Pro-Abortionists are against regulations! Major decisions in Texas.

[Syriusly]

Wow, Doctors actually see a need to perform abortions and hospitals. Doctors also describe abortion as a surgical procedure, that certainly flies in the face of some of these uninformed posts.

As you ignore all of the posts that show exactly the opposite- and ignore the AMA and the American College of Obstetrcians and Gynecologists

But medical groups have lined up behind the Center for Reproductive Rights, which is challenging the law, to say the requirements aren't necessary.

"Abortion is a very safe procedure, and complications requiring hospital admission are extremely rare," the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Medical Association (AMA) said in a joint amicus brief filed in a 2013 appeal against the law.

"There is no medical basis to require abortion providers to have local hospital-admitting privileges. Emergency room physicians, hospital-based physicians, and on-call specialists already provide prompt and effective treatment to all patients with urgent medical needs, including women with abortion-related complications," it added.

"There is no medical basis to require abortion providers to have local hospital admitting privileges."
"Moreover, there is no medically sound reason for Texas to impose more stringent requirements on abortion facilities than it does on other medical facilities that perform procedures with similar, or even greater, risks."

These include colonoscopies, laser eye surgery and vasectomies. Women can get very similar procedures to abortions, for instance when they're having a miscarriage, in a doctor's office in many state

 

[Syriusly]

[
To compare, here are some estimates about deaths related to liposuction :
What are the Risks or Complications?

"Some of the studies indicate that the risk of death due to liposuction is as low as 3 deaths for every 100,000 liposuction operations performed. However, other studies indicate that the risk of death is between 20 and 100 deaths per 100,000 liposuction procedures. One study suggests that the death rate is higher in liposuction surgeries in which other surgical procedures are also performed at the same time. In order to understand the size of the risk, one paper compares the deaths from liposuction to that for deaths from car accidents (16 per 100,000). It is important to remember that liposuction is a surgical procedure and that there may be serious complications, including death."

Here is the CDC reporting on abortion related deaths from 2008 :
Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2009

"In 2008, the most recent year for which data were available, 12 women were reported to have died as a result of complications from known legal induced abortions. No reported deaths were associated with known illegal induced abortions."

Here is a report that deaths occur at a rate of 1/3000 to 1/30000 colonoscopies :
When to Worry About the Risks of Colonoscopy

Based on those numbers, what makes abortions in particular need of these regulations which, at least so far as I know, don't apply to other outpatient procedures with higher risk of death?

If Texas requires the same types of things from things like colonoscopy and liposuction, that's a different story.

Moral equivalency is not an argument

That doesn't answer my question. Why do abortions need these new regulations that other outpatient procedures with greater risk of death do not? Or do you think that all such procedures should have the same regulations, and if so, why do you think the Texas legislature only included abortions?

The point, of course, is that limiting the regulation to abortions makes it appear to be an attempt to limit abortions rather than make them safer in any way.

It is determined that abortion related deaths are are .5% per 100,000 and Colonoscopy deaths are .00003% of 100,000,000 and you think that is about the same? The .00003% is of the total number of Colonoscopies between 1966-2001

Give it a rest, this regulation just means your abortion doctor does not get to drive a brand new mercedes benz every year.

So are you against all doctors driving brand new Mercedes- or just the ones doing procedures you do not approve of because of your own personal beliefs?

Apparently you are fine with the Colonoscopy doctors and Botox doctors driving new cars- but not those that only help women.

 

[elektra]

Wow, Doctors actually see a need to perform abortions and hospitals. Doctors also describe abortion as a surgical procedure, that certainly flies in the face of some of these uninformed posts.

As you ignore all of the posts that show exactly the opposite- and ignore the AMA and the American College of Obstetrcians and Gynecologists

But medical groups have lined up behind the Center for Reproductive Rights, which is challenging the law, to say the requirements aren't necessary.

"Abortion is a very safe procedure, and complications requiring hospital admission are extremely rare," the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Medical Association (AMA) said in a joint amicus brief filed in a 2013 appeal against the law.

