Planned Parenthood not invited to congressional hearing on organization

[Remodeling Maidiac]

PP is guilty without a trial.
It's the Republican style law. Use heavily edited video as evidence and then hang them high .

This is about my tax dollars & how they're spent. You see a criminal procedure because

A. You're a dumbfuck hack
B. You're admitting they broke a law

 

[koshergrl]

No trial needed to stop funding. Fuck pp.

 

[Coyote]

If only 3% of PP's operations involve abortions, then that leaves 97% to be covered somehow.

If PP clinics start shutting down, other local health providers will easily pick up the slack.

After all, now that we have our spiffy new ObamaCare, these women can afford to ditch the Croakers in the PP clinics and go to REAL doctors, instead.

No big deal.

Pariah dog knows that. Her total motivation is to kill babies.

No...it's to give women the choice they have a right to. But thanks for clarifying your stance - it's only about the fetus.

No, I despise people who abuse women and refuse to provide oversight....all for the sake of killing babies. Pretty much the most foul racket ever conceived. Apologists for pp today were apologists for mengele in times past.

So...let's see then...if the clinics were regulated like hospitals, you'd have no problem with women having abortions?

Medically necessary abortions always have taken place in hospitals, and nobody has ever had an issue with them. The whole rallying cry that maintains that women can't get medically necessary abortions without unmonitored abortion on demand is a complete fabrication by baby killers, whose only goal is to victimize women and kill babies.

Liar.

Abortions are not "unmonitored". There is no need for early abortions to be done in a hospital. That's a complete fabrication from the pro-some-life fanatics that pretend it's about the women and oppose even birth control that might have abortificant properties.

Are the following done in a hospital? Vasectemies? Invitro fertilization? Arthoscopic surgery? Wisdom teeth removal?
Medically necessary abortions - as you put it - are often late stage. Most late stage abortions take place in a hospital and no one has an issue with that.

 

[Coyote]

PP is guilty without a trial.
It's the Republican style law. Use heavily edited video as evidence and then hang them high .

This is about my tax dollars & how they're spent. You see a criminal procedure because

A. You're a dumbfuck hack
B. You're admitting they broke a law

Where?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

PP is guilty without a trial.
It's the Republican style law. Use heavily edited video as evidence and then hang them high .

This is about my tax dollars & how they're spent. You see a criminal procedure because

A. You're a dumbfuck hack
B. You're admitting they broke a law

Where?

It was a question option not a statement

 

[koshergrl]

Pariah dog knows that. Her total motivation is to kill babies.

No...it's to give women the choice they have a right to. But thanks for clarifying your stance - it's only about the fetus.

No, I despise people who abuse women and refuse to provide oversight....all for the sake of killing babies. Pretty much the most foul racket ever conceived. Apologists for pp today were apologists for mengele in times past.

So...let's see then...if the clinics were regulated like hospitals, you'd have no problem with women having abortions?

Medically necessary abortions always have taken place in hospitals, and nobody has ever had an issue with them. The whole rallying cry that maintains that women can't get medically necessary abortions without unmonitored abortion on demand is a complete fabrication by baby killers, whose only goal is to victimize women and kill babies.

Liar.

Abortions are not "unmonitored". There is no need for early abortions to be done in a hospital. That's a complete fabrication from the pro-some-life fanatics that pretend it's about the women and oppose even birth control that might have abortificant properties.

Are the following done in a hospital? Vasectemies? Invitro fertilization? Arthoscopic surgery? Wisdom teeth removal?
Medically necessary abortions - as you put it - are often late stage. Most late stage abortions take place in a hospital and no one has an issue with that.

Every statement you made is a lie, per usual. Except for the first sentence, which is totally irrelevant EXCEPT that it illuminates your weird desire to shuffle pregnant women away from hospitals into un monitored baby killing abbatoirs.

 

[Coyote]

No...it's to give women the choice they have a right to. But thanks for clarifying your stance - it's only about the fetus.

No, I despise people who abuse women and refuse to provide oversight....all for the sake of killing babies. Pretty much the most foul racket ever conceived. Apologists for pp today were apologists for mengele in times past.

So...let's see then...if the clinics were regulated like hospitals, you'd have no problem with women having abortions?

Medically necessary abortions always have taken place in hospitals, and nobody has ever had an issue with them. The whole rallying cry that maintains that women can't get medically necessary abortions without unmonitored abortion on demand is a complete fabrication by baby killers, whose only goal is to victimize women and kill babies.

Liar.

Abortions are not "unmonitored". There is no need for early abortions to be done in a hospital. That's a complete fabrication from the pro-some-life fanatics that pretend it's about the women and oppose even birth control that might have abortificant properties.

Are the following done in a hospital? Vasectemies? Invitro fertilization? Arthoscopic surgery? Wisdom teeth removal?
Medically necessary abortions - as you put it - are often late stage. Most late stage abortions take place in a hospital and no one has an issue with that.

Every statement you made is a lie, per usual. Except for the first sentence, which is totally irrelevant EXCEPT that it illuminates your weird desire to shuffle pregnant women away from hospitals into un monitored baby killing abbatoirs.

Honey, I've supported my statements over and over. Are you telling me a woman who is 2 weeks pregnant needs to be hospitalized? Bullshit.

