Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Except they don't want rare. If they did, we wouldn't see such wailing every time someone can't just walk down the street and get one. If they did, we would see celebrations from them every time fewer are done. We don't.Liberals on abortion: "Safe, legal and rare"
That's it. It is that simple.
Except they don't want rare. If they did, we wouldn't see such wailing every time someone can't just walk down the street and get one. If they did, we would see celebrations from them every time fewer are done. We don't.Liberals on abortion: "Safe, legal and rare"
That's it. It is that simple.
They sure as shit don't want "safe", or we wouldn't hear them caterwauling every time someone tries to insist that abortion clinics act like the medical facilities they try to claim to be.
I can't think of a single outpatient medical procedure for which anyone thinks it's "outrageous" to expect the doctor to have acquired admitting privileges to a nearby hospital in case of emergencies . . . except abortion.
www.scotusblog.com
Except they don't want rare. If they did, we wouldn't see such wailing every time someone can't just walk down the street and get one. If they did, we would see celebrations from them every time fewer are done. We don't.Liberals on abortion: "Safe, legal and rare"
That's it. It is that simple.
They sure as shit don't want "safe", or we wouldn't hear them caterwauling every time someone tries to insist that abortion clinics act like the medical facilities they try to claim to be.
How incredibly dishonest of you. You mean when anti choice legislators try to put burdensome restrictions on abortion clinics that do not apply to other medical clinics? Those restrictions aren't there to make anyone safer. They are there to try to restrict access to abortion.
And abortion is already very safe.
Major complications after abortion are extremely rare, study shows
I can't think of a single outpatient medical procedure for which anyone thinks it's "outrageous" to expect the doctor to have acquired admitting privileges to a nearby hospital in case of emergencies . . . except abortion.
Then the hospitals should grant them shouldn't they? Of course we know these TRAP laws have zero to do with women's health and everything to do with restricting access to abortion.
The case against anti-abortion "admitting privileges" laws, in one court ruling
Symposium: The “intensely factual” question of physicians’ admitting privileges - SCOTUSblog
Robin Fretwell Wilson is the Roger & Stephany Joslin Professor of Law and Director of the Epstein Health Law & Policy Program at the University of Illinois College of Law. Last month I lost someone close to me after an infection that began as double pneumonia ravaged her body. In the spac
Evidence of this occurring in regards to abortion? Also, what does that have to do with admitting privilege at a hospital?[
You can tell me how these laws are "traps" the instant you take your sorry carcass to some bottom-of-his-med-school-class jagoff with a dirty scalpel operating out of his garage for a gall bladder surgery, all right? Until then, fuck right the hell off with your "We're only protecting the interests of women by defending unsafe standards" tripe.
That's a stupid thing to believe.
It is not the job of hospitals to grant admitting privileges to every two-bit, sociopathic butcher evil shitstains like you want to champion just to facilitate your infanticidal agenda. Standards exist for a reason, as much as lowlife leftists like you can't comprehend the concept. If an abortionist doesn't have admitting privileges, the fault lies not with the hospital who looked at him and said, "You've got to be kidding", it lies with him for being a dangerous, substandard hack and you for being more concerned about killing babies than about protecting the women you use as your human shields.
Evidence of this occurring in regards to abortion? Also, what does that have to do with admitting privilege at a hospital?[
You can tell me how these laws are "traps" the instant you take your sorry carcass to some bottom-of-his-med-school-class jagoff with a dirty scalpel operating out of his garage for a gall bladder surgery, all right? Until then, fuck right the hell off with your "We're only protecting the interests of women by defending unsafe standards" tripe.
Abortion is one of the safest surgeries performed. It is far safer than pregnancy and birth for a woman. These laws are not designed for the health of the patient. I know you think everyone who doesn't believe exactly as you do are stupid, but it's plain to see these laws are designed to restrict access to abortion, period.