"There is no medical basis to require abortion providers to have local hospital-admitting privileges. Emergency room physicians, hospital-based physicians, and on-call specialists already provide prompt and effective treatment to all patients with urgent medical needs, including women with abortion-related complications," it added.

"There is no medical basis to require abortion providers to have local hospital admitting privileges."
"Moreover, there is no medically sound reason for Texas to impose more stringent requirements on abortion facilities than it does on other medical facilities that perform procedures with similar, or even greater, risks."

These include colonoscopies, laser eye surgery and vasectomies. Women can get very similar procedures to abortions, for instance when they're having a miscarriage, in a doctor's office in many state

If there are no medical reasons, why do hospitals write, Admitting Privileges into thier rules, regulations, and or by-laws?

 

[Syriusly]

Wow, Doctors actually see a need to perform abortions and hospitals. Doctors also describe abortion as a surgical procedure, that certainly flies in the face of some of these uninformed posts.

As you ignore all of the posts that show exactly the opposite- and ignore the AMA and the American College of Obstetrcians and Gynecologists

But medical groups have lined up behind the Center for Reproductive Rights, which is challenging the law, to say the requirements aren't necessary.

"Abortion is a very safe procedure, and complications requiring hospital admission are extremely rare," the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Medical Association (AMA) said in a joint amicus brief filed in a 2013 appeal against the law.

"There is no medical basis to require abortion providers to have local hospital-admitting privileges. Emergency room physicians, hospital-based physicians, and on-call specialists already provide prompt and effective treatment to all patients with urgent medical needs, including women with abortion-related complications," it added.

"There is no medical basis to require abortion providers to have local hospital admitting privileges."
"Moreover, there is no medically sound reason for Texas to impose more stringent requirements on abortion facilities than it does on other medical facilities that perform procedures with similar, or even greater, risks."

These include colonoscopies, laser eye surgery and vasectomies. Women can get very similar procedures to abortions, for instance when they're having a miscarriage, in a doctor's office in many state

If there are no medical reasons, why do hospitals write, Admitting Privileges into thier rules, regulations, and or by-laws?

As you once again ignore the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

"Abortion is a very safe procedure, and complications requiring hospital admission are extremely rare," the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Medical Association (AMA) said in a joint amicus brief filed in a 2013 appeal against the law.

"There is no medical basis to require abortion providers to have local hospital-admitting privileges. Emergency room physicians, hospital-based physicians, and on-call specialists already provide prompt and effective treatment to all patients with urgent medical needs, including women with abortion-related complications," it added.

"There is no medical basis to require abortion providers to have local hospital admitting privileges."
"Moreover, there is no medically sound reason for Texas to impose more stringent requirements on abortion facilities than it does on other medical facilities that perform procedures with similar, or even greater, risks."

These include colonoscopies, laser eye surgery and vasectomies. Women can get very similar procedures to abortions, for instance when they're having a miscarriage, in a doctor's office in many state

 

[WorldWatcher]

So why are you objecting to doctors having the equipment to handle those risk.

I'm not.

I've said multiple times that I have no issue with the 30 mile limit, the Admission Privileges, and the ASC facilities requirements as long as they apply to all outpatient surgical facilities. That would include oral surgeons, cosmetic surgeons, Gastroenterologist performing colonoscopies, etc.

Many of the procedures/specialties listed above have higher rates of complications then early state abortion providers and we should protect all patients by making sure the doctors have the equipment and privileges to handle those risks - right?


>>>>

 

[Montrovant]

The link you posted back in post #61 says that there are 0.7 abortion-related deaths per 100,000 abortions. Is that a great deal more than other outpatient, no hospital admission privilege required procedures? It is a smaller number than the stats I found and linked to for liposuction and colonoscopy (two examples another poster gave of procedures done outside a hospital setting which do not have the same requirements as abortions do under the bill in question). If deaths are not the issue, what is?

If the worry is about emergency care due to complications, no admitting privileges are needed. Hospitals will not turn away a patient with a medical emergency. Whether the doctor has admission privileges or not, the patient will be accepted in the ER if they have a medical emergency.