 

[Coyote]

Abortion Is Safe

The rationale behind the campaign to single out abortion clinics for special treatment is that abortion is inherently dangerous; however, the facts say otherwise. Abortion is an extremely safe medical procedure. Less than 0.3% of abortion patients in the United States experience a complication that requires hospitalization.1 The risk of dying from a legal abortion in the first trimester—when almost nine in 10 abortions in the United States are performed—is no more than four in a million.2 In fact, the risk of death from childbirth is about 14 times higher than that from abortion.3


Nearly all U.S. abortions take place in nonhospital settings,4 and data going back decades confirm the safety of these procedures. In fact, in 1983, the Supreme Court held in Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health that requirements that abortions be performed in hospitals during the second trimester of pregnancy could not be justified on the basis of protecting the woman’s health and safety. Research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on abortions performed between 1974 and 1977 found no difference in the risk of death between procedures performed in a hospital and those performed in a clinic or a physician’s office.5 More recent studies have also found low complication rates for abortions performed in outpatient settings.6,7


According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), providing abortions in the context of private practice is entirely appropriate, as long as physicians who do so in their offices are equipped to handle any emergencies that arise.8 In 2008, 18,000 abortions were provided in physicians’ offices in the United States.4 And beyond the United States, this question has arisen as well, leading the World Health Organization (WHO) to make clear that abortions can safely be performed not only in outpatient clinics, but also in physicians’ offices.9 WHO guidelines state that regulation of abortion providers and settings “should be based on evidence of best practices and be aimed at ensuring safety, good quality and accessibility.”


One reason that the procedure is so safe in the United States is that providers have rigorously developed evidence-based standards to follow. The National Abortion Federation (NAF) first published its Clinical Policy Guidelines in 1996, which are updated annually using a process developed by a scientific advisor affiliated with the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.10 The NAF standards are intended to provide a basis for ongoing quality assurance and include standards on a wide range of topics, such as infection prevention; use of antibiotics, analgesia and sedation; and treatment of complications. Adherence to the guidelines is a condition of membership; all members of the organization are assessed when they apply to join the organization and on a regular basis thereafter. Noting that “optimal management of abortion emergencies reduces morbidity,” the NAF standards have detailed provisions relating to emergency care when needed. For example, they require that functioning equipment and medication be available on-site to handle emergencies. The guidelines also require protocols for the management of medical emergencies and emergency transport, and written and readily available directions for contacting external emergency assistance. Planned Parenthood Federation of America maintains similarly detailed requirements for affiliates offering abortion services.

...

Abortion Is the Real Target
Promoting health and safety—including in clinic settings and practices—is a fundamental rationale for states having a role in licensing any health care facility. For example, regulations in South Carolina say that “health licensing has the ultimate goal of ensuring that individuals…are provided appropriate care and services in a manner and, in an environment that promotes their health, safety, and well-being.” In Pennsylvania, the state’s regulations set standards that are intended to “promote the health, safety and adequate care of the patients.”

In the case of TRAP laws, however, Mississippi’s governor was just more candid than most abortion opponents when he made it clear that the goal is entirely different. The Washington Post characterized Virginia’s law, for example, as an “ideological crusade masquerading as concern for public health.”24 Indeed, if these increasingly burdensome TRAP laws are allowed to stand, they may prove remarkably successful in accomplishing what decades of restrictions, protests and even outright violence failed to do. Clinics have already closed in Pennsylvania, Virginia and Tennessee. And the last clinic in the entire state of Mississippi is perilously close to being shuttered.

Whether other advocates of TRAP laws are honest enough to admit their true purpose, as lawmakers in Mississippi have, these laws must be seen for what they truly are. Mallory Quigley, spokeswoman for the antiabortion Susan B. Anthony List, described Virginia’s approach as “common sense regulations.”25 They do seem to be increasingly common, but they only make sense if the goal is to make abortion less accessible.

 

[koshergrl]

No, I despise people who abuse women and refuse to provide oversight....all for the sake of killing babies. Pretty much the most foul racket ever conceived. Apologists for pp today were apologists for mengele in times past.

So...let's see then...if the clinics were regulated like hospitals, you'd have no problem with women having abortions?

Medically necessary abortions always have taken place in hospitals, and nobody has ever had an issue with them. The whole rallying cry that maintains that women can't get medically necessary abortions without unmonitored abortion on demand is a complete fabrication by baby killers, whose only goal is to victimize women and kill babies.

Liar.

Abortions are not "unmonitored". There is no need for early abortions to be done in a hospital. That's a complete fabrication from the pro-some-life fanatics that pretend it's about the women and oppose even birth control that might have abortificant properties.

Are the following done in a hospital? Vasectemies? Invitro fertilization? Arthoscopic surgery? Wisdom teeth removal?
Medically necessary abortions - as you put it - are often late stage. Most late stage abortions take place in a hospital and no one has an issue with that.

Every statement you made is a lie, per usual. Except for the first sentence, which is totally irrelevant EXCEPT that it illuminates your weird desire to shuffle pregnant women away from hospitals into un monitored baby killing abbatoirs.

Honey, I've supported my statements over and over. Are you telling me a woman who is 2 weeks pregnant needs to be hospitalized? Bullshit.

You haven't supported any of your statements. And I am saying that women deserve the same degree of care as anyone else undergoing surgery. The idea that abortion is just a negligible, zero risk procedure that doesn't require the same degree of oversight as, say, a tooth extraction is misogynistic to the nth degree. It verifies the anti female nature of the abortion industry and all those who support it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Noticeably absent from the hearing, however, is Planned Parenthood itself."

Conservatives are at least consistent in their contempt for facts and the truth.

 

[Coyote]

So...let's see then...if the clinics were regulated like hospitals, you'd have no problem with women having abortions?

Medically necessary abortions always have taken place in hospitals, and nobody has ever had an issue with them. The whole rallying cry that maintains that women can't get medically necessary abortions without unmonitored abortion on demand is a complete fabrication by baby killers, whose only goal is to victimize women and kill babies.

Liar.

Abortions are not "unmonitored". There is no need for early abortions to be done in a hospital. That's a complete fabrication from the pro-some-life fanatics that pretend it's about the women and oppose even birth control that might have abortificant properties.

Are the following done in a hospital? Vasectemies? Invitro fertilization? Arthoscopic surgery? Wisdom teeth removal?
Medically necessary abortions - as you put it - are often late stage. Most late stage abortions take place in a hospital and no one has an issue with that.

