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

[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.

Just because admitting privileges exist and exist for a reason does not mean that reason applies to clinics which perform abortions. I think the better question would be why do doctors who perform abortions need to have hospital admitting privileges?

Also, if you read what Syriusly posted, it is not he who said that, it is from a joint brief field by the American Medical Association and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. In a choice between two fairly large medical organizations and an anonymous poster on a message board who won't go into detail about why hospital admitting privileges are necessary for abortion doctors, I hope you can see why someone would trust the medical organizations more.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Millions of doctors are paid with tax dollars- from the doctors that work in the Veterans Administration and the military, to the doctors directly employed by the government as part of various government programs to provide medical services in rural areas and reservations, to the doctors whose salaries are paid in part through Medicaid and Medicare.

The only doctors who we know are not being paid with tax dollars, are the doctors performing abortions.

Tell us more about your imaginary 'new mercedes' though and how much you despise doctors.

 

[Syriusly]

"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?

As has been pointed out to you before- and which you ignore- like you ignore any facts that refute your position- these regulations have been put into place specifically to discriminate against women.

"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

Texas doesn't have these regulations for colonoscopies- which both men and women undergo- only for abortions- which only women undergo.

The regulation has nothing to do with regulating health procedures- it has only to do with discriminating against women.

 

[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.

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

The AMA, that is a Political organization, they are also funded by government, are they not?

 

[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?

Millions of doctors are paid with tax dollars- from the doctors that work in the Veterans Administration and the military, to the doctors directly employed by the government as part of various government programs to provide medical services in rural areas and reservations, to the doctors whose salaries are paid in part through Medicaid and Medicare.

The only doctors who we know are not being paid with tax dollars, are the doctors performing abortions.

Tell us more about your imaginary 'new mercedes' though and how much you despise doctors.

So you are saying that doctors are getting rich from charging poor women for abortions, buy brand new Mercedes, and that is okay with you. Nice to know.

 

[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.

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

You really do have a hard time with numbers it seems. I simply took the numbers provided in my link, 1/3,000 and 1/30,000, and adjusted them to indicate how many per 100,000. 1 per 30,000 is 3 1/3 per 100,000. 1 per 3,000 is 33 1/3 per 100,000. The mistake here seems to be in your understanding.

Here, let me break down a bit of it for you. If there is one death in every 30,000 colonoscopies, there would be 2 deaths in every 60,000 colonoscopies, 3 deaths in every 90,000 colonoscopies, and finally 3.333333.... deaths per 100,000 colonoscopies. I rounded the 1/3 decimal to simply .3.

Do you understand now?

 

[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.

Just because admitting privileges exist and exist for a reason does not mean that reason applies to clinics which perform abortions. I think the better question would be why do doctors who perform abortions need to have hospital admitting privileges?

Also, if you read what Syriusly posted, it is not he who said that, it is from a joint brief field by the American Medical Association and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. In a choice between two fairly large medical organizations and an anonymous poster on a message board who won't go into detail about why hospital admitting privileges are necessary for abortion doctors, I hope you can see why someone would trust the medical organizations more.

The answer to that is simply, Doctors who botch abortions and put a woman in a life threatening condition ought to go to the hospital and help save her life, after all, the Abortion Doctor ought to know exactly what he did to his patient.

 

[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

The AMA, that is a Political organization, they are also funded by government, are they not?

You don't even know who the hell the American Medical Association is? How can anyone this ignorant even manage to post?

The American Medical Association (AMA), founded in 1847 and incorporated in 1897,[3] is the largest association of physicians—both MDs and DOs—and medical students in the United States.[4]

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (The College), a 501(c)(3) organization, is the nation’s leading group of physicians providing health care for women. As a private, voluntary, nonprofit membership organization of approximately 56,000 members,

What professional medical associations or organizations support the Texas regulations?

 

[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.

Just because admitting privileges exist and exist for a reason does not mean that reason applies to clinics which perform abortions. I think the better question would be why do doctors who perform abortions need to have hospital admitting privileges?