Do you need to cite history or research details? No, of course not. However, if you do not have any specifics as to why requiring hospital admission privileges is important, why should anyone simply take your word for it? For example, I live with a former ER and current surgery center nurse who is against abortions. She didn't see any need for abortion doctors to have hospital admission privileges when I brought the subject up to her.

Perhaps there is an insurance or liability related reason for these doctors to have admission privileges. That is not a question of the health or safety of women having abortions, which is what you have been saying makes this a reasonable regulation. Nor does it explain why such would only be important in the case of abortions and not other outpatient, non-hospital procedures.

I never said that abortion was the same as a colonoscopy. I merely used statistics about deaths due to colonoscopy complications as a comparison.

Not agreeing with this bill means I "will not give one inch in the battle to keep abortion as easy as pie, available anywhere at anytime."? That's quite a stretch.

So forcing businesses to move and/or spend more money to operate, with little or no discernible improvement to health care, is something you approve of? People die from colonoscopies, they are not statistics. People die from liposuction, they are not statistics. People die from dental procedures, they are not statistics. Despite the various procedures done outside a hospital by doctors who are not required to have admission privileges, you seem to have no problem with that. Only in the case of abortion do you see this regulation as important, from what you have said here.

No, your stats stated the opposite, I notice you never ever quoted your stat. I did and you ignore it each time. If you have to ignore your own link, you are now simply a liar.

Either way, you can not post your statistic so that is where your argument lies.

What are you talking about? I've quoted from the link I provided. Do I need to do so again?

From the colonoscopy link : "Death occurred in about 1/30,000 to 1/3,000 colonoscopies."

From the liposuction link : "Some of the studies indicate that the risk of death due to liposuction is as low as 3 deaths for every 100,000 liposuction operations performed. However, other studies indicate that the risk of death is between 20 and 100 deaths per 100,000 liposuction procedures. One study suggests that the death rate is higher in liposuction surgeries in which other surgical procedures are also performed at the same time. In order to understand the size of the risk, one paper compares the deaths from liposuction to that for deaths from car accidents (16 per 100,000). It is important to remember that liposuction is a surgical procedure and that there may be serious complications, including death."

From your own link, which you quoted in post #61 : "During 1988–1997, the overall death rate for women obtaining legally induced abortions was 0.7 per 100,000 legal induced abortions."

So we have colonoscopy deaths at between 3.3 and 33.3 per 100,000, liposuction deaths between 3 and 100 per 100,000, and abortion deaths at 0.7 per 100,000. Which part of the statistics provided here, which I have quoted previously, do you take issue with?

I never addressed your liposuction link, not once.

The colonoscopy link, your link, is a different link that you have refused to quote, you know that, and now that you lump the 2 together you are a liar.

Lie if you wish, as you have, we can see that your argument us vased on lies.

I haven't lied. Go look at post #117 where I quote from the colonoscopy link. Further, I provided the link and pointed out the numbers provided on the site. You can easily open the link and see that is says exactly what I've quoted it as saying, that death occurred in about 1/30,000 to 1/3,000 colonoscopies. You must have looked at the site since you talked about the period of time from which the statistics were obtained.

You, on the other hand, have posted a quote from your own link which says that death occurred in abortions 0.7 times per 100,000 legal abortions, yet you have claimed the number is 700 times per 100,000 abortions. Perhaps you should worry about your own possible lies rather than falsely accusing me of lying.

By the way, here is post #117 :

Third, the link I provided said that death occurred in about 0.003 to 0.03 percent of colonoscopies, not of every 100,000 colonoscopies. It went on to say that death occurred in between 1/3,000 and 1/30,000 colonoscopies. That would be between 3.3 and 33.3 deaths per 100,000 colonoscopies, .

Wrong again, your link covers the total for a period of 35 years, if I average 5,000,000 per year, it would be well over 150,000,000 procedures.

Your link:
When to Worry About the Risks of Colonoscopy

When researchers reviewed colon cancer screening data from 1966 to 2001, they discovered the following:

• Death occurred in about 0.003 percent to 0.03 percent of colonoscopies.