Every statement you made is a lie, per usual. Except for the first sentence, which is totally irrelevant EXCEPT that it illuminates your weird desire to shuffle pregnant women away from hospitals into un monitored baby killing abbatoirs.

Honey, I've supported my statements over and over. Are you telling me a woman who is 2 weeks pregnant needs to be hospitalized? Bullshit.

You haven't supported any of your statements. And I am saying that women deserve the same degree of care as anyone else undergoing surgery. The idea that abortion is just a negligible, zero risk procedure that doesn't require the same degree of oversight as, say, a tooth extraction is misogynistic to the nth degree. It verifies the anti female nature of the abortion industry and all those who support it.

They get the same level of care as anyone undergoing an equivalent minimally invasive procedure, for example some of these which are performed in a doctor's office with none of the special requirements you impose on abortion: Surgery - Dominion Women's Health

The complication and mortality risk of abortion is one of the most well researched procedures and has found over and over that the risk is very low (much lower than going to full term pregnancy and birth) until you get to the third trimester when the risk factor rises to an equivalent rate. It's not just one source, it's multiple studies over decades.

A wisdom tooth extraction can involve cutting into a person, cutting bone, anesthesia and recovery. Comparing that to a D&C is hardly "mysogynistic".

Are you still pretending there is no oversight?

 

[koshergrl]

Abortion Is Safe

The rationale behind the campaign to single out abortion clinics for special treatment is that abortion is inherently dangerous; however, the facts say otherwise. Abortion is an extremely safe medical procedure. Less than 0.3% of abortion patients in the United States experience a complication that requires hospitalization.1 The risk of dying from a legal abortion in the first trimester—when almost nine in 10 abortions in the United States are performed—is no more than four in a million.2 In fact, the risk of death from childbirth is about 14 times higher than that from abortion.3


Nearly all U.S. abortions take place in nonhospital settings,4 and data going back decades confirm the safety of these procedures. In fact, in 1983, the Supreme Court held in Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health that requirements that abortions be performed in hospitals during the second trimester of pregnancy could not be justified on the basis of protecting the woman’s health and safety. Research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on abortions performed between 1974 and 1977 found no difference in the risk of death between procedures performed in a hospital and those performed in a clinic or a physician’s office.5 More recent studies have also found low complication rates for abortions performed in outpatient settings.6,7


According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), providing abortions in the context of private practice is entirely appropriate, as long as physicians who do so in their offices are equipped to handle any emergencies that arise.8 In 2008, 18,000 abortions were provided in physicians’ offices in the United States.4 And beyond the United States, this question has arisen as well, leading the World Health Organization (WHO) to make clear that abortions can safely be performed not only in outpatient clinics, but also in physicians’ offices.9 WHO guidelines state that regulation of abortion providers and settings “should be based on evidence of best practices and be aimed at ensuring safety, good quality and accessibility.”


One reason that the procedure is so safe in the United States is that providers have rigorously developed evidence-based standards to follow. The National Abortion Federation (NAF) first published its Clinical Policy Guidelines in 1996, which are updated annually using a process developed by a scientific advisor affiliated with the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.10 The NAF standards are intended to provide a basis for ongoing quality assurance and include standards on a wide range of topics, such as infection prevention; use of antibiotics, analgesia and sedation; and treatment of complications. Adherence to the guidelines is a condition of membership; all members of the organization are assessed when they apply to join the organization and on a regular basis thereafter. Noting that “optimal management of abortion emergencies reduces morbidity,” the NAF standards have detailed provisions relating to emergency care when needed. For example, they require that functioning equipment and medication be available on-site to handle emergencies. The guidelines also require protocols for the management of medical emergencies and emergency transport, and written and readily available directions for contacting external emergency assistance. Planned Parenthood Federation of America maintains similarly detailed requirements for affiliates offering abortion services.

...

Abortion Is the Real Target
Promoting health and safety—including in clinic settings and practices—is a fundamental rationale for states having a role in licensing any health care facility. For example, regulations in South Carolina say that “health licensing has the ultimate goal of ensuring that individuals…are provided appropriate care and services in a manner and, in an environment that promotes their health, safety, and well-being.” In Pennsylvania, the state’s regulations set standards that are intended to “promote the health, safety and adequate care of the patients.”

In the case of TRAP laws, however, Mississippi’s governor was just more candid than most abortion opponents when he made it clear that the goal is entirely different. The Washington Post characterized Virginia’s law, for example, as an “ideological crusade masquerading as concern for public health.”24 Indeed, if these increasingly burdensome TRAP laws are allowed to stand, they may prove remarkably successful in accomplishing what decades of restrictions, protests and even outright violence failed to do. Clinics have already closed in Pennsylvania, Virginia and Tennessee. And the last clinic in the entire state of Mississippi is perilously close to being shuttered.

Whether other advocates of TRAP laws are honest enough to admit their true purpose, as lawmakers in Mississippi have, these laws must be seen for what they truly are. Mallory Quigley, spokeswoman for the antiabortion Susan B. Anthony List, described Virginia’s approach as “common sense regulations.”25 They do seem to be increasingly common, but they only make sense if the goal is to make abortion less accessible.

Yeah, tell that to the women who die, who get their uteruses and bowels perforated from it every year. What you mean is, "it's safe enough for these women".

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is like not inviting NASA to discuss space..
Planned Parenthood not invited to congressional hearing on organization

Conservative lawmakers who demanded Planned Parenthood executives answer for “alleged atrocities” are holding the first in a series of congressional hearings on Wednesday on the video controversy that has rallied anti-abortion Republicans, and could become the flashpoint in a battle over government shutdown .

Noticeably absent from the hearing, however, is Planned Parenthood itself.

The House judiciary committee will hear from “experts on the issues surrounding the alleged acts of Planned Parenthood”, including two women described as “abortion survivors”, but declined to invite representatives from the women’s healthcare organization.