Admitting privileges laws do not appear to benefit abortion patients | ANSIRH
www.thenation.com
The bottom line is ...Evidence of this occurring in regards to abortion? Also, what does that have to do with admitting privilege at a hospital?[
You can tell me how these laws are "traps" the instant you take your sorry carcass to some bottom-of-his-med-school-class jagoff with a dirty scalpel operating out of his garage for a gall bladder surgery, all right? Until then, fuck right the hell off with your "We're only protecting the interests of women by defending unsafe standards" tripe.
Abortion is one of the safest surgeries performed. It is far safer than pregnancy and birth for a woman. These laws are not designed for the health of the patient. I know you think everyone who doesn't believe exactly as you do are stupid, but it's plain to see these laws are designed to restrict access to abortion, period.
Admitting privileges laws do not appear to benefit abortion patients | ANSIRH
You want evidence? Okay. According to the NIH, 3% of abortions in Western countries are unsafe. In 2014, The nation ran this story on Steven Brigham:
Why Do We Have Unsafe Abortion in the United States?
A searing New Yorker story about a rogue abortion provider shows that unsafe abortion has persisted in post-Roe America. But anti-abortion regulations are only making the problem worse.
Brigham has been involved in horrifically botched surgical abortions as well as a number of medical abortions that failed because he used methotrexate, a cheaper, less effective and more dangerous drug than the commonly prescribed mifepristone. In some cases, he began a procedure in New Jersey and then had patients driven to Maryland where he would complete it, so as to circumvent New Jersey law governing late-term abortion. One of his patients, an 18-year-old African-American girl who was twenty-one weeks pregnant, had to be airlifted to Johns Hopkins Hospital after her uterus was perforated and bowel damaged.
And mind you, this was in an article trying to tell us that the solution was FEWER regulations on abortion. Yeah, he was an ass engaging in unsafe practices only because of New Jersey abortion law; without that, he'd have been Albert Schweitzer. Puh-leeze.
There have been complaints and investigations about Brigham going back to the 1990s, but somehow he continues to operate, moving from one state to another and opening new clinics when old ones are shut down. On the surface, his case, like that of gruesome Kermit Gosnell, seems like evidence for the anti-abortion movement’s contention that abortion clinics are under-regulated.
Oh, y'think? But no worries, they're going to rush RIGHT to explaining away any silly notion like that. OBVIOUSLY, the ability to move from one state to another after being shut down is due to TOO MUCH regulation . . . or something like that.
You also ask, "What's that got to do with admitting privileges to hospitals?" First, let me say that if you're really that pig-stupid about how the medical field works, I shudder to think how you go about choosing a doctor, or what kind of doctor you actually have.
Second, let me give you the so-obvious-anyone-but-a-fucktard-leftist-knows-it primer on the subject.
Admitting privileges at a hospital serves as a very important seal of approval, indicating that the doctor in question has been reviewed by the hospital and has no red flags on his record. It is also important because, if an emergency happens, the patient is admitted to the hospital by the doctor who actually knows firsthand what happened, ensuring continuity of care.
Abortion apologists like to claim that it's "too difficult and onerous to obtain admitting privileges". Really? My primary care physician has admitting privileges at three different hospitals in my area. If he can manage it, surely any reasonably competent, qualified physician wanting to perform abortions should be able to, as well.
But that's the problem in the Louisiana case on this issue, the problem dishonest "as many abortions as possible, NO MATTER WHAT!" zealots like you prefer to ignore or gloss over: the so-called "doctors" at the clinic LOST their admitting privileges after absolutely egregious violations of their patients' health and safety. For any other type of doctor, the details listed in the Fifth Circuit Court's decision on this case would not just have lost them admitting privileges to hospitals, it would have lost them their medical licenses and netted them huge malpractice suits. But because they're performing the holy leftist sacrament of abortion, we can't even consider such things.
There's a good reason why I think everyone who disagrees with me on this subject is stupid, and you've just demonstrated how correct I am.
And don't even consider citing me "sources" from pro-abortion groups again.