You just quoted me saying exactly the same thing the article does, and somehow that is wrong?

According to the link I provided, a colonoscopy related death occurs once in every 3,000 to 30,000 colonoscopies. That is between 3.3 and 33.3 deaths in every 100,000 colonoscopies.

When researchers reviewed colon cancer screening data from 1966 to 2001, they discovered the following:

• Perforation occurred in 0.029 percent to 0.72 percent of colonoscopies.

• Heavy bleeding occurred in 0.2 percent to 2.67 percent of colonoscopies.
• Death occurred in about 0.003 percent to 0.03 percent of colonoscopies.

Put another way:

• Perforation occurred in about 1/3,450 to 1/139 colonoscopies.
• Heavy bleeding occurred in about 1/500 to 1/37 colonoscopies.
• Death occurred in about 1/30,000 to 1/3,000 colonoscopies.

I pointed out that the long time period looked at makes it a bit difficult to know if those numbers apply today.

I'll ask again, what statistics which I have provided are you questioning?

Your link covers a period of 35 years, and you have not shown it to be different than as I qouted.

Have I once denied that the colonoscopy link gathered statistics from a 35 year period? I have, in fact, commented multiple times about the fact that it makes it questionable as to whether colonoscopies have the same risk of death today.

I notice you didn't bother to retract your claim that I did not quote from the site. You also have not addressed the fact that in the link you provided, in fact in the part you quoted, it states that death from legal abortions happened at a rate of 0.7 deaths per 100,000 abortions, not the 700 you claimed earlier in the thread. Is it acceptable for you to make accusations about me lying which are demonstrably false, while leaving your own false statements out there unaddressed?

 

[Dovahkiin]

 

[OKTexas]

So why are you objecting to doctors having the equipment to handle those risk.

I'm not.

I've said multiple times that I have no issue with the 30 mile limit, the Admission Privileges, and the ASC facilities requirements as long as they apply to all outpatient surgical facilities. That would include oral surgeons, cosmetic surgeons, Gastroenterologist performing colonoscopies, etc.

Many of the procedures/specialties listed above have higher rates of complications then early state abortion providers and we should protect all patients by making sure the doctors have the equipment and privileges to handle those risks - right?


>>>>

They also have a much smaller risk of major hemorrhaging.

 

[elektra]

No, your stats stated the opposite, I notice you never ever quoted your stat. I did and you ignore it each time. If you have to ignore your own link, you are now simply a liar.

Either way, you can not post your statistic so that is where your argument lies.

What are you talking about? I've quoted from the link I provided. Do I need to do so again?

From the colonoscopy link : "Death occurred in about 1/30,000 to 1/3,000 colonoscopies."

From the liposuction link : "Some of the studies indicate that the risk of death due to liposuction is as low as 3 deaths for every 100,000 liposuction operations performed. However, other studies indicate that the risk of death is between 20 and 100 deaths per 100,000 liposuction procedures. One study suggests that the death rate is higher in liposuction surgeries in which other surgical procedures are also performed at the same time. In order to understand the size of the risk, one paper compares the deaths from liposuction to that for deaths from car accidents (16 per 100,000). It is important to remember that liposuction is a surgical procedure and that there may be serious complications, including death."

From your own link, which you quoted in post #61 : "During 1988–1997, the overall death rate for women obtaining legally induced abortions was 0.7 per 100,000 legal induced abortions."

So we have colonoscopy deaths at between 3.3 and 33.3 per 100,000, liposuction deaths between 3 and 100 per 100,000, and abortion deaths at 0.7 per 100,000. Which part of the statistics provided here, which I have quoted previously, do you take issue with?

I never addressed your liposuction link, not once.

The colonoscopy link, your link, is a different link that you have refused to quote, you know that, and now that you lump the 2 together you are a liar.

Lie if you wish, as you have, we can see that your argument us vased on lies.

I haven't lied. Go look at post #117 where I quote from the colonoscopy link. Further, I provided the link and pointed out the numbers provided on the site. You can easily open the link and see that is says exactly what I've quoted it as saying, that death occurred in about 1/30,000 to 1/3,000 colonoscopies. You must have looked at the site since you talked about the period of time from which the statistics were obtained.