The anti-abortion activist group behind the videos, the Center for Medical Progress, claims they show Planned Parenthood illegally profited from its fetal tissue donations. Planned Parenthood has said the videos were heavily altered, and represent the latest attack in a decades-long campaign by culture conservatives to undermine the organization.

“For 15 years anti-abortion activists have been trying to manufacture public outrage, and for 15 years their attacks have fallen apart upon closer inspection,” Dawn Laguens, executive vice-president for Planned Parenthood Federation of America said in a statement on Wednesday.

“The Center for Medical Progress may have a different name, but this is the same cast of characters and follows the same script. There’s a reason those who oppose women’s access to health care have had to resort to lying and inventing false claims to make their case: the vast majority of the American public wants to ensure women have access to safe, legal abortion.”

Requests for comment from the committee and its ranking members about why Planned Parenthood was not invited were not returned.

The series of nine sting videos – surreptitiously recorded, heavily edited and released weekly this summer – has triggered several state-level investigations into the health organization as well as into the group behind them. It has also revived Republican efforts to defund the organization, especially among presidential contenders eager to galvanize religious conservatives.

“In light of recent and horrific revelations that Planned Parenthood is trafficking in fetal tissue and body parts from abortions,” wrote GOP presidential candidate and Texas senator Ted Cruz in a draft letter addressed to Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, “we urge you not to schedule or facilitate the consideration of any legislation that authorizes or appropriates federal dollars for Planned Parenthood.”

The senator’s letter, circulated to Senate Republicans for signatures last week, stoked fears that some Republicans would force a government shutdown in an effort to defund the organization. McConnell said the party doesn’t have the votes to defund Planned Parenthood, especially as the White House has promised to meet any such legislative efforts with a veto.

“We just don’t have the votes to get the outcome that we’d like,” McConnell said in an interview with WYMT-TV last week. “ ... The president’s made it very clear he’s not going to sign any bill that includes defunding of Planned Parenthood so that’s another issue that awaits a new president hopefully with a different point of view.”

Republican leadership is wary of tying the issue to the upcoming spending bill, which must be passed by the end of the month to avert a shutdown. If the spending bill fight forces a shutdown, Republicans worry their party may get blamed for the shutdown, and that Democrats would use the moment to shift the focus from Planned Parenthood’s conduct to GOP extremism.

And it's like not allowing the accused to confront his accuser.

Indeed, republicans have no desire for a fair and impartial hearing, they seek only to contrive a 'controversy' where none exists for some perceived partisan gain; these 'hearings' are devoid of both merit and good faith.

 

[Coyote]

Abortion Is Safe

The rationale behind the campaign to single out abortion clinics for special treatment is that abortion is inherently dangerous; however, the facts say otherwise. Abortion is an extremely safe medical procedure. Less than 0.3% of abortion patients in the United States experience a complication that requires hospitalization.1 The risk of dying from a legal abortion in the first trimester—when almost nine in 10 abortions in the United States are performed—is no more than four in a million.2 In fact, the risk of death from childbirth is about 14 times higher than that from abortion.3


Nearly all U.S. abortions take place in nonhospital settings,4 and data going back decades confirm the safety of these procedures. In fact, in 1983, the Supreme Court held in Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health that requirements that abortions be performed in hospitals during the second trimester of pregnancy could not be justified on the basis of protecting the woman’s health and safety. Research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on abortions performed between 1974 and 1977 found no difference in the risk of death between procedures performed in a hospital and those performed in a clinic or a physician’s office.5 More recent studies have also found low complication rates for abortions performed in outpatient settings.6,7


According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), providing abortions in the context of private practice is entirely appropriate, as long as physicians who do so in their offices are equipped to handle any emergencies that arise.8 In 2008, 18,000 abortions were provided in physicians’ offices in the United States.4 And beyond the United States, this question has arisen as well, leading the World Health Organization (WHO) to make clear that abortions can safely be performed not only in outpatient clinics, but also in physicians’ offices.9 WHO guidelines state that regulation of abortion providers and settings “should be based on evidence of best practices and be aimed at ensuring safety, good quality and accessibility.”


One reason that the procedure is so safe in the United States is that providers have rigorously developed evidence-based standards to follow. The National Abortion Federation (NAF) first published its Clinical Policy Guidelines in 1996, which are updated annually using a process developed by a scientific advisor affiliated with the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.10 The NAF standards are intended to provide a basis for ongoing quality assurance and include standards on a wide range of topics, such as infection prevention; use of antibiotics, analgesia and sedation; and treatment of complications. Adherence to the guidelines is a condition of membership; all members of the organization are assessed when they apply to join the organization and on a regular basis thereafter. Noting that “optimal management of abortion emergencies reduces morbidity,” the NAF standards have detailed provisions relating to emergency care when needed. For example, they require that functioning equipment and medication be available on-site to handle emergencies. The guidelines also require protocols for the management of medical emergencies and emergency transport, and written and readily available directions for contacting external emergency assistance. Planned Parenthood Federation of America maintains similarly detailed requirements for affiliates offering abortion services.

...

Abortion Is the Real Target
Promoting health and safety—including in clinic settings and practices—is a fundamental rationale for states having a role in licensing any health care facility. For example, regulations in South Carolina say that “health licensing has the ultimate goal of ensuring that individuals…are provided appropriate care and services in a manner and, in an environment that promotes their health, safety, and well-being.” In Pennsylvania, the state’s regulations set standards that are intended to “promote the health, safety and adequate care of the patients.”

In the case of TRAP laws, however, Mississippi’s governor was just more candid than most abortion opponents when he made it clear that the goal is entirely different. The Washington Post characterized Virginia’s law, for example, as an “ideological crusade masquerading as concern for public health.”24 Indeed, if these increasingly burdensome TRAP laws are allowed to stand, they may prove remarkably successful in accomplishing what decades of restrictions, protests and even outright violence failed to do. Clinics have already closed in Pennsylvania, Virginia and Tennessee. And the last clinic in the entire state of Mississippi is perilously close to being shuttered.

