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.
All that matters is the Constitution's equal protection clause. It's a violation to force women to accept lower standards for their health care than other patients are provided for theirs.
No, that's NOT all that matters!
You asked why there was no uproar when Pennsylvania passed the law but there was a huge outcry when Texas did.
Did you find out that info yet? Are there federal standards for ASCs? Are the Texas and Pennsylvania laws exactly the same?
I am upset that UNLICENSED surgical clinics are allowed to operate.
Like I said, 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?
WTF are you talking about? I'm a woman. It angers me that liberals think it's OK to have a double standard in health care quality. Minimum standards required for ambulatory surgery centers, but NOT for centers that perform surgical procedures on women, exclusively. Can you all really NOT see that you're advocating for and celebrating setting legal precedent that women can be treated as 2nd class citizens? How can so many of you be so blind and so dense?
But your end goal is to end abortion in the US. You and others saw this law as a major step in achieving that dream. So now you feign interest in "women's safety" because you think that will endear people to your cause. A vast majority of women do not want the government telling them what to do with their bodies. They also do not want restrictions put on a procedure that other similar procedures do not have. The women who were celebrating this law being struck down sure didn't seem as if they felt like second class citizens.
We know how you feel when you're emotional and irrational. How about addressing the points, rationally?
The PA law, enacted before the TX law, did the same thing: required abortion centers to meet ambulatory surgery center standards. Why no problem then? Why was it only a problem when Texas did the same?
Why not go after all ambulatory surgery centers' requirements? Why is it that liberals only want abortion centers to be free of meeting minimum standards? Why are only women being targeted for substandard health care?
I believe I effectively and rationally countered all of your illogical and incorrect 'points' very early on in this thread. I'm not one to waste time continuing to argue with someone who defines insanity by simply repeating the same thing over and over again and hoping for a different result however, so mocking your overly-dramatic obsession with saying silly and false things on this topic is really all that's left.
But your end goal is to end abortion in the US. You and others saw this law as a major step in achieving that dream. So now you feign interest in "women's safety" because you think that will endear people to your cause. A vast majority of women do not want the government telling them what to do with their bodies. They also do not want restrictions put on a procedure that other similar procedures do not have. The women who were celebrating this law being struck down sure didn't seem as if they felt like second class citizens.
While I understand that the issue is what the law was intended to do, but having abortion providers meet licensing requirements for a procedure that can be very dangerous isn't a bad thing.
No, it isn't. I'm pro-choice. But I DO think equal access should apply. Women's health care should have to meet the same standards as everyone else's.
Frankly, I'm stumped as to why so many of you are willing to accept and celebrate the SCOTUS ruling that allows facilities that treat women, exclusively, to have lower standards.
Looking at the numbers you have to wonder how the requirement for admitting privileges is intended to do anything but close clinics. There were 30 patients with complications the year HB2 was passed, the article wasn't clear where they were treated but most likely in a hospital.
Quote:
There is also a catch-22, Mr. Greeley said. To maintain hospital privileges, a physician must admit or treat a minimum number of patients each year, usually between 12 and 30. But doctors who perform abortions rarely have occasion to admit a patient. According to the Texas Department of State Health Services, there were 63,849 abortions in 2013. Thirty complications were reported. There were no cases of sepsis infection. No patients died.
With so few complications, a doctor would be hard-pressed to admit enough patients to keep hospital privileges.
Looking at the numbers you have to wonder how the requirement for admitting privileges is intended to do anything but close clinics.
Not seeing it. The same is required of ambulatory surgery centers. Why shouldn't women's health care have to meet the same standards as everyone else's?
Frankly, I'm stumped as to why so many of you are willing to accept and celebrate the SCOTUS ruling that allows facilities that treat women, exclusively, to have lower standards.
While I understand that the issue is what the law was intended to do, but having abortion providers meet licensing requirements for a procedure that can be very dangerous isn't a bad thing.
Dangerous in what way? They couldn't come up with even one example of anyone being adversely affected by the procedure when they were arguing the case. Read the transcript. That is the main reason they struck the law down.
Dangerous in what way? They couldn't come up with even one example of anyone being adversely affected by the procedure when they were arguing the case. Read the transcript. That is the main reason they struck the law down.
If you can't see the danger in an abortion procedure then I won't convince you of anything.
If you can't see the danger in an abortion procedure then I won't convince you of anything.
Can you be more specific? If the Supreme Court, based on input from medical expert testimony, agreed that the procedure is safe enough to not warrant special laws and requirements, why do *you* still believe otherwise? Can you share what it is that leads you to believe that abortion is dangerous?
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.
How about addressing the points, rationally? 