You, on the other hand, have posted a quote from your own link which says that death occurred in abortions 0.7 times per 100,000 legal abortions, yet you have claimed the number is 700 times per 100,000 abortions. Perhaps you should worry about your own possible lies rather than falsely accusing me of lying.

By the way, here is post #117 :

Third, the link I provided said that death occurred in about 0.003 to 0.03 percent of colonoscopies, not of every 100,000 colonoscopies. It went on to say that death occurred in between 1/3,000 and 1/30,000 colonoscopies. That would be between 3.3 and 33.3 deaths per 100,000 colonoscopies, .

Wrong again, your link covers the total for a period of 35 years, if I average 5,000,000 per year, it would be well over 150,000,000 procedures.

Your link:
When to Worry About the Risks of Colonoscopy

When researchers reviewed colon cancer screening data from 1966 to 2001, they discovered the following:

• Death occurred in about 0.003 percent to 0.03 percent of colonoscopies.

You just quoted me saying exactly the same thing the article does, and somehow that is wrong?

According to the link I provided, a colonoscopy related death occurs once in every 3,000 to 30,000 colonoscopies. That is between 3.3 and 33.3 deaths in every 100,000 colonoscopies.

When researchers reviewed colon cancer screening data from 1966 to 2001, they discovered the following:

• Perforation occurred in 0.029 percent to 0.72 percent of colonoscopies.

• Heavy bleeding occurred in 0.2 percent to 2.67 percent of colonoscopies.
• Death occurred in about 0.003 percent to 0.03 percent of colonoscopies.

Put another way:

• Perforation occurred in about 1/3,450 to 1/139 colonoscopies.
• Heavy bleeding occurred in about 1/500 to 1/37 colonoscopies.
• Death occurred in about 1/30,000 to 1/3,000 colonoscopies.

I pointed out that the long time period looked at makes it a bit difficult to know if those numbers apply today.

I'll ask again, what statistics which I have provided are you questioning?

Your link covers a period of 35 years, and you have not shown it to be different than as I qouted.

Have I once denied that the colonoscopy link gathered statistics from a 35 year period? I have, in fact, commented multiple times about the fact that it makes it questionable as to whether colonoscopies have the same risk of death today.

I notice you didn't bother to retract your claim that I did not quote from the site. You also have not addressed the fact that in the link you provided, in fact in the part you quoted, it states that death from legal abortions happened at a rate of 0.7 deaths per 100,000 abortions, not the 700 you claimed earlier in the thread. Is it acceptable for you to make accusations about me lying which are demonstrably false, while leaving your own false statements out there unaddressed?

That is the first time you stated your colonoscopy statistics cover 35 years. You did state that it was per 100,000. More than once. I stated .7 of a 100,000 which is 700. I stand by that, .7 of 100,000 is 700.

You ducked, and dodged, it is as simple as that. I am glad if you admit mistakes, I did in this thread, you read it, it was in response to you, go back and read, I can quote it.

It aint that big of a deal, I knew you were making a mistake when you stated and saw how, it is easy to misread things in the heat of the boards. Lighten up, I do not need to rub your nose in it, but I am not going to allow you to not realize what was a simple mistake, no more. I know it is hard to admit, for it is part of the key arguments. And it happens to fail, a colonoscopy is by far safer than abortion, and is very much different.

 

[Montrovant]

What are you talking about? I've quoted from the link I provided. Do I need to do so again?

From the colonoscopy link : "Death occurred in about 1/30,000 to 1/3,000 colonoscopies."

From the liposuction link : "Some of the studies indicate that the risk of death due to liposuction is as low as 3 deaths for every 100,000 liposuction operations performed. However, other studies indicate that the risk of death is between 20 and 100 deaths per 100,000 liposuction procedures. One study suggests that the death rate is higher in liposuction surgeries in which other surgical procedures are also performed at the same time. In order to understand the size of the risk, one paper compares the deaths from liposuction to that for deaths from car accidents (16 per 100,000). It is important to remember that liposuction is a surgical procedure and that there may be serious complications, including death."