Whether other advocates of TRAP laws are honest enough to admit their true purpose, as lawmakers in Mississippi have, these laws must be seen for what they truly are. Mallory Quigley, spokeswoman for the antiabortion Susan B. Anthony List, described Virginia’s approach as “common sense regulations.”25 They do seem to be increasingly common, but they only make sense if the goal is to make abortion less accessible.

Yeah, tell that to the women who die, who get their uteruses and bowels perforated from it every year. What you mean is, "it's safe enough for these women".

Nothing is a zero risk KG. Are you proposing that all these procedures routinely done in a doctor's office be done under hospital conditions then because there is a slight risk of serious complications? Or, does this only apply to abortion?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Abortion Is Safe

The rationale behind the campaign to single out abortion clinics for special treatment is that abortion is inherently dangerous; however, the facts say otherwise. Abortion is an extremely safe medical procedure. Less than 0.3% of abortion patients in the United States experience a complication that requires hospitalization.1 The risk of dying from a legal abortion in the first trimester—when almost nine in 10 abortions in the United States are performed—is no more than four in a million.2 In fact, the risk of death from childbirth is about 14 times higher than that from abortion.3


Nearly all U.S. abortions take place in nonhospital settings,4 and data going back decades confirm the safety of these procedures. In fact, in 1983, the Supreme Court held in Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health that requirements that abortions be performed in hospitals during the second trimester of pregnancy could not be justified on the basis of protecting the woman’s health and safety. Research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on abortions performed between 1974 and 1977 found no difference in the risk of death between procedures performed in a hospital and those performed in a clinic or a physician’s office.5 More recent studies have also found low complication rates for abortions performed in outpatient settings.6,7


According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), providing abortions in the context of private practice is entirely appropriate, as long as physicians who do so in their offices are equipped to handle any emergencies that arise.8 In 2008, 18,000 abortions were provided in physicians’ offices in the United States.4 And beyond the United States, this question has arisen as well, leading the World Health Organization (WHO) to make clear that abortions can safely be performed not only in outpatient clinics, but also in physicians’ offices.9 WHO guidelines state that regulation of abortion providers and settings “should be based on evidence of best practices and be aimed at ensuring safety, good quality and accessibility.”


One reason that the procedure is so safe in the United States is that providers have rigorously developed evidence-based standards to follow. The National Abortion Federation (NAF) first published its Clinical Policy Guidelines in 1996, which are updated annually using a process developed by a scientific advisor affiliated with the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.10 The NAF standards are intended to provide a basis for ongoing quality assurance and include standards on a wide range of topics, such as infection prevention; use of antibiotics, analgesia and sedation; and treatment of complications. Adherence to the guidelines is a condition of membership; all members of the organization are assessed when they apply to join the organization and on a regular basis thereafter. Noting that “optimal management of abortion emergencies reduces morbidity,” the NAF standards have detailed provisions relating to emergency care when needed. For example, they require that functioning equipment and medication be available on-site to handle emergencies. The guidelines also require protocols for the management of medical emergencies and emergency transport, and written and readily available directions for contacting external emergency assistance. Planned Parenthood Federation of America maintains similarly detailed requirements for affiliates offering abortion services.

...

Abortion Is the Real Target
Promoting health and safety—including in clinic settings and practices—is a fundamental rationale for states having a role in licensing any health care facility. For example, regulations in South Carolina say that “health licensing has the ultimate goal of ensuring that individuals…are provided appropriate care and services in a manner and, in an environment that promotes their health, safety, and well-being.” In Pennsylvania, the state’s regulations set standards that are intended to “promote the health, safety and adequate care of the patients.”

In the case of TRAP laws, however, Mississippi’s governor was just more candid than most abortion opponents when he made it clear that the goal is entirely different. The Washington Post characterized Virginia’s law, for example, as an “ideological crusade masquerading as concern for public health.”24 Indeed, if these increasingly burdensome TRAP laws are allowed to stand, they may prove remarkably successful in accomplishing what decades of restrictions, protests and even outright violence failed to do. Clinics have already closed in Pennsylvania, Virginia and Tennessee. And the last clinic in the entire state of Mississippi is perilously close to being shuttered.

Whether other advocates of TRAP laws are honest enough to admit their true purpose, as lawmakers in Mississippi have, these laws must be seen for what they truly are. Mallory Quigley, spokeswoman for the antiabortion Susan B. Anthony List, described Virginia’s approach as “common sense regulations.”25 They do seem to be increasingly common, but they only make sense if the goal is to make abortion less accessible.

Yeah, tell that to the women who die, who get their uteruses and bowels perforated from it every year. What you mean is, "it's safe enough for these women".

More ridiculous lies from the right.

Just as these 'hearings' are predicated on ridiculous lies.

The reprehensible right, indeed.

 

[kiwiman127]

PP is guilty without a trial.
It's the Republican style law. Use heavily edited video as evidence and then hang them high .