Also, if you read what Syriusly posted, it is not he who said that, it is from a joint brief field by the American Medical Association and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. In a choice between two fairly large medical organizations and an anonymous poster on a message board who won't go into detail about why hospital admitting privileges are necessary for abortion doctors, I hope you can see why someone would trust the medical organizations more.

The answer to that is simply, Doctors who botch abortions and put a woman in a life threatening condition ought to go to the hospital and help save her life, after all, the Abortion Doctor ought to know exactly what he did to his patient.

And what about Doctors who both a colonoscopy and put a patient in a life threatening condition- why shouldn't that physician go to the hospital to help save his or her life- after all the Colonoscopy Doctor ought to know exactly what he did to his patient?

 

[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.

Just because admitting privileges exist and exist for a reason does not mean that reason applies to clinics which perform abortions. I think the better question would be why do doctors who perform abortions need to have hospital admitting privileges?

Also, if you read what Syriusly posted, it is not he who said that, it is from a joint brief field by the American Medical Association and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. In a choice between two fairly large medical organizations and an anonymous poster on a message board who won't go into detail about why hospital admitting privileges are necessary for abortion doctors, I hope you can see why someone would trust the medical organizations more.

The answer to that is simply, Doctors who botch abortions and put a woman in a life threatening condition ought to go to the hospital and help save her life, after all, the Abortion Doctor ought to know exactly what he did to his patient.

That argument could be used for any medical procedure, whether abortion, colonoscopy, liposuction, dental, Lasik, etc. Why, then, is only abortion targeted by this regulation?

 

[Syriusly]

And what did the AMA and ACOG say?

There is no medically sound reason for Texas to impose a more stringent
requirement on facilities in which abortions are performed than it does on facilities
that perform other procedures that carry similar, or even greater, risks. Therefore,
there is no medically sound basis for H.B. 2’s privileges requirement

Who has the greater Medical expertise- doctors? Or State legislators?

 

[Contumacious]

Ok, let's agree to disagree on that.

You are free to disagree of course. But it's Electra's link, not mine. And it was a point conceeded during Oral Arguments that was brought out multiple times during questioning and the state had no response showing that admitting priviliges and the 30 mile rule in any way improved overall medical care.

As a matter of fact during arguments Justice Beyer pointed out, and the state had no come back, that that there was no case in Texas or the entire US where the admitting priviliage and 30 mile rule would have changed the response or outcome of any needed followup care.

Now tell me where the feds get the constitutional authority to interfere with a States powers to regulate professionals practicing within their borders?

This thread is about the Texas law under current juris prudence, not a relitigation of Roe or Casey. Texas is trying to backdoor restrictions to get around those rulings.

Keep in mind the clients have no standing in this area, it's between the State and the professionals wishing to practice within the State.

1. I disagree with your premise since the intent of the law is to obstruct access by the patients, they would have standing.

2. Secondly it is irrelevant since the petitioners in this case are the some of the medical facilities impacted by the law as shown in the court documents of lower courts and the petition for writ of certiorari.


>>>>>

Once again, no one is denying anyone access to abortions, the State is simply trying to make sure the providers are properly equipped and staffed to handle complications. Like Electra said:

Abortion is a unique procedure with unique risks.

What are the risks unique to abortion which this bill addresses? How does having the doctor performing an abortion have hospital admitting privileges alleviate the unique risks? If the risks are not unique to abortion, why is only abortion targeted with these regulations?

Hemorrhage is the greatest risk, then you have adverse reactions to anesthesia to cardiac arrest. Very few clinics even had crash carts with a defibrillator. Also a doctor having admitting privileges insures continuity of care, doctors don't want it because hospitals generally require doctors to carry liability insurance. The abortionist prefer pushing off problem patients to other doctors to save money.

In Texas , like in any other state , a patient can sue for medical malpractice.

Why isn't that remedy enough?


.

 

[OKTexas]

Ok, let's agree to disagree on that.

You are free to disagree of course. But it's Electra's link, not mine. And it was a point conceeded during Oral Arguments that was brought out multiple times during questioning and the state had no response showing that admitting priviliges and the 30 mile rule in any way improved overall medical care.