The bottom line is ...Evidence of this occurring in regards to abortion? Also, what does that have to do with admitting privilege at a hospital?[
You can tell me how these laws are "traps" the instant you take your sorry carcass to some bottom-of-his-med-school-class jagoff with a dirty scalpel operating out of his garage for a gall bladder surgery, all right? Until then, fuck right the hell off with your "We're only protecting the interests of women by defending unsafe standards" tripe.
Abortion is one of the safest surgeries performed. It is far safer than pregnancy and birth for a woman. These laws are not designed for the health of the patient. I know you think everyone who doesn't believe exactly as you do are stupid, but it's plain to see these laws are designed to restrict access to abortion, period.
Admitting privileges laws do not appear to benefit abortion patients | ANSIRH
You want evidence? Okay. According to the NIH, 3% of abortions in Western countries are unsafe. In 2014, The nation ran this story on Steven Brigham:
Why Do We Have Unsafe Abortion in the United States?
A searing New Yorker story about a rogue abortion provider shows that unsafe abortion has persisted in post-Roe America. But anti-abortion regulations are only making the problem worse.
Brigham has been involved in horrifically botched surgical abortions as well as a number of medical abortions that failed because he used methotrexate, a cheaper, less effective and more dangerous drug than the commonly prescribed mifepristone. In some cases, he began a procedure in New Jersey and then had patients driven to Maryland where he would complete it, so as to circumvent New Jersey law governing late-term abortion. One of his patients, an 18-year-old African-American girl who was twenty-one weeks pregnant, had to be airlifted to Johns Hopkins Hospital after her uterus was perforated and bowel damaged.
And mind you, this was in an article trying to tell us that the solution was FEWER regulations on abortion. Yeah, he was an ass engaging in unsafe practices only because of New Jersey abortion law; without that, he'd have been Albert Schweitzer. Puh-leeze.
There have been complaints and investigations about Brigham going back to the 1990s, but somehow he continues to operate, moving from one state to another and opening new clinics when old ones are shut down. On the surface, his case, like that of gruesome Kermit Gosnell, seems like evidence for the anti-abortion movement’s contention that abortion clinics are under-regulated.
Oh, y'think? But no worries, they're going to rush RIGHT to explaining away any silly notion like that. OBVIOUSLY, the ability to move from one state to another after being shut down is due to TOO MUCH regulation . . . or something like that.
You also ask, "What's that got to do with admitting privileges to hospitals?" First, let me say that if you're really that pig-stupid about how the medical field works, I shudder to think how you go about choosing a doctor, or what kind of doctor you actually have.
Second, let me give you the so-obvious-anyone-but-a-fucktard-leftist-knows-it primer on the subject.
Admitting privileges at a hospital serves as a very important seal of approval, indicating that the doctor in question has been reviewed by the hospital and has no red flags on his record. It is also important because, if an emergency happens, the patient is admitted to the hospital by the doctor who actually knows firsthand what happened, ensuring continuity of care.
Abortion apologists like to claim that it's "too difficult and onerous to obtain admitting privileges". Really? My primary care physician has admitting privileges at three different hospitals in my area. If he can manage it, surely any reasonably competent, qualified physician wanting to perform abortions should be able to, as well.
But that's the problem in the Louisiana case on this issue, the problem dishonest "as many abortions as possible, NO MATTER WHAT!" zealots like you prefer to ignore or gloss over: the so-called "doctors" at the clinic LOST their admitting privileges after absolutely egregious violations of their patients' health and safety. For any other type of doctor, the details listed in the Fifth Circuit Court's decision on this case would not just have lost them admitting privileges to hospitals, it would have lost them their medical licenses and netted them huge malpractice suits. But because they're performing the holy leftist sacrament of abortion, we can't even consider such things.
There's a good reason why I think everyone who disagrees with me on this subject is stupid, and you've just demonstrated how correct I am.
And don't even consider citing me "sources" from pro-abortion groups again.
If a pregnant woman wants a safe abortion, then SHE should have safe options (doctors) from which SHE could choose!
Hey, as a Libertarian, i believe in a person’s LIBERTY!
.
Babies have been born and killing one is categorically a crime of murder .Maybe he's just admitting that the left has declared war on babies.