This is about my tax dollars & how they're spent. You see a criminal procedure because

A. You're a dumbfuck hack
B. You're admitting they broke a law

 

[koshergrl]

Abortion Is Safe

The rationale behind the campaign to single out abortion clinics for special treatment is that abortion is inherently dangerous; however, the facts say otherwise. Abortion is an extremely safe medical procedure. Less than 0.3% of abortion patients in the United States experience a complication that requires hospitalization.1 The risk of dying from a legal abortion in the first trimester—when almost nine in 10 abortions in the United States are performed—is no more than four in a million.2 In fact, the risk of death from childbirth is about 14 times higher than that from abortion.3


Nearly all U.S. abortions take place in nonhospital settings,4 and data going back decades confirm the safety of these procedures. In fact, in 1983, the Supreme Court held in Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health that requirements that abortions be performed in hospitals during the second trimester of pregnancy could not be justified on the basis of protecting the woman’s health and safety. Research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on abortions performed between 1974 and 1977 found no difference in the risk of death between procedures performed in a hospital and those performed in a clinic or a physician’s office.5 More recent studies have also found low complication rates for abortions performed in outpatient settings.6,7


According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), providing abortions in the context of private practice is entirely appropriate, as long as physicians who do so in their offices are equipped to handle any emergencies that arise.8 In 2008, 18,000 abortions were provided in physicians’ offices in the United States.4 And beyond the United States, this question has arisen as well, leading the World Health Organization (WHO) to make clear that abortions can safely be performed not only in outpatient clinics, but also in physicians’ offices.9 WHO guidelines state that regulation of abortion providers and settings “should be based on evidence of best practices and be aimed at ensuring safety, good quality and accessibility.”


One reason that the procedure is so safe in the United States is that providers have rigorously developed evidence-based standards to follow. The National Abortion Federation (NAF) first published its Clinical Policy Guidelines in 1996, which are updated annually using a process developed by a scientific advisor affiliated with the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.10 The NAF standards are intended to provide a basis for ongoing quality assurance and include standards on a wide range of topics, such as infection prevention; use of antibiotics, analgesia and sedation; and treatment of complications. Adherence to the guidelines is a condition of membership; all members of the organization are assessed when they apply to join the organization and on a regular basis thereafter. Noting that “optimal management of abortion emergencies reduces morbidity,” the NAF standards have detailed provisions relating to emergency care when needed. For example, they require that functioning equipment and medication be available on-site to handle emergencies. The guidelines also require protocols for the management of medical emergencies and emergency transport, and written and readily available directions for contacting external emergency assistance. Planned Parenthood Federation of America maintains similarly detailed requirements for affiliates offering abortion services.

...

Abortion Is the Real Target
Promoting health and safety—including in clinic settings and practices—is a fundamental rationale for states having a role in licensing any health care facility. For example, regulations in South Carolina say that “health licensing has the ultimate goal of ensuring that individuals…are provided appropriate care and services in a manner and, in an environment that promotes their health, safety, and well-being.” In Pennsylvania, the state’s regulations set standards that are intended to “promote the health, safety and adequate care of the patients.”

In the case of TRAP laws, however, Mississippi’s governor was just more candid than most abortion opponents when he made it clear that the goal is entirely different. The Washington Post characterized Virginia’s law, for example, as an “ideological crusade masquerading as concern for public health.”24 Indeed, if these increasingly burdensome TRAP laws are allowed to stand, they may prove remarkably successful in accomplishing what decades of restrictions, protests and even outright violence failed to do. Clinics have already closed in Pennsylvania, Virginia and Tennessee. And the last clinic in the entire state of Mississippi is perilously close to being shuttered.

Whether other advocates of TRAP laws are honest enough to admit their true purpose, as lawmakers in Mississippi have, these laws must be seen for what they truly are. Mallory Quigley, spokeswoman for the antiabortion Susan B. Anthony List, described Virginia’s approach as “common sense regulations.”25 They do seem to be increasingly common, but they only make sense if the goal is to make abortion less accessible.

Yeah, tell that to the women who die, who get their uteruses and bowels perforated from it every year. What you mean is, "it's safe enough for these women".

Nothing is a zero risk KG. Are you proposing that all these procedures routinely done in a doctor's office be done under hospital conditions then because there is a slight risk of serious complications? Or, does this only apply to abortion?

I'm saying people who downplay the degree of risk, in conjunction with fighting any sort of reasonable oversight and safety measures that reduce risk, have something to hide and view women as dispensable.

 

[David_42]

Abortion Is Safe

The rationale behind the campaign to single out abortion clinics for special treatment is that abortion is inherently dangerous; however, the facts say otherwise. Abortion is an extremely safe medical procedure. Less than 0.3% of abortion patients in the United States experience a complication that requires hospitalization.1 The risk of dying from a legal abortion in the first trimester—when almost nine in 10 abortions in the United States are performed—is no more than four in a million.2 In fact, the risk of death from childbirth is about 14 times higher than that from abortion.3


Nearly all U.S. abortions take place in nonhospital settings,4 and data going back decades confirm the safety of these procedures. In fact, in 1983, the Supreme Court held in Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health that requirements that abortions be performed in hospitals during the second trimester of pregnancy could not be justified on the basis of protecting the woman’s health and safety. Research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on abortions performed between 1974 and 1977 found no difference in the risk of death between procedures performed in a hospital and those performed in a clinic or a physician’s office.5 More recent studies have also found low complication rates for abortions performed in outpatient settings.6,7


According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), providing abortions in the context of private practice is entirely appropriate, as long as physicians who do so in their offices are equipped to handle any emergencies that arise.8 In 2008, 18,000 abortions were provided in physicians’ offices in the United States.4 And beyond the United States, this question has arisen as well, leading the World Health Organization (WHO) to make clear that abortions can safely be performed not only in outpatient clinics, but also in physicians’ offices.9 WHO guidelines state that regulation of abortion providers and settings “should be based on evidence of best practices and be aimed at ensuring safety, good quality and accessibility.”


One reason that the procedure is so safe in the United States is that providers have rigorously developed evidence-based standards to follow. The National Abortion Federation (NAF) first published its Clinical Policy Guidelines in 1996, which are updated annually using a process developed by a scientific advisor affiliated with the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.10 The NAF standards are intended to provide a basis for ongoing quality assurance and include standards on a wide range of topics, such as infection prevention; use of antibiotics, analgesia and sedation; and treatment of complications. Adherence to the guidelines is a condition of membership; all members of the organization are assessed when they apply to join the organization and on a regular basis thereafter. Noting that “optimal management of abortion emergencies reduces morbidity,” the NAF standards have detailed provisions relating to emergency care when needed. For example, they require that functioning equipment and medication be available on-site to handle emergencies. The guidelines also require protocols for the management of medical emergencies and emergency transport, and written and readily available directions for contacting external emergency assistance. Planned Parenthood Federation of America maintains similarly detailed requirements for affiliates offering abortion services.

