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

[SwimExpert]

So you do admit a fetus is intellectual.

As much as you. So....no.

 

[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

Risk Factors for Legal Induced Abortion–Related Mortality in... : Obstetrics & Gynecology

Legal induced abortion is one of the most frequently performed surgical procedures in the United States. With approximately 1.2 million legal induced abortions performed in 1997,1 minimizing risk for women who choose to terminate their pregnancies is of clear public health importance.

Pregnancy-related deaths are deaths that occur among women within 1 year of pregnancy from complications of the pregnancy or delivery; deaths associated with complications of induced abortion2 (ie, abortion-related deaths) also are considered pregnancy related. Previous reports on abortion-related mortality for 1972–1987 have informed abortion policy and practice and improved safety for women. In addition, data on the lower risk of death with certain procedures and anesthetics have guided practice, substantially reducing the number of abortions conducted with methods found to be associated with increased risk.3–8 However, the medical practice and provision of abortion services continues to change. For example, since the mid-1990s, medical (ie, nonsurgical) regimens using abortifacients within the first 7 weeks of pregnancy have been used to terminate pregnancies.9 This report provides information on risk factors for abortion-related deaths among women who had abortions in recent years that will help inform and update policymakers and practitioners about abortion-related maternal mortality.

CONCLUSION: Although primary prevention of unintended pregnancy is optimal, among women who choose to terminate their pregnancies, increased access to surgical and nonsurgical abortion services may increase the proportion of abortions performed at lower-risk, early gestational ages and help further decrease deaths. (Obstet Gynecol 2004; 103:729–37. © 2004 by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Maybe you didn't read your own post:

"CONCLUSION: Although primary prevention of unintended pregnancy is optimal, among women who choose to terminate their pregnancies, increased access to surgical and nonsurgical abortion services may increase the proportion of abortions performed at lower-risk, early gestational ages and help further decrease deaths. (Obstet Gynecol 2004; 103:729–37. © 2004 by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists."​

The Texas law is not increase access to earlier lower risk options, it's an attempt to DECREASE access which pushes abotions into later higher risk options with higher complication rates.


>>>>

Increasing access to better Medical Facilities is a danger? Oh, I get it, you are threatening to close your abortion clinic if you have to spend money on quality medical facilities that could save a woman's life.

You do not have to close your office, you simply have to make it able to handle all the problems known to be caused by your "Doctors". This is about Woman's health, and you obviously do not care about the level of Care, given.

Forcing clinics to close because they are not within 30 miles of a hospital to be able to do a medical abortion (abortion pill) is not "increasing access" to better medical facilities because if you close the clinic you are decreasing access.

Why does a clinic have to meet have surgical standards to issue a pill but a clinic that does liposuction, colonoscopies, oral surgery, and eye laser surgery does not?


>>>>

Nobody says the Clinic must close?

Is your argument now, that a simple pill, is the Life Saving Abortion Procedure? It is amazing how far you advocates go to dumb down what you actually do.

First, Abortion is used to save the life of the mother, now it is simply giving a patient a pill, like for a headache. Make a decision, are you addressing Woman's Health Issues or giving them a pill, kind of like a vitamin.

Which is it?

 

[elektra]

So you do admit a fetus is intellectual.

As much as you. So....no.

1st yes, then no, confused your position is.

 

[SwimExpert]

confused your position is.

You don't say?

 

[elektra]

Second, you have fluctuated wildly in your own numbers, first claiming 700 abortion related deaths per 100,000, then switching to 0.7 abortion related deaths per 100,000.

.7 of a 100000 is 700?

 

[OKTexas]

Abortion is much less dangerous than oral surgery, plastic surgery, or many other outpatient procedures which are _not_ required by law to have such stringent "safety" requirements, requirements that actually have nothing to do with safety.

Pro-lifers, it's obvious you care nothing about safety, as illustrated by your raging double standards. You know you're lying, we know you're lying, so why keep up the charade?

Remember, you will burn in hell for lying so proudly. There's no "Lying is fine if it helps you attack dirty liberals" clause.

So you could care less if your doctor has the equipment and people available to save your life if something goes wrong?

Medical Malpractice Deaths Nine Times Higher Than Gun Homicides - Let's End the AMA

Medical Malpractice Deaths Nine Times Higher Than Gun Homicides - Let's End the AMA - Freedom Outpost

Your doctor is more likely to kill you than your neighbors guns.

 

[elektra]

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.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Nobody says the Clinic must close?

Sure they do, the Texas legislature did. Clinics must be within 30 miles of hospital and the clinic doctor must have admitting privileges at the hospital.

The law requires then that a clinic 50 miles from a hospital close.

Is your argument now, that a simple pill, is the Life Saving Abortion Procedure? It is amazing how far you advocates go to dumb down what you actually do.

Stop trying to put words in my mouth.

