Supreme Court Strikes Down Unconstitutional Abortion Restrictions (voting, amendment, USA)
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.
I guess I should have said "adequate" emergency care. The law requires an abortion clinic be within 30 miles of a hospital with emergency surgical care.
No the law requires the abortion provider to have admitting privileges in a hospital within 30 miles of their office. Most complications do not happen in the office, they happen in the week after when the woman is at home. If the woman is at home the distance from the office to the hospital doesn't matter she will be calling an ambulance that will take her to the nearest hospital to her home.
Abortion would not be my choice, but my choice does not overrule my opinion of a woman’s right to choose. And, of course, I respect the opinion of those who disagree.
You are not going to change my mind and I am not going to change yours.
This is one part of the Republican platform where I am not in agreement. The party should leave this issue alone.
That response is rather creative, closing all abortion clinics in an area the size of Connecticut doesn't prevent a single abortion. Maybe they just need to travel to Mexico or self abort. They closed over half of the clinics in Texas, I don't know how you can make that statement.
Look, there are a number of laws which have closed businesses. I mean, you don't think the regulations on automobiles didn't either close many independent manufacturers, or prevent new ones from entering the market? You don't think food-safety regulations didn't close down businesses, or prevent new ones from starting up?
The law requires the abortion clinics to meet higher standards, and if they cannot meet those standards, then they cannot operate. It is no different than any other safety-regulation which has ever been passed.
The only question is whether or not those increased standards are necessary. Which leaves us with the real question, would those higher standards save any lives?
If they could save even one life, then you could argue that the standards are necessary.
Look, there are a number of laws which have closed businesses. I mean, you don't think the regulations on automobiles didn't either close many independent manufacturers, or prevent new ones from entering the market? You don't think food-safety regulations didn't close down businesses, or prevent new ones from starting up?
The law requires the abortion clinics to meet higher standards, and if they cannot meet those standards, then they cannot operate. It is no different than any other safety-regulation which has ever been passed.
The only question is whether or not those increased standards are necessary. Which leaves us with the real question, would those higher standards save any lives?
If they could save even one life, then you could argue that the standards are necessary.
Quote:
We add that, when directly asked at oral argument
whether Texas knew of a single instance in which the new
requirement would have helped even one woman obtain
better treatment, Texas admitted that there was no evidence
in the record of such a case.
No the law requires the abortion provider to have admitting privileges in a hospital within 30 miles of their office. Most complications do not happen in the office, they happen in the week after when the woman is at home. If the woman is at home the distance from the office to the hospital doesn't matter she will be calling an ambulance that will take her to the nearest hospital to her home.
Absolutely true. Just a few hours after my abortion (at a hospital, btw, just not the one in my hometown), I returned home. Were I to have had complications, I would have called emergency services and been transported to the hospital just a few miles from my house, the same one that had denied me a medically-warranted termination despite having appropriate facilites and the willingness of my obstetrician, who had privileges. If this is the battle I faced as the daughter of a physician and with plenty of healthcare contacts, can you imagine what a young woman out in the boondocks with no knowledge of the system faces in seeking an abortion?
We add that, when directly asked at oral argument whether Texas knew of a single instance in which the new requirement would have helped even one woman obtain better treatment, Texas admitted that there was no evidence in the record of such a case.
If the law would protect no women, then it is frivolous and unnecessary.
My only point was that, based on Obama's own logic, if a law would save a single life, then it is necessary.
Look, there are a number of laws which have closed businesses. I mean, you don't think the regulations on automobiles didn't either close many independent manufacturers, or prevent new ones from entering the market? You don't think food-safety regulations didn't close down businesses, or prevent new ones from starting up?
The law requires the abortion clinics to meet higher standards, and if they cannot meet those standards, then they cannot operate. It is no different than any other safety-regulation which has ever been passed.
The only question is whether or not those increased standards are necessary. Which leaves us with the real question, would those higher standards save any lives?
If they could save even one life, then you could argue that the standards are necessary.
Regulations for automobiles were consistent across the industry, the laws in Texas relative to abortion clinics would amounted to just requiring Fords to have catalytic converters.
Those additional standards are unnecessary, the AMA and other medical organizations have indicated such.
I'm not debating whether abortion is more safe than pregnancy. The question is whether the government should have the authority to make abortion(as well as pregnancy), as safe as possible. Does it have the right to regulate abortion clinics, and hospitals, and doctors, to require them to meet certain standards, which make these procedures safer, and thus save lives.
The law requires abortion clinics guarantee that their patients will have access to emergency care. And we know that hundreds of thousands of women have needed emergency care after their abortions. And we further know, that if they didn't have access to emergency care, many more of them would have died.
The law, taken by itself, does not prevent a single abortion.
In essence what you just said is that there is already access to emergency care, which is true and the reason that more stringent laws are unneeded for safety.
By limiting access - forcing abortion providers to close because they cannot afford to comply - the law does prevent abortions. That was its sole purpose.
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.