...

Abortion Is the Real Target
Promoting health and safety—including in clinic settings and practices—is a fundamental rationale for states having a role in licensing any health care facility. For example, regulations in South Carolina say that “health licensing has the ultimate goal of ensuring that individuals…are provided appropriate care and services in a manner and, in an environment that promotes their health, safety, and well-being.” In Pennsylvania, the state’s regulations set standards that are intended to “promote the health, safety and adequate care of the patients.”

In the case of TRAP laws, however, Mississippi’s governor was just more candid than most abortion opponents when he made it clear that the goal is entirely different. The Washington Post characterized Virginia’s law, for example, as an “ideological crusade masquerading as concern for public health.”24 Indeed, if these increasingly burdensome TRAP laws are allowed to stand, they may prove remarkably successful in accomplishing what decades of restrictions, protests and even outright violence failed to do. Clinics have already closed in Pennsylvania, Virginia and Tennessee. And the last clinic in the entire state of Mississippi is perilously close to being shuttered.

Whether other advocates of TRAP laws are honest enough to admit their true purpose, as lawmakers in Mississippi have, these laws must be seen for what they truly are. Mallory Quigley, spokeswoman for the antiabortion Susan B. Anthony List, described Virginia’s approach as “common sense regulations.”25 They do seem to be increasingly common, but they only make sense if the goal is to make abortion less accessible.

Yeah, tell that to the women who die, who get their uteruses and bowels perforated from it every year. What you mean is, "it's safe enough for these women".

Nothing is a zero risk KG. Are you proposing that all these procedures routinely done in a doctor's office be done under hospital conditions then because there is a slight risk of serious complications? Or, does this only apply to abortion?

I'm saying people who downplay the degree of risk, in conjunction with fighting any sort of reasonable oversight and safety measures that reduce risk, have something to hide and view women as dispensable.

Yeah, sounds like those people who want to force mothers to have c sections..

 

[Coyote]

Abortion Is Safe

The rationale behind the campaign to single out abortion clinics for special treatment is that abortion is inherently dangerous; however, the facts say otherwise. Abortion is an extremely safe medical procedure. Less than 0.3% of abortion patients in the United States experience a complication that requires hospitalization.1 The risk of dying from a legal abortion in the first trimester—when almost nine in 10 abortions in the United States are performed—is no more than four in a million.2 In fact, the risk of death from childbirth is about 14 times higher than that from abortion.3


Nearly all U.S. abortions take place in nonhospital settings,4 and data going back decades confirm the safety of these procedures. In fact, in 1983, the Supreme Court held in Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health that requirements that abortions be performed in hospitals during the second trimester of pregnancy could not be justified on the basis of protecting the woman’s health and safety. Research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on abortions performed between 1974 and 1977 found no difference in the risk of death between procedures performed in a hospital and those performed in a clinic or a physician’s office.5 More recent studies have also found low complication rates for abortions performed in outpatient settings.6,7


According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), providing abortions in the context of private practice is entirely appropriate, as long as physicians who do so in their offices are equipped to handle any emergencies that arise.8 In 2008, 18,000 abortions were provided in physicians’ offices in the United States.4 And beyond the United States, this question has arisen as well, leading the World Health Organization (WHO) to make clear that abortions can safely be performed not only in outpatient clinics, but also in physicians’ offices.9 WHO guidelines state that regulation of abortion providers and settings “should be based on evidence of best practices and be aimed at ensuring safety, good quality and accessibility.”


One reason that the procedure is so safe in the United States is that providers have rigorously developed evidence-based standards to follow. The National Abortion Federation (NAF) first published its Clinical Policy Guidelines in 1996, which are updated annually using a process developed by a scientific advisor affiliated with the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.10 The NAF standards are intended to provide a basis for ongoing quality assurance and include standards on a wide range of topics, such as infection prevention; use of antibiotics, analgesia and sedation; and treatment of complications. Adherence to the guidelines is a condition of membership; all members of the organization are assessed when they apply to join the organization and on a regular basis thereafter. Noting that “optimal management of abortion emergencies reduces morbidity,” the NAF standards have detailed provisions relating to emergency care when needed. For example, they require that functioning equipment and medication be available on-site to handle emergencies. The guidelines also require protocols for the management of medical emergencies and emergency transport, and written and readily available directions for contacting external emergency assistance. Planned Parenthood Federation of America maintains similarly detailed requirements for affiliates offering abortion services.

...

Abortion Is the Real Target
Promoting health and safety—including in clinic settings and practices—is a fundamental rationale for states having a role in licensing any health care facility. For example, regulations in South Carolina say that “health licensing has the ultimate goal of ensuring that individuals…are provided appropriate care and services in a manner and, in an environment that promotes their health, safety, and well-being.” In Pennsylvania, the state’s regulations set standards that are intended to “promote the health, safety and adequate care of the patients.”

In the case of TRAP laws, however, Mississippi’s governor was just more candid than most abortion opponents when he made it clear that the goal is entirely different. The Washington Post characterized Virginia’s law, for example, as an “ideological crusade masquerading as concern for public health.”24 Indeed, if these increasingly burdensome TRAP laws are allowed to stand, they may prove remarkably successful in accomplishing what decades of restrictions, protests and even outright violence failed to do. Clinics have already closed in Pennsylvania, Virginia and Tennessee. And the last clinic in the entire state of Mississippi is perilously close to being shuttered.