As a matter of fact during arguments Justice Beyer pointed out, and the state had no come back, that that there was no case in Texas or the entire US where the admitting priviliage and 30 mile rule would have changed the response or outcome of any needed followup care.

Now tell me where the feds get the constitutional authority to interfere with a States powers to regulate professionals practicing within their borders?

This thread is about the Texas law under current juris prudence, not a relitigation of Roe or Casey. Texas is trying to backdoor restrictions to get around those rulings.

Keep in mind the clients have no standing in this area, it's between the State and the professionals wishing to practice within the State.

1. I disagree with your premise since the intent of the law is to obstruct access by the patients, they would have standing.

2. Secondly it is irrelevant since the petitioners in this case are the some of the medical facilities impacted by the law as shown in the court documents of lower courts and the petition for writ of certiorari.


>>>>>

Once again, no one is denying anyone access to abortions, the State is simply trying to make sure the providers are properly equipped and staffed to handle complications. Like Electra said:

Abortion is a unique procedure with unique risks.

What are the risks unique to abortion which this bill addresses? How does having the doctor performing an abortion have hospital admitting privileges alleviate the unique risks? If the risks are not unique to abortion, why is only abortion targeted with these regulations?

Hemorrhage is the greatest risk, then you have adverse reactions to anesthesia to cardiac arrest. Very few clinics even had crash carts with a defibrillator. Also a doctor having admitting privileges insures continuity of care, doctors don't want it because hospitals generally require doctors to carry liability insurance. The abortionist prefer pushing off problem patients to other doctors to save money.

In Texas , like in any other state , a patient can sue for medical malpractice.

Why isn't that remedy enough?


.

Money isn't much consolation to the dead. Simple isn't it?

 

[elektra]

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

You really do have a hard time with numbers it seems. I simply took the numbers provided in my link, 1/3,000 and 1/30,000, and adjusted them to indicate how many per 100,000. 1 per 30,000 is 3 1/3 per 100,000. 1 per 3,000 is 33 1/3 per 100,000. The mistake here seems to be in your understanding.

Here, let me break down a bit of it for you. If there is one death in every 30,000 colonoscopies, there would be 2 deaths in every 60,000 colonoscopies, 3 deaths in every 90,000 colonoscopies, and finally 3.333333.... deaths per 100,000 colonoscopies. I rounded the 1/3 decimal to simply .3.

Do you understand now?[/QUOTE]

I understand, I read your link, it sucks, it does not state the number of deaths per number of colonoscopies. It simply states that the study covers 35 years of colonoscopies. Myself, I would quote the actual study. Your link makes the case that the risk of death or complications, is rare.

Secondary sources that are simply articles really suck, we can go back and forth forever on what the article states. Your articles is making the case that the risks from a colonoscopy is low, but you have an agenda so you want the numbers to reflect something else.

The real answer is in the actual study which you have not linked to. If you want to argue a study, just quote the study, not an article that states what the writer wishes us to believe.

I still say your numbers are not in your link. Use the study, not an editorial about the study.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I understand, I read your link, it sucks, it does not state the number of deaths per number of colonoscopies.

How can you say you read the link when it says:

"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."

When to Worry About the Risks of Colonoscopy


**********************

A 1/30,000 to 1/3,000 death rate for colonoscopies sure seems to state the number of deaths per number of colonoscopies.


>>>>

 

[elektra]

And what did the AMA and ACOG say?

There is no medically sound reason for Texas to impose a more stringent
requirement on facilities in which abortions are performed than it does on facilities
that perform other procedures that carry similar, or even greater, risks. Therefore,
there is no medically sound basis for H.B. 2’s privileges requirement

Who has the greater Medical expertise- doctors? Or State legislators?

The AMA and the the ACOG are not "doctors", they are organizations that lobby. They have doctors that are members, but that does not make them a "doctor".

Either way, they do lobby to the tune of 20,000,000 a year. I bet they get at least that much back from the government in subsidies and grants, as well.

 

[elektra]

Ok, let's agree to disagree on that.