A state is comprised of and for citizens and a state interest begins at birth that is a requirement for citizenship and equal protection , as per the constitution .
The child she is about to abort?
They are a person too.
The fetal HOMICIDE laws make it so.
So much so, that they have to make exceptions to themselves to keep them from being used to prosecute fucking abortions.
A state is comprised of and for citizens and a state interest begins at birth that is a requirement for citizenship and equal protection , as per the constitution .
Show me where the Constitution requires any human being / "person" to be a "citizen" in order for them to be entitled to the "equal protections of our laws."
I can show you where they are NOT required to be citizens.
It was not stated that an individual had to be a citizen for equal protection , rather it was included that an individual must logically meet the minimum criteria of birth for equal protection that is required for citizenship .Show me where the Constitution requires any human being / "person" to be a "citizen" in order for them to be entitled to the "equal protections of our laws."
I can show you where they are NOT required to be citizens.
" Keeping It Straight "
* Addressing Melodramatic Hubris *
Babies have been born and killing one is categorically a crime of murder .Maybe he's just admitting that the left has declared war on babies.
The meaning of an afterlife is literally and figuratively to pass on ones genetic identity through ones offspring and in that respect the fetus is the body of the mother .
It is the individual whom is accountable for their own self ownership and decisions for when to procreate and it is not an obligation or privilege or constitutional interest of a state to mandate it .
A state is comprised of and for citizens and a state interest begins at birth that is a requirement for citizenship and equal protection , as per the constitution .
As a fetus is without constitutional protections a fetus is the private property of the mother and any harm against a fetus is an offense against the mother .
Oh please, how pathetic are you that you have to attack the source simply because you can't dispute the findings?Evidence of this occurring in regards to abortion? Also, what does that have to do with admitting privilege at a hospital?[
You can tell me how these laws are "traps" the instant you take your sorry carcass to some bottom-of-his-med-school-class jagoff with a dirty scalpel operating out of his garage for a gall bladder surgery, all right? Until then, fuck right the hell off with your "We're only protecting the interests of women by defending unsafe standards" tripe.
Abortion is one of the safest surgeries performed. It is far safer than pregnancy and birth for a woman. These laws are not designed for the health of the patient. I know you think everyone who doesn't believe exactly as you do are stupid, but it's plain to see these laws are designed to restrict access to abortion, period.
Admitting privileges laws do not appear to benefit abortion patients | ANSIRH
You want evidence? Okay. According to the NIH, 3% of abortions in Western countries are unsafe. In 2014, The nation ran this story on Steven Brigham:
Why Do We Have Unsafe Abortion in the United States?
A searing New Yorker story about a rogue abortion provider shows that unsafe abortion has persisted in post-Roe America. But anti-abortion regulations are only making the problem worse.
Brigham has been involved in horrifically botched surgical abortions as well as a number of medical abortions that failed because he used methotrexate, a cheaper, less effective and more dangerous drug than the commonly prescribed mifepristone. In some cases, he began a procedure in New Jersey and then had patients driven to Maryland where he would complete it, so as to circumvent New Jersey law governing late-term abortion. One of his patients, an 18-year-old African-American girl who was twenty-one weeks pregnant, had to be airlifted to Johns Hopkins Hospital after her uterus was perforated and bowel damaged.
And mind you, this was in an article trying to tell us that the solution was FEWER regulations on abortion. Yeah, he was an ass engaging in unsafe practices only because of New Jersey abortion law; without that, he'd have been Albert Schweitzer. Puh-leeze.
There have been complaints and investigations about Brigham going back to the 1990s, but somehow he continues to operate, moving from one state to another and opening new clinics when old ones are shut down. On the surface, his case, like that of gruesome Kermit Gosnell, seems like evidence for the anti-abortion movement’s contention that abortion clinics are under-regulated.
Oh, y'think? But no worries, they're going to rush RIGHT to explaining away any silly notion like that. OBVIOUSLY, the ability to move from one state to another after being shut down is due to TOO MUCH regulation . . . or something like that.
