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.
By all means, yes. Let's let abortion centers perform surgical procedures on women without having to meet minimumambulatory surgery center standards. /heavy sarcasm
Why can't you all see this is a HUGE regression in equal treatment? Just yet another attack in liberals' War on Women?
You honestly believe those laws in red states requiring hospital privileges etc., was about protecting women?
How about if those states set up funding to provide for abortions to be done in all the hospitals. Women could choose to have their abortion in a hospital without a huge expense. That would be the safest. Wouldn't you agree?
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.
To be fair, the case was likely already decided before the case was even heard. The judges aren't judging, they're voting. Which is why, had Scalia been on the court, it would have broke 5-4.
Stop pretending the Supreme Court is legitimate.
If Trump replaces Scalia and Ginsburg dies, you could retry the case and overturn this decision.
I mean, Scalia, before he died, had been pushing for years to effectively retry Roe v. Wade. If Trump gets eight years of nominations, it might very-well be overturned. So what?
The three dissenters touched on your point, but not in detail.
The SC has created so many prongs, thresholds, levels of scrutiny, degrees of constitutional rights, exceptions to all of them, etc., they can reach any conclusion they like and cite precedent to support a ruling, unless they want to reject a precedent they don't like.
Even in this case, how does a court give itself the power to define undue hardship or substantial burden. My favorite is when the courts start counting the types of decorations in a Christmas display to decide if the display violates the Constitution's religion clauses.
The three dissenters touched on your point, but not in detail.
The SC has created so many prongs, thresholds, levels of scrutiny, degrees of constitutional rights, exceptions to all of them, etc., they can reach any conclusion they like and cite precedent to support a ruling, unless they want to reject a precedent they don't like.
Even in this case, how does a court give itself the power to define undue hardship or substantial burden. My favorite is when the courts start counting the types of decorations in a Christmas display to decide if the display violates the Constitution's religion clauses.
I'm not getting how SCOTUS can see it's way to violating the Constitution's equal protection clause. Either ALL patients are afforded the protection of minimal required standards in ambulatory surgery centers (suction aspiration abortion is a surgical procedure), or none are.
That's exactly what this SCOTUS ruling does: Women have unequal access to health care that meets minimum surgical standards. Colonoscopy is a diagnostic test. Suction aspiration abortion is a surgical procedure that involves the forceful removal of tissue from an internal organ.
I do agree that prescription drug induced abortions can be obtained by visiting a doctor's office to get the prescription, but the prescribing doctor should have admitting privileges if such an abortion is incomplete thereby necessitating a surgical procedure.
None of that is unreasonable.
Colonoscopy also is removing polyps which is a procedure that carries risks.
Quote:
Postpolypectomy bleeding is the most common complication of colonic polypectomy, occurring in 0.3 to 6.1 percent of polypectomies in various reports. Bleeding can occur immediately following polypectomy or be delayed from hours to up to 29 days. The severity of bleeding ranges from arterial pumping to minor oozing.
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.
Why don't you start a fundraiser to pay for women to have their abortions in a hospital?
The thread that will not die. However, it is difficult to 'win' an argument with supporters of Professor Trump.
I will agree about the colonoscopy risks. Indeed, in my 26 years of reviewing medical records for disability, I have declared to my doctor that I see no reason to ever undergo a colonoscopy (I am now 61), since my family has zero history of such cancer. I have seen far too many cases where the claimant underwent a colonoscopy and subsequently required emergency care treatment (usually a few days after returning home from having the procedure done).
Of course, if one has a family history of such, or of really any type of cancer, then I do encourage them to undergo the procedure if advised by the physician.
I'm not getting how SCOTUS can see it's way to violating the Constitution's equal protection clause. Either ALL patients are afforded the protection of minimal required standards in ambulatory surgery centers (suction aspiration abortion is a surgical procedure), or none are.
Then maybe Texas should have made the requirements apply to ALL offices that do any type of outpatient surgical procedures, but they didn't do that. IF they had the law might have stood, but they would have closed down most private practice offices, and dental offices in the state.
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.