From your own link, which you quoted in post #61 : "During 1988–1997, the overall death rate for women obtaining legally induced abortions was 0.7 per 100,000 legal induced abortions."

So we have colonoscopy deaths at between 3.3 and 33.3 per 100,000, liposuction deaths between 3 and 100 per 100,000, and abortion deaths at 0.7 per 100,000. Which part of the statistics provided here, which I have quoted previously, do you take issue with?

I never addressed your liposuction link, not once.

The colonoscopy link, your link, is a different link that you have refused to quote, you know that, and now that you lump the 2 together you are a liar.

Lie if you wish, as you have, we can see that your argument us vased on lies.

I haven't lied. Go look at post #117 where I quote from the colonoscopy link. Further, I provided the link and pointed out the numbers provided on the site. You can easily open the link and see that is says exactly what I've quoted it as saying, that death occurred in about 1/30,000 to 1/3,000 colonoscopies. You must have looked at the site since you talked about the period of time from which the statistics were obtained.

You, on the other hand, have posted a quote from your own link which says that death occurred in abortions 0.7 times per 100,000 legal abortions, yet you have claimed the number is 700 times per 100,000 abortions. Perhaps you should worry about your own possible lies rather than falsely accusing me of lying.

By the way, here is post #117 :

Wrong again, your link covers the total for a period of 35 years, if I average 5,000,000 per year, it would be well over 150,000,000 procedures.

Your link:
When to Worry About the Risks of Colonoscopy

You just quoted me saying exactly the same thing the article does, and somehow that is wrong?

According to the link I provided, a colonoscopy related death occurs once in every 3,000 to 30,000 colonoscopies. That is between 3.3 and 33.3 deaths in every 100,000 colonoscopies.

When researchers reviewed colon cancer screening data from 1966 to 2001, they discovered the following:

• Perforation occurred in 0.029 percent to 0.72 percent of colonoscopies.

• Heavy bleeding occurred in 0.2 percent to 2.67 percent of colonoscopies.
• Death occurred in about 0.003 percent to 0.03 percent of colonoscopies.

Put another way:

• Perforation occurred in about 1/3,450 to 1/139 colonoscopies.
• Heavy bleeding occurred in about 1/500 to 1/37 colonoscopies.
• Death occurred in about 1/30,000 to 1/3,000 colonoscopies.

I pointed out that the long time period looked at makes it a bit difficult to know if those numbers apply today.

I'll ask again, what statistics which I have provided are you questioning?

Your link covers a period of 35 years, and you have not shown it to be different than as I qouted.

Have I once denied that the colonoscopy link gathered statistics from a 35 year period? I have, in fact, commented multiple times about the fact that it makes it questionable as to whether colonoscopies have the same risk of death today.

I notice you didn't bother to retract your claim that I did not quote from the site. You also have not addressed the fact that in the link you provided, in fact in the part you quoted, it states that death from legal abortions happened at a rate of 0.7 deaths per 100,000 abortions, not the 700 you claimed earlier in the thread. Is it acceptable for you to make accusations about me lying which are demonstrably false, while leaving your own false statements out there unaddressed?

That is the first time you stated your colonoscopy statistics cover 35 years. You did state that it was per 100,000. More than once. I stated .7 of a 100,000 which is 700. I stand by that, .7 of 100,000 is 700.

You ducked, and dodged, it is as simple as that. I am glad if you admit mistakes, I did in this thread, you read it, it was in response to you, go back and read, I can quote it.

It aint that big of a deal, I knew you were making a mistake when you stated and saw how, it is easy to misread things in the heat of the boards. Lighten up, I do not need to rub your nose in it, but I am not going to allow you to not realize what was a simple mistake, no more. I know it is hard to admit, for it is part of the key arguments. And it happens to fail, a colonoscopy is by far safer than abortion, and is very much different.

What are you talking about?