Whether other advocates of TRAP laws are honest enough to admit their true purpose, as lawmakers in Mississippi have, these laws must be seen for what they truly are. Mallory Quigley, spokeswoman for the antiabortion Susan B. Anthony List, described Virginia’s approach as “common sense regulations.”25 They do seem to be increasingly common, but they only make sense if the goal is to make abortion less accessible.

Yeah, tell that to the women who die, who get their uteruses and bowels perforated from it every year. What you mean is, "it's safe enough for these women".

Nothing is a zero risk KG. Are you proposing that all these procedures routinely done in a doctor's office be done under hospital conditions then because there is a slight risk of serious complications? Or, does this only apply to abortion?

I'm saying people who downplay the degree of risk, in conjunction with fighting any sort of reasonable oversight and safety measures that reduce risk, have something to hide and view women as dispensable.

The risk is what it is - minimal, until you get to later in the pregnancy. That is not downplayed.

There is oversight and safety measures (as pointed out in the article I quoted) - there are stringent "best practice" guidelines that practioners have to sign on to. That is most certainly not viewing women as "dispenbsible". If so, then are men viewed as dispensible since those same practices (as per the new laws some states now require) aren't required in vasectimies - where they are actually cut into?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Abortion Is Safe

The rationale behind the campaign to single out abortion clinics for special treatment is that abortion is inherently dangerous; however, the facts say otherwise. Abortion is an extremely safe medical procedure. Less than 0.3% of abortion patients in the United States experience a complication that requires hospitalization.1 The risk of dying from a legal abortion in the first trimester—when almost nine in 10 abortions in the United States are performed—is no more than four in a million.2 In fact, the risk of death from childbirth is about 14 times higher than that from abortion.3


Nearly all U.S. abortions take place in nonhospital settings,4 and data going back decades confirm the safety of these procedures. In fact, in 1983, the Supreme Court held in Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health that requirements that abortions be performed in hospitals during the second trimester of pregnancy could not be justified on the basis of protecting the woman’s health and safety. Research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on abortions performed between 1974 and 1977 found no difference in the risk of death between procedures performed in a hospital and those performed in a clinic or a physician’s office.5 More recent studies have also found low complication rates for abortions performed in outpatient settings.6,7


According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), providing abortions in the context of private practice is entirely appropriate, as long as physicians who do so in their offices are equipped to handle any emergencies that arise.8 In 2008, 18,000 abortions were provided in physicians’ offices in the United States.4 And beyond the United States, this question has arisen as well, leading the World Health Organization (WHO) to make clear that abortions can safely be performed not only in outpatient clinics, but also in physicians’ offices.9 WHO guidelines state that regulation of abortion providers and settings “should be based on evidence of best practices and be aimed at ensuring safety, good quality and accessibility.”


One reason that the procedure is so safe in the United States is that providers have rigorously developed evidence-based standards to follow. The National Abortion Federation (NAF) first published its Clinical Policy Guidelines in 1996, which are updated annually using a process developed by a scientific advisor affiliated with the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.10 The NAF standards are intended to provide a basis for ongoing quality assurance and include standards on a wide range of topics, such as infection prevention; use of antibiotics, analgesia and sedation; and treatment of complications. Adherence to the guidelines is a condition of membership; all members of the organization are assessed when they apply to join the organization and on a regular basis thereafter. Noting that “optimal management of abortion emergencies reduces morbidity,” the NAF standards have detailed provisions relating to emergency care when needed. For example, they require that functioning equipment and medication be available on-site to handle emergencies. The guidelines also require protocols for the management of medical emergencies and emergency transport, and written and readily available directions for contacting external emergency assistance. Planned Parenthood Federation of America maintains similarly detailed requirements for affiliates offering abortion services.

...

Abortion Is the Real Target
Promoting health and safety—including in clinic settings and practices—is a fundamental rationale for states having a role in licensing any health care facility. For example, regulations in South Carolina say that “health licensing has the ultimate goal of ensuring that individuals…are provided appropriate care and services in a manner and, in an environment that promotes their health, safety, and well-being.” In Pennsylvania, the state’s regulations set standards that are intended to “promote the health, safety and adequate care of the patients.”

In the case of TRAP laws, however, Mississippi’s governor was just more candid than most abortion opponents when he made it clear that the goal is entirely different. The Washington Post characterized Virginia’s law, for example, as an “ideological crusade masquerading as concern for public health.”24 Indeed, if these increasingly burdensome TRAP laws are allowed to stand, they may prove remarkably successful in accomplishing what decades of restrictions, protests and even outright violence failed to do. Clinics have already closed in Pennsylvania, Virginia and Tennessee. And the last clinic in the entire state of Mississippi is perilously close to being shuttered.

Whether other advocates of TRAP laws are honest enough to admit their true purpose, as lawmakers in Mississippi have, these laws must be seen for what they truly are. Mallory Quigley, spokeswoman for the antiabortion Susan B. Anthony List, described Virginia’s approach as “common sense regulations.”25 They do seem to be increasingly common, but they only make sense if the goal is to make abortion less accessible.

Yeah, tell that to the women who die, who get their uteruses and bowels perforated from it every year. What you mean is, "it's safe enough for these women".

Nothing is a zero risk KG. Are you proposing that all these procedures routinely done in a doctor's office be done under hospital conditions then because there is a slight risk of serious complications? Or, does this only apply to abortion?

I'm saying people who downplay the degree of risk, in conjunction with fighting any sort of reasonable oversight and safety measures that reduce risk, have something to hide and view women as dispensable.

The risk is what it is - minimal, until you get to later in the pregnancy. That is not downplayed.

There is oversight and safety measures (as pointed out in the article I quoted) - there are stringent "best practice" guidelines that practioners have to sign on to. That is most certainly not viewing women as "dispenbsible". If so, then are men viewed as dispensible since those same practices (as per the new laws some states now require) aren't required in vasectimies - where they are actually cut into?

The problem is those on the social right perceive the privacy rights of women to be "dispenbsible."