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.
You are putting the cart before the horse when you speak of "President" Clinton. There is a lot that can happen between now and November. Afterall there is that little FBI invesigation that hasn't been settled yet. Perhaps it is just wishful thinking on your part.
You really think the orange face maniac has a chance?
Let's forget about abortion for a second and just look at the laws themselves.
From a patient safety standpoint and from the standpoint of not making the lives of every emergency department'S personnel a total nightmare, it is imperative that physicians who perform invasive procedures have an admitting hospital so that they themselves can take care of the complications that arise from these procedures.
I'm not even talking about abortions. I think this should be true across the board. You have no idea what kind of problems this causes.
Yes, in all likelihood this law was made to be obstructionist to abortions. But frankly it is actually a really good idea. I wish it was the law for every "outpatient" procedure. So the rest of us aren't left holding the bag.
And, as a total aside and PSA...FTLOG, would you people who have surgeries or established specialists at one hospital quit going to random ERs for problems related to what they've been treating???!! At best, you're going to get delayed care. At worst, you're going to get a lengthy and expensive transfer that risks your health, costs thousands more for no reason, and risks the lives the other patients in the emergency department who have to wait while your complicated transfer process is being arranged. Go back to original hospital. Please!!!
And what if no hospitals will give you admitting privileges for a certain procedure because the perception of said procedure is so toxic in a certain state? And what if you make it illegal to perform the outpatient procedure without those privileges even though they usually cannot be obtained? Well then you make it impossible to perform the outpatient procedure at all. Convenient how that works out right.
Justice Breyer authored the majority opinion in the 5-3 case, which broke along predictable lines.
Anyone who cares what the Supreme Court has to say is obviously a byproduct of garbage American schools.
If Antonin Scalia had been alive, it would have broke 5-4. And if a conservative becomes president, and that old hag Ginsberg dies, we could then retry the case, and the decision would then go 5-4 in the other direction.
Who honestly cares? It proves nothing. If you accept the decision as valid, that is your prerogative. But this decision, and countless others, which are nothing more than "legislation from the bench" by activist judges, appointed for political reasons by the ruling parties, is no more legitimate than the decisions of my magic 8-ball.
Let's forget about abortion for a second and just look at the laws themselves.
From a patient safety standpoint and from the standpoint of not making the lives of every emergency department'S personnel a total nightmare, it is imperative that physicians who perform invasive procedures have an admitting hospital so that they themselves can take care of the complications that arise from these procedures.
I'm not even talking about abortions. I think this should be true across the board. You have no idea what kind of problems this causes.
Yes, in all likelihood this law was made to be obstructionist to abortions. But frankly it is actually a really good idea. I wish it was the law for every "outpatient" procedure. So the rest of us aren't left holding the bag.
And, as a total aside and PSA...FTLOG, would you people who have surgeries or established specialists at one hospital quit going to random ERs for problems related to what they've been treating???!! At best, you're going to get delayed care. At worst, you're going to get a lengthy and expensive transfer that risks your health, costs thousands more for no reason, and risks the lives the other patients in the emergency department who have to wait while your complicated transfer process is being arranged. Go back to original hospital. Please!!!
As was pointed out by the supreme court (and you indirectly), colonoscopy is a office procedure that is 10X more dangerous, and we still allow folks to have children at home, which is ALSO vastly more dangerous to the mother. This was a run around the rights of folks, merely a attempt to stop something constitutionally permitted.
Let's forget about abortion for a second and just look at the laws themselves.
From a patient safety standpoint and from the standpoint of not making the lives of every emergency department'S personnel a total nightmare, it is imperative that physicians who perform invasive procedures have an admitting hospital so that they themselves can take care of the complications that arise from these procedures.
I'm not even talking about abortions. I think this should be true across the board. You have no idea what kind of problems this causes.
Yes, in all likelihood this law was made to be obstructionist to abortions. But frankly it is actually a really good idea. I wish it was the law for every "outpatient" procedure. So the rest of us aren't left holding the bag.
And, as a total aside and PSA...FTLOG, would you people who have surgeries or established specialists at one hospital quit going to random ERs for problems related to what they've been treating???!! At best, you're going to get delayed care. At worst, you're going to get a lengthy and expensive transfer that risks your health, costs thousands more for no reason, and risks the lives the other patients in the emergency department who have to wait while your complicated transfer process is being arranged. Go back to original hospital. Please!!!
Do you have any statistics? How many woman ended up in the emergency room after an abortion procedure due to complications? Enough to warrant the law?
Do you have any statistics? How many woman ended up in the emergency room after an abortion procedure due to complications? Enough to warrant the law?
His argument is that a lot of procedures currently performed should require admitting rights. (Which were just a small subset of the things required by Texas).
Which really is beside the point, the vast majority of doctors worldwide disagree. It was not enough to warrant the law. Not even remotely.
Do you have any statistics? How many woman ended up in the emergency room after an abortion procedure due to complications? Enough to warrant the law?
Quote:
A collection of at least five peer-reviewed studies on
abortion complications in the first trimester, showing that
the highest rate of major complications—including those
complications requiring hospital admission—was less than
one-quarter of 1%.
Quote:
Figures in three peer-reviewed studies showing that the
highest complication rate found for the much rarer second
trimester abortion was less than one-half of 1%
Do you have any statistics? How many woman ended up in the emergency room after an abortion procedure due to complications? Enough to warrant the law?
To be fair, I've heard liberals say that they would abolish gun-ownership if it even saved a single life.
When you ask, "Is it enough to warrant the law?", you're asking people to make a judgement, based not on facts, but on feelings.
For instance, there have been something like 60 million abortions since Roe v. Wade. Even if you're talking about a quarter or a half of one-percent, that means between 150,000 to 300,000 women have had to go to the emergency room after having an abortion. And I'm sure many of them died.
If you went by the liberal logic on gun-control, then if you can save even one life, you should do it.
Of course, we're talking about abortion, not gun-control, so they don't care.
Thank God. We need to make it as easy for leftists and welfare queens to have as many abortions as possible. Hell, I would contribute monthly to pay for abortions if it was guaranteed that money would go to aborting leftist and welfare recipient babies.
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.
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.