You are free to disagree of course. But it's Electra's link, not mine. And it was a point conceeded during Oral Arguments that was brought out multiple times during questioning and the state had no response showing that admitting priviliges and the 30 mile rule in any way improved overall medical care.

As a matter of fact during arguments Justice Beyer pointed out, and the state had no come back, that that there was no case in Texas or the entire US where the admitting priviliage and 30 mile rule would have changed the response or outcome of any needed followup care.

Now tell me where the feds get the constitutional authority to interfere with a States powers to regulate professionals practicing within their borders?

This thread is about the Texas law under current juris prudence, not a relitigation of Roe or Casey. Texas is trying to backdoor restrictions to get around those rulings.

Keep in mind the clients have no standing in this area, it's between the State and the professionals wishing to practice within the State.

1. I disagree with your premise since the intent of the law is to obstruct access by the patients, they would have standing.

2. Secondly it is irrelevant since the petitioners in this case are the some of the medical facilities impacted by the law as shown in the court documents of lower courts and the petition for writ of certiorari.


>>>>>

Once again, no one is denying anyone access to abortions, the State is simply trying to make sure the providers are properly equipped and staffed to handle complications. Like Electra said:

Abortion is a unique procedure with unique risks.

What are the risks unique to abortion which this bill addresses? How does having the doctor performing an abortion have hospital admitting privileges alleviate the unique risks? If the risks are not unique to abortion, why is only abortion targeted with these regulations?

Hemorrhage is the greatest risk, then you have adverse reactions to anesthesia to cardiac arrest. Very few clinics even had crash carts with a defibrillator. Also a doctor having admitting privileges insures continuity of care, doctors don't want it because hospitals generally require doctors to carry liability insurance. The abortionist prefer pushing off problem patients to other doctors to save money.

In Texas , like in any other state , a patient can sue for medical malpractice.

Why isn't that remedy enough?


.

Why do Abortion doctors want to abandon their patients? Admitting Privileges will eliminate that problem. Abortion doctors should abide by the Hospitals rules.

 

[elektra]

I understand, I read your link, it sucks, it does not state the number of deaths per number of colonoscopies.

How can you say you read the link when it says:

"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."

When to Worry About the Risks of Colonoscopy


**********************

A 1/30,000 to 1/3,000 death rate for colonoscopies sure seems to state the number of deaths per number of colonoscopies.


>>>>

.0003, sure change it to a fraction and state that as a ratio? .0003 of all the colonoscopies for a 35 year period. .0003 of a 100,000 is different than .0003 of 100,000,000.

 

[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.

Just because admitting privileges exist and exist for a reason does not mean that reason applies to clinics which perform abortions. I think the better question would be why do doctors who perform abortions need to have hospital admitting privileges?

Also, if you read what Syriusly posted, it is not he who said that, it is from a joint brief field by the American Medical Association and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. In a choice between two fairly large medical organizations and an anonymous poster on a message board who won't go into detail about why hospital admitting privileges are necessary for abortion doctors, I hope you can see why someone would trust the medical organizations more.

The answer to that is simply, Doctors who botch abortions and put a woman in a life threatening condition ought to go to the hospital and help save her life, after all, the Abortion Doctor ought to know exactly what he did to his patient.

And what about Doctors who both a colonoscopy and put a patient in a life threatening condition- why shouldn't that physician go to the hospital to help save his or her life- after all the Colonoscopy Doctor ought to know exactly what he did to his patient?

Give us an actual case, why argue something made up, tell us of the doctor who did this so that we can see the circumstances, like if he actually dumped his patient.

 

[WorldWatcher]

.0003, sure change it to a fraction and state that as a ratio? .0003 of all the colonoscopies for a 35 year period. .0003 of a 100,000 is different than .0003 of 100,000,000.

You said "I understand, I read your link, it sucks, it does not state the number of deaths per number of colonoscopies."

The link says "Death occurred in about 1/30,000 to 1/3,000 colonoscopies."



You were wrong, the article did state the number of deaths per number of colonoscopies.


>>>>