You also ask, "What's that got to do with admitting privileges to hospitals?" First, let me say that if you're really that pig-stupid about how the medical field works, I shudder to think how you go about choosing a doctor, or what kind of doctor you actually have.
Second, let me give you the so-obvious-anyone-but-a-fucktard-leftist-knows-it primer on the subject.
Admitting privileges at a hospital serves as a very important seal of approval, indicating that the doctor in question has been reviewed by the hospital and has no red flags on his record. It is also important because, if an emergency happens, the patient is admitted to the hospital by the doctor who actually knows firsthand what happened, ensuring continuity of care.
Abortion apologists like to claim that it's "too difficult and onerous to obtain admitting privileges". Really? My primary care physician has admitting privileges at three different hospitals in my area. If he can manage it, surely any reasonably competent, qualified physician wanting to perform abortions should be able to, as well.
But that's the problem in the Louisiana case on this issue, the problem dishonest "as many abortions as possible, NO MATTER WHAT!" zealots like you prefer to ignore or gloss over: the so-called "doctors" at the clinic LOST their admitting privileges after absolutely egregious violations of their patients' health and safety. For any other type of doctor, the details listed in the Fifth Circuit Court's decision on this case would not just have lost them admitting privileges to hospitals, it would have lost them their medical licenses and netted them huge malpractice suits. But because they're performing the holy leftist sacrament of abortion, we can't even consider such things.
There's a good reason why I think everyone who disagrees with me on this subject is stupid, and you've just demonstrated how correct I am.
And don't even consider citing me "sources" from pro-abortion groups again.
www.npr.org
What “fetal HOMICIDE laws” are you referring to? Name ONE (1).The bottom line is ...Evidence of this occurring in regards to abortion? Also, what does that have to do with admitting privilege at a hospital?[
You can tell me how these laws are "traps" the instant you take your sorry carcass to some bottom-of-his-med-school-class jagoff with a dirty scalpel operating out of his garage for a gall bladder surgery, all right? Until then, fuck right the hell off with your "We're only protecting the interests of women by defending unsafe standards" tripe.
Abortion is one of the safest surgeries performed. It is far safer than pregnancy and birth for a woman. These laws are not designed for the health of the patient. I know you think everyone who doesn't believe exactly as you do are stupid, but it's plain to see these laws are designed to restrict access to abortion, period.
Admitting privileges laws do not appear to benefit abortion patients | ANSIRH
You want evidence? Okay. According to the NIH, 3% of abortions in Western countries are unsafe. In 2014, The nation ran this story on Steven Brigham:
Why Do We Have Unsafe Abortion in the United States?
A searing New Yorker story about a rogue abortion provider shows that unsafe abortion has persisted in post-Roe America. But anti-abortion regulations are only making the problem worse.
Brigham has been involved in horrifically botched surgical abortions as well as a number of medical abortions that failed because he used methotrexate, a cheaper, less effective and more dangerous drug than the commonly prescribed mifepristone. In some cases, he began a procedure in New Jersey and then had patients driven to Maryland where he would complete it, so as to circumvent New Jersey law governing late-term abortion. One of his patients, an 18-year-old African-American girl who was twenty-one weeks pregnant, had to be airlifted to Johns Hopkins Hospital after her uterus was perforated and bowel damaged.
And mind you, this was in an article trying to tell us that the solution was FEWER regulations on abortion. Yeah, he was an ass engaging in unsafe practices only because of New Jersey abortion law; without that, he'd have been Albert Schweitzer. Puh-leeze.
There have been complaints and investigations about Brigham going back to the 1990s, but somehow he continues to operate, moving from one state to another and opening new clinics when old ones are shut down. On the surface, his case, like that of gruesome Kermit Gosnell, seems like evidence for the anti-abortion movement’s contention that abortion clinics are under-regulated.
Oh, y'think? But no worries, they're going to rush RIGHT to explaining away any silly notion like that. OBVIOUSLY, the ability to move from one state to another after being shut down is due to TOO MUCH regulation . . . or something like that.