I said multiple times that the colonoscopy stats covered a long period and that, because of that long time period, it is hard to know if the death rate is the same in more recent procedures. Is it a mistake if I didn't specify 35 years? I didn't say the stats were for some shorter time period. I honestly do not understand what mistake you think I made regarding that. I have 'ducked and dodged' nothing. I never denied the colonoscopy stats were from the time period stated in the link. If you think I did, you are free to quote me saying so.

The link you provided, which you quoted back in post #61, says 0.7 deaths per 100,000 legal abortions. It does not say 0.7%.

 

[elektra]

What are you talking about? I've quoted from the link I provided. Do I need to do so again?

From the colonoscopy link : "Death occurred in about 1/30,000 to 1/3,000 colonoscopies."

So we have colonoscopy deaths at between 3.3 and 33.3 per 100,000, liposuction deaths between 3 and 100 per 100,000, and abortion deaths at 0.7 per 100,000. Which part of the statistics provided here, which I have quoted previously, do you take issue with?

Simple mistakes happen, and if you do not remember, I guess it was a simple mistake, not trying to denigrate you, just saying if you do not remember, it is because it was simple mistake.

 

[elektra]

So are you against all doctors driving brand new Mercedes- or just the ones doing procedures you do not approve of because of your own personal beliefs?

Apparently you are fine with the Colonoscopy doctors and Botox doctors driving new cars- but not those that only help women.

Not at all, I am against hypocrites who get tax dollars, I am against them driving new Mercedes. Why should tax dollars buy you a Mercedes?

 

[elektra]

[
"There is no medical basis to require abortion providers to have local hospital admitting privileges."

If there are no medical reasons, why do hospitals write, Admitting Privileges into their rules, regulations, and or by-laws?

Watch syriusly dodge the rhetorical question, a 2nd time.

 

[elektra]

Wow is all I can say.
Listening to the News out of Texas today I was surprised that the people who claim to be saving a Women's life and health are protesting against Regulations that will require Doctors to perform abortions in a Hospital type of surgical room instead of a simple office.

Seems to make sense, life saving health procedures need to be performed in Hospitals or Clinics that are designed for surgical/emergency procedures.

The advocates argue, this is about Health, in many cases life saving procedures.
So how is it that Democrats who are all about Health and Science are suddenly against REGULATIONS?

Photo: More rallies outside US Supreme Court building in Washington, DC, before abortion case set to be argued Wednesday morning - @oyez

Editor's note: The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments this morning in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, a case that could determine how far states may go in regulating abortions without violating a woman’s constitutional rights. Two provisions of a Texas law are being challenged: one that requires abortion clinics to meet standards of ambulatory surgery centers, and one that requires abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

View attachment 65563

These regulations are specifically designed to close down clinics that provide services to poorer women and girls.

Hospitals still provide abortions.


And no one is "pro-abortion"...that's an idiot talking point word from the far-right.

Abortion is a private sadness, no one wants more. We want the freedom to choose -- a very hard choice for most -- and more clinics mean girls can make the choice early in the pregnancy, which everyone agrees is better than 2nd term or 3rd term if that is permitted by the state.

You are Anti-Abortion?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Pro-Abortionists are against regulations! Major decisions in Texas."

This is a lie.

Those who defend the privacy rights of women have no issue with appropriate, justified regulatory policy predicated on objective, documented evidence and facts.

But the Texas measures is neither appropriate nor just.

The measure manifests as an undue burden on the protected liberty of women to make personal, private decisions absent unwarranted interference from the state.

The Texas measure has no rational basis, there is no objective, documented evidence in support of the measure's provisions, and it pursues no proper legislative end.

Enacted in bad faith, it seeks only to prevent women from obtaining a legal, Constitutionally protected medical procedure motivated by subjective, personal beliefs on the part of some Texas lawmakers.

The measure should be invalidated by the Supreme Court, pursuant to settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

 

[elektra]

"Pro-Abortionists are against regulations! Major decisions in Texas."

This is a lie.

Those who defend the privacy rights of women have no issue with appropriate, justified regulatory policy predicated on objective, documented evidence and facts.

