospitals are doing to avoid lawsuits. Here is a legal link talking about it and explaining the privileges that doctors may/may not have: The Doctor Is In: How Doctors Work with Hospitals - Lawyers.com
As for proving that they aren't trying to get around Roe Vs Wade - I can't do that because it is a given that the pro-life will try to do that. But the efforts to make abortions safe is a legitimate one. Also, from a legal standpoint in that they don't get shut down due to continuous lawsuits. These lawsuits take a big toll on hospitals and an even bigger one on clinics.
Hm, ONE lawsuit, which has not been proven, NOT in Texas, filed by someone seeking all kinds of financial damages for "alleged" this and that. That's why the Texas cons have had to have three special legislative sessions???
As for your second citation, I'm not swayed by an article about how to sue people for malpractice. It proves nothing -- least of all in Texas -- other than that there are plenty of malpractice lawyers out there trying to drum up business.
Again. Where is the proof that any of this is needed in Texas? Actual, real, proof? Not articles about one alleged botched abortion on the other side of the country, not fantasies about lawsuits that haven't happened. Actual, statistical proof that women need "protecting" and have not been having perfectly safe abortions for decades in Texas.
Location: In a Galaxy far, far away called Germany
4,298 posts, read 4,395,258 times
Reputation: 2394
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmqueen
Hm, ONE lawsuit, which has not been proven, NOT in Texas, filed by someone seeking all kinds of financial damages for "alleged" this and that. That's why the Texas cons have had to have three special legislative sessions???
As for your second citation, I'm not swayed by an article about how to sue people for malpractice. It proves nothing -- least of all in Texas -- other than that there are plenty of malpractice lawyers out there trying to drum up business.
Again. Where is the proof that any of this is needed in Texas? Actual, real, proof? Not articles about one alleged botched abortion on the other side of the country, not fantasies about lawsuits that haven't happened. Actual, statistical proof that women need "protecting" and have not been having perfectly safe abortions for decades in Texas.
I just gave you the first example of many that I googled. There are a lot of them and I wouldn't insult you with just one example. The clinics have been operating under less than the medical standard since they became legal. Many have improved on their own, but quite a few haven't. The standards for which the clinics in the USA operate (not all, but many) are below European standards as well. Germany, France, Belgium and the Netherlands have had legal abortion for decades and their standards (much higher than ours) do not impede the availability. They do, however, provide a safer procedure than in the USA.
I just gave you the first example of many that I googled. There are a lot of them and I wouldn't insult you with just one example. The clinics have been operating under less than the medical standard since they became legal. Many have improved on their own, but quite a few haven't. The standards for which the clinics in the USA operate (not all, but many) are below European standards as well. Germany, France, Belgium and the Netherlands have had legal abortion for decades and their standards (much higher than ours) do not impede the availability. They do, however, provide a safer procedure than in the USA.
I'll have to look into this, of course. But my first thought was that abortion clinics in Europe do not have to spend most of their money on security, as they do here in the land of vicious protests, bombs and shootings. Also, I'll find out how they're funded, since here in the US a legal medical procedure is subject to illegal rationing of medical funding. Naturally, if it's all about women's safety, the Texas state government will be willing to help fund these "improvements."
Hm, ONE lawsuit, which has not been proven, NOT in Texas, filed by someone seeking all kinds of financial damages for "alleged" this and that. That's why the Texas cons have had to have three special legislative sessions???
As for your second citation, I'm not swayed by an article about how to sue people for malpractice. It proves nothing -- least of all in Texas -- other than that there are plenty of malpractice lawyers out there trying to drum up business.
Again. Where is the proof that any of this is needed in Texas? Actual, real, proof? Not articles about one alleged botched abortion on the other side of the country, not fantasies about lawsuits that haven't happened. Actual, statistical proof that women need "protecting" and have not been having perfectly safe abortions for decades in Texas.
I also wonder what will happen when this bill forces clinics to close. More, or less bad clinics?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.