You also ask, "What's that got to do with admitting privileges to hospitals?" First, let me say that if you're really that pig-stupid about how the medical field works, I shudder to think how you go about choosing a doctor, or what kind of doctor you actually have.
Second, let me give you the so-obvious-anyone-but-a-fucktard-leftist-knows-it primer on the subject.
Admitting privileges at a hospital serves as a very important seal of approval, indicating that the doctor in question has been reviewed by the hospital and has no red flags on his record. It is also important because, if an emergency happens, the patient is admitted to the hospital by the doctor who actually knows firsthand what happened, ensuring continuity of care.
Abortion apologists like to claim that it's "too difficult and onerous to obtain admitting privileges". Really? My primary care physician has admitting privileges at three different hospitals in my area. If he can manage it, surely any reasonably competent, qualified physician wanting to perform abortions should be able to, as well.
But that's the problem in the Louisiana case on this issue, the problem dishonest "as many abortions as possible, NO MATTER WHAT!" zealots like you prefer to ignore or gloss over: the so-called "doctors" at the clinic LOST their admitting privileges after absolutely egregious violations of their patients' health and safety. For any other type of doctor, the details listed in the Fifth Circuit Court's decision on this case would not just have lost them admitting privileges to hospitals, it would have lost them their medical licenses and netted them huge malpractice suits. But because they're performing the holy leftist sacrament of abortion, we can't even consider such things.
There's a good reason why I think everyone who disagrees with me on this subject is stupid, and you've just demonstrated how correct I am.
And don't even consider citing me "sources" from pro-abortion groups again.
If a pregnant woman wants a safe abortion, then SHE should have safe options (doctors) from which SHE could choose!
Hey, as a Libertarian, i believe in a person’s LIBERTY!
.
The child she is about to abort?
They are a person too.
The fetal HOMICIDE laws make it so.
So much so, that they have to make exceptions to themselves to keep them from being used to prosecute fucking abortions.
You house of cards built on denial is going to fall.
Of course, you are wrong again." Keeping It Straight "
* Addressing Melodramatic Hubris *
Babies have been born and killing one is categorically a crime of murder .Maybe he's just admitting that the left has declared war on babies.
The meaning of an afterlife is literally and figuratively to pass on ones genetic identity through ones offspring and in that respect the fetus is the body of the mother .
It is the individual whom is accountable for their own self ownership and decisions for when to procreate and it is not an obligation or privilege or constitutional interest of a state to mandate it .
A state is comprised of and for citizens and a state interest begins at birth that is a requirement for citizenship and equal protection , as per the constitution .
As a fetus is without constitutional protections a fetus is the private property of the mother and any harm against a fetus is an offense against the mother .
Of course, that isn't what an 'afterlife' means.
www.merriam-webster.com
Of course, you are wrong again." Keeping It Straight "
* Addressing Melodramatic Hubris *
Babies have been born and killing one is categorically a crime of murder .Maybe he's just admitting that the left has declared war on babies.
The meaning of an afterlife is literally and figuratively to pass on ones genetic identity through ones offspring and in that respect the fetus is the body of the mother .
It is the individual whom is accountable for their own self ownership and decisions for when to procreate and it is not an obligation or privilege or constitutional interest of a state to mandate it .
A state is comprised of and for citizens and a state interest begins at birth that is a requirement for citizenship and equal protection , as per the constitution .
As a fetus is without constitutional protections a fetus is the private property of the mother and any harm against a fetus is an offense against the mother .
Of course, that isn't what an 'afterlife' means.
“1 : an existence after death”.
.Definition of AFTERLIFE
an existence after death; a later period in one's life; a period of continued or renewed use, existence, or popularity beyond what is normal, primary, or expected… See the full definition
Oh please, how pathetic are you that you have to attack the source simply because you can't dispute the findings?Evidence of this occurring in regards to abortion? Also, what does that have to do with admitting privilege at a hospital?[
You can tell me how these laws are "traps" the instant you take your sorry carcass to some bottom-of-his-med-school-class jagoff with a dirty scalpel operating out of his garage for a gall bladder surgery, all right? Until then, fuck right the hell off with your "We're only protecting the interests of women by defending unsafe standards" tripe.
