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.
When I said "many of them died", that word is obviously open to interpretation. You could certainly argue that 423 is "many women". But compared to the nearly 60 million abortions done, that number is obviously trivial.
In any case, I stand by my words, many women have died from legal abortions. But even that skirts the real issue. Which is that as many as 300,000 women have had to be hospitalized because of complications with their abortion. Without hospital access, we can safely assume that far more women would have died.
Furthermore, I was pointing out that many liberals believe that we should abolish gun-rights if it would save even a single life. If they applied that same logic to this case, then they would have supported the law.
Which says...
"Abortion doctors must have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion clinic. and this hospital must meet the standards of an ambulatory surgical center."
Basically, that abortion clinics can only be located where women can be guaranteed access to emergency care.
Edit : Let me add, I am fully aware that the intention of the bill was a backdoor attempt at banning abortion. Thus, I completely understand why pro-abortion advocates have opposed it. But the bill itself, at least if you don't look at the background issues involved, is not especially egregious. And, taken on its own, it sounds exactly like any other law regarding public-safety.
The poster I was responding to asked if the number of women who ended up in the hospital was enough to "warrant the law". I merely attempted to explain that it would have to be a judgement call.
It reminds me of those advertisements for medicines, and at the end of the commercial, it starts talking about all the potential side-effects. It says like "in some cases, you might get this", or "in rare cases, you might get that". When you look at the incidence rates of some of the side-effects, they often only affect maybe 1 in 1,000 people, or even 1 in 1,000,000 people.
The question then is, if they had a drug, where there was a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of death, would you take it? What if it had a 1 in 1,000 chance of death? At what point should the government get involved?
No, 423 deaths out of 60 million abortions is not "many", and the risk of dying from a live birth is 14 times greater than the risk of dying from an abortion. Therefore, solely from a safety point of view a woman is better off having an abortion.
Your assumption is that every woman who has a complication will need to be hospitalized, and that is not true. For example, an incomplete medical abortion can be treated in a center that does surgical abortions.
An abortion provider should be able to refer a patient to another doctor with hospital privileges if that is what the patient needs. However, the receiving doctor should be able to take care of the patient without the risk of retaliation by anti-abortion factions in hospital administration, on boards, or through peer review. That is a very real risk and it prevents doctors who would have otherwise done so from offering abortion services.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
I don't think you should be criticized for your decision. But I do think every woman should have the same standard of medical care you did. Unfortunately, you're good with allowing providers to maintain substandard facilities.
With this decision, SCOTUS has ruled that women and their health care needs are 2nd class... It's a start... The precedent has been set. In what other areas will women be forced to accept being treated as 2nd class and not worthy of the same high standards others are provided by law?
The fallacy of your argument is that current facilities are substandard. They are not. The Texas law would not have accomplished anything to make abortion safer, as the attorney for the State of Texas admitted.
Once again, please give up the "2nd class" meme. It's not true, and it just makes you look like a petulant child to keep repeating it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJJersey
Meh. Let them keep states from placing safety regulations on abortion clinics. Just don't start crying about healthcare quality inequity when these "mothers" start dying left and right. Also, don't talk about "unregulated back alley abortions" because that's basically what's going on now.
Mothers are not "dying right and left" now. What do you propose will happen in the absence of this law that will cause women to start "dying right and left"?
In the biggest reproductive rights case since Casey, Texas law HB2 - which required that abortion providers have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles and that abortion providers adhere to the same requirements as for outpatient surgical providers.
Of course, these requirements had no purpose whatsoever other than to make providing and obtaining an abortion more expensive and more of a hassle.
Justice Breyer authored the majority opinion in the 5-3 case, which broke along predictable lines.
"Unconstitutional?" Where does the Constitution dictate the requirements for state laws governing the operation of medical facilities within their state?
"Unconstitutional?" Where does the Constitution dictate the requirements for state laws governing the operation of medical facilities within their state?
It doesn't. That's what makes this a bogus ruling.
It would have been far worse if it struck down any state regulations on medical facilities, but it didn't. It only ruled women 2nd class citizens as far as their health care needs are concerned. All 5 on the majority are misogynists.
Furthermore, I don't see how the ruling isn't a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
Too long. At first I thought they were only saying that to get votes then I realized they meant it. I can't be party to that. It reminds me of barbaric things done back in the dark ages by Vikings. We are supposed to be a civilized society and cannot do family planning without murdering babies??!!!!!!
There is nothing constitution or unconstitutional about abortion as it is not mentioned in any way. It is strictly a State issue if the States were not simply occupied territories of a Federal Occupying Force....
Meh. Let them keep states from placing safety regulations on abortion clinics. Just don't start crying about healthcare quality inequity when these "mothers" start dying left and right. Also, don't talk about "unregulated back alley abortions" because that's basically what's going on now.
Good point. That's exactly what SCOTUS just ruled: unregulated abortion centers.
I don't see how that's not a violation of the Constitution's equal protection clause when other surgery centers are required to meet certain minimum medical standards.
A pap smear is invasive. A vasectomy is invasive. A colonoscopy is substantially more invasive than an abortion.
Nope. A colonoscopy is a diagnostic test. A suction aspiration abortion is done specifically to forcefully remove tissue from an internal organ.
Quote:
All licensed medical facilities are required to be ADA compliant.
So, as long as disabled women can access the facility, medical standards don't matter?
Quote:
Laws making it more challenging to legally perform abortions results in more back room abortions and DIY situations, far more likely to result in serious medical complications.
That's exactly what SCOTUS just ruled for: unregulated abortion centers that don't have to meet minimum medical standards.
Surgery centers have to meet minimum medical standards, so explain how unregulating abortion centers so that they don't have to meet minimum medical standards doesn't violate the Constitution's equal protection clause.
Good point. That's exactly what SCOTUS just ruled: unregulated abortion centers.
I don't see how that's not a violation of the Constitution's equal protection clause when other surgery centers are required to meet certain minimum medical standards.
Simply repeating the same thing over and over does not make it true. Only a nitwit would think that this ruling meant that these abortion clinics are no longer covered by any state medical standards. Texas did not, when it passed this law, delete the old standards applicable to this class of medical clinics. Instead, they 'upped the bar' of medical standards for one particular subclass, the abortion clinic.
The Court struck down new, specific and detailed medical standards, set by Texas, that targeted only these few abortion clinics (for even before the new law was passed three years ago, the number of abortion clinics was low).
As I said, I was rather surprised that the Court did not focus on the 'equal protection' clause of the Constitution, although they did speak of it in general terms.
In short, when a State passes a very specific law, targeting one specific business, as here, it begs the question: why didn't the law apply to other similar businesses (including colonoscopy clinics, vasectomy clinics, vision clinics, plastic surgery clinics, etc.). The State could not provide a rationale for targeting only the abortion clinics, and ignoring the rest. IF the State had passed a law setting new medical standards (including the nonsense about the one-way hallways) that covered a 'class' of such clinics, without focusing on one particular subtype, the Court 'may' have upheld the law.
'May' is key. The Court used a standard involving unreasonable barriers set forth by a state for a person to obtain a legal medical procedure, which here was the first-trimester abortion.
I guess that if the various states tried to do this again, using a more broad, encompassing standard (broad enough to include, without specifically naming, abortion clinics), the Court may still strike down said laws, if the state were, again, unable to show a legal rationale/nexus for such restrictive medical standards. People do have a 'right' to undergo a colonoscopy, and if the state sets medical standards that forced most such clinics to close, the Court would again view said law as being unsupportable as imposing unreasonable barriers to a legal medical procedure.
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.