But the Texas measures is neither appropriate nor just.

The measure manifests as an undue burden on the protected liberty of women to make personal, private decisions absent unwarranted interference from the state.

The Texas measure has no rational basis, there is no objective, documented evidence in support of the measure's provisions, and it pursues no proper legislative end.

Enacted in bad faith, it seeks only to prevent women from obtaining a legal, Constitutionally protected medical procedure motivated by subjective, personal beliefs on the part of some Texas lawmakers.

The measure should be invalidated by the Supreme Court, pursuant to settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

Nice rant, did you make it up or copy it? Some of it is definitely copied, which is fine, just saying.

Safer Medical Procedures is a legitimate function of the state. This regulation does not prevent a woman from make a choice.

Medical Procedure? So there should be zero regulations in regards to medical procedures?

 

[Montrovant]

What are you talking about? I've quoted from the link I provided. Do I need to do so again?

From the colonoscopy link : "Death occurred in about 1/30,000 to 1/3,000 colonoscopies."

So we have colonoscopy deaths at between 3.3 and 33.3 per 100,000, liposuction deaths between 3 and 100 per 100,000, and abortion deaths at 0.7 per 100,000. Which part of the statistics provided here, which I have quoted previously, do you take issue with?

Simple mistakes happen, and if you do not remember, I guess it was a simple mistake, not trying to denigrate you, just saying if you do not remember, it is because it was simple mistake.

Hey, if I made a mistake, that's fine. However, you still have not actually said just what the mistake is. You just keep saying I made one without telling me exactly what the mistake is.

 

[Montrovant]

[
"There is no medical basis to require abortion providers to have local hospital admitting privileges."

If there are no medical reasons, why do hospitals write, Admitting Privileges into their rules, regulations, and or by-laws?

Watch syriusly dodge the rhetorical question, a 2nd time.

Dodge a rhetorical question?

 

[Syriusly]

[
"There is no medical basis to require abortion providers to have local hospital admitting privileges."

If there are no medical reasons, why do hospitals write, Admitting Privileges into their rules, regulations, and or by-laws?

Watch syriusly dodge the rhetorical question, a 2nd time.

Watch Elektra dodge the fact that the AMA and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists both say this law is not necessary.


As you once again ignore the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

"Abortion is a very safe procedure, and complications requiring hospital admission are extremely rare," the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Medical Association (AMA) said in a joint amicus brief filed in a 2013 appeal against the law.

"There is no medical basis to require abortion providers to have local hospital-admitting privileges. Emergency room physicians, hospital-based physicians, and on-call specialists already provide prompt and effective treatment to all patients with urgent medical needs, including women with abortion-related complications," it added.

"There is no medical basis to require abortion providers to have local hospital admitting privileges."
"Moreover, there is no medically sound reason for Texas to impose more stringent requirements on abortion facilities than it does on other medical facilities that perform procedures with similar, or even greater, risks."

These include colonoscopies, laser eye surgery and vasectomies. Women can get very similar procedures to abortions, for instance when they're having a miscarriage, in a doctor's office in many state

 

[elektra]

What are you talking about? I've quoted from the link I provided. Do I need to do so again?

From the colonoscopy link : "Death occurred in about 1/30,000 to 1/3,000 colonoscopies."

So we have colonoscopy deaths at between 3.3 and 33.3 per 100,000, liposuction deaths between 3 and 100 per 100,000, and abortion deaths at 0.7 per 100,000. Which part of the statistics provided here, which I have quoted previously, do you take issue with?

Simple mistakes happen, and if you do not remember, I guess it was a simple mistake, not trying to denigrate you, just saying if you do not remember, it is because it was simple mistake.

Hey, if I made a mistake, that's fine. However, you still have not actually said just what the mistake is. You just keep saying I made one without telling me exactly what the mistake is.

You ain't that brilliant are you, the following comment of yours is wrong, it looks like you pulled it out of your ass.


Pro-Abortionists are against regulations! Major decisions in Texas.

So we have colonoscopy deaths at between 3.3 and 33.3 per 100,000