Abortion is one of the safest surgeries performed. It is far safer than pregnancy and birth for a woman. These laws are not designed for the health of the patient. I know you think everyone who doesn't believe exactly as you do are stupid, but it's plain to see these laws are designed to restrict access to abortion, period.
Admitting privileges laws do not appear to benefit abortion patients | ANSIRH
You want evidence? Okay. According to the NIH, 3% of abortions in Western countries are unsafe. In 2014, The nation ran this story on Steven Brigham:
Why Do We Have Unsafe Abortion in the United States?
A searing New Yorker story about a rogue abortion provider shows that unsafe abortion has persisted in post-Roe America. But anti-abortion regulations are only making the problem worse.
Brigham has been involved in horrifically botched surgical abortions as well as a number of medical abortions that failed because he used methotrexate, a cheaper, less effective and more dangerous drug than the commonly prescribed mifepristone. In some cases, he began a procedure in New Jersey and then had patients driven to Maryland where he would complete it, so as to circumvent New Jersey law governing late-term abortion. One of his patients, an 18-year-old African-American girl who was twenty-one weeks pregnant, had to be airlifted to Johns Hopkins Hospital after her uterus was perforated and bowel damaged.
And mind you, this was in an article trying to tell us that the solution was FEWER regulations on abortion. Yeah, he was an ass engaging in unsafe practices only because of New Jersey abortion law; without that, he'd have been Albert Schweitzer. Puh-leeze.
There have been complaints and investigations about Brigham going back to the 1990s, but somehow he continues to operate, moving from one state to another and opening new clinics when old ones are shut down. On the surface, his case, like that of gruesome Kermit Gosnell, seems like evidence for the anti-abortion movement’s contention that abortion clinics are under-regulated.
Oh, y'think? But no worries, they're going to rush RIGHT to explaining away any silly notion like that. OBVIOUSLY, the ability to move from one state to another after being shut down is due to TOO MUCH regulation . . . or something like that.
You also ask, "What's that got to do with admitting privileges to hospitals?" First, let me say that if you're really that pig-stupid about how the medical field works, I shudder to think how you go about choosing a doctor, or what kind of doctor you actually have.
Second, let me give you the so-obvious-anyone-but-a-fucktard-leftist-knows-it primer on the subject.
Admitting privileges at a hospital serves as a very important seal of approval, indicating that the doctor in question has been reviewed by the hospital and has no red flags on his record. It is also important because, if an emergency happens, the patient is admitted to the hospital by the doctor who actually knows firsthand what happened, ensuring continuity of care.
Abortion apologists like to claim that it's "too difficult and onerous to obtain admitting privileges". Really? My primary care physician has admitting privileges at three different hospitals in my area. If he can manage it, surely any reasonably competent, qualified physician wanting to perform abortions should be able to, as well.
But that's the problem in the Louisiana case on this issue, the problem dishonest "as many abortions as possible, NO MATTER WHAT!" zealots like you prefer to ignore or gloss over: the so-called "doctors" at the clinic LOST their admitting privileges after absolutely egregious violations of their patients' health and safety. For any other type of doctor, the details listed in the Fifth Circuit Court's decision on this case would not just have lost them admitting privileges to hospitals, it would have lost them their medical licenses and netted them huge malpractice suits. But because they're performing the holy leftist sacrament of abortion, we can't even consider such things.
There's a good reason why I think everyone who disagrees with me on this subject is stupid, and you've just demonstrated how correct I am.
And don't even consider citing me "sources" from pro-abortion groups again.
And when did we expand your little bullshit escapade to "western countries" ? Try sticking to the United States where abortion is safe. (As long as rabid anti choice legislators don't pass ridiculous laws)
Landmark Report Concludes Abortion In U.S. Is Safe
The report says many state laws that make it harder for women to get abortions don't have a medical purpose and can make outcomes worse.