An abortion pill is a medical abortion, there is no need to have a surgery room to give the patiant a pill. That is what I said.

First, Abortion is used to save the life of the mother, now it is simply giving a patient a pill, like for a headache. Make a decision, are you addressing Woman's Health Issues or giving them a pill, kind of like a vitamin.

Where did I say abortion was to save the life of the mother?

We are talking about the Texas legislatures attempt to make operating an abortion clinic untenable by holding them to standards that they do not require other, similar level, outpatient surgery clinics to meet. A transparent attempt to restrict abortion since the rules only apply to them.

Which is it?

Have a conversation about what I say, not what you think I said. You carry your side, I carry mine. Your way you try to carry both sides.

Life is easier that way.


>>>>

 

[bendog]

Keller replied that more than 210 women had to be hospitalized as a result of complications from abortion in a recent year. Pressed by Ginsburg, Keller acknowledged that was a complication rate of less than 1 percent of the state’s 70,000 abortions, but said the state still could act to make abortion safer.

Texas abortion case appears to sharply divide Supreme Court

 

[rightwinger]

1988?


How about something more current. This from January 2015 -->> Incidence of Emergency Department Visits and Complications A... : Obstetrics & Gynecology
Abortion complication rates are 'very low,' study says


Complication Rate for abortion = 0.23%
Complication Rate for Tooth Extraction = 7.0%
Complication Rate for Colonoscopy = 0.35%


Yet the Texas law requires admission privileges and surgical standards even for medical abortions - including giving a pill.

Yet don't require surgical standards for oral surgery or colonoscopies which have higher complication rates.



>>>>

Just to be clear, I don't have an issue with admitting privileges to a hospital within 30 miles and surgical standards if that is what a state wants.

Any office that performs minor surgery - tooth extraction, oral surgery, colonoscopies, laser eye correction, in office biopsies, early to mid abortions, etc., etc, - That's fine. But the standard should apply to protect the safety of ALL patients.


>>>>

The problem is that hospital boards will refuse admitting privileges to abortion doctors creating a backdoor ban.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The problem is that hospital boards will refuse admitting privileges to abortion doctors creating a backdoor ban.

Which makes no sense what-so-ever. "Admitting privileges" sounds like an important medical thing which most people don't even understand. All it means is that the doctor has the abiity to admit and order tests for patients as if (s)he were a staff member of the hospital. It does not mean that if there were a complication with a laser eye surgery, oral surgery, liposuction, colonoscopy, or abortion that if the patient went to the hospital they they would not bee seen or helped. Of course the would.

It's an attempt to restrict the access to clinics that do abortion.


>>>>

 

[elektra]

That was 20-30 years ago. What is the rate now?

Great question, unfortunately the government is years behind in reporting these things, but obviously with what you will call more restrictive laws and half the abortion clinics closed, the death rates of young woman has decreased.

So you think the government should implement another nanny state law to protect people from themselves?

Nope, they should pass a law that protects the mother from unscrupulous doctors who do not invest in adequate facilities.

 

[elektra]

Nobody says the Clinic must close?

Sure they do, the Texas legislature did. Clinics must be within 30 miles of hospital and the clinic doctor must have admitting privileges at the hospital.

The law requires then that a clinic 50 miles from a hospital close.

Is your argument now, that a simple pill, is the Life Saving Abortion Procedure? It is amazing how far you advocates go to dumb down what you actually do.

Stop trying to put words in my mouth.

An abortion pill is a medical abortion, there is no need to have a surgery room to give the patiant a pill. That is what I said.

First, Abortion is used to save the life of the mother, now it is simply giving a patient a pill, like for a headache. Make a decision, are you addressing Woman's Health Issues or giving them a pill, kind of like a vitamin.

Where did I say abortion was to save the life of the mother?

We are talking about the Texas legislatures attempt to make operating an abortion clinic untenable by holding them to standards that they do not require other, similar level, outpatient surgery clinics to meet. A transparent attempt to restrict abortion since the rules only apply to them.

Which is it?

Have a conversation about what I say, not what you think I said. You carry your side, I carry mine. Your way you try to carry both sides.

Life is easier that way.


>>>>

Why does a clinic have to meet have surgical standards to issue a pill but a clinic that does liposuction, colonoscopies, oral surgery, and eye laser surgery does not?

Since when does Planned Parenthood and Abortion clinics, simply, "issue a pill". I find it hard to believe that you will choose to ignore all the other "life-saving" services that Planned Parenthood and the Abortion advocates claim, Abortion is performed for.

Yes, I will carry my side and you will carry yours, but you seem to carry much more than your argument, as in:

We are talking about the Texas legislatures attempt to make operating an abortion clinic untenable by holding them to standards that they do not require other, similar level, outpatient surgery clinics to meet. A transparent attempt to restrict abortion since the rules only apply to them.

No, Wrong again! I decide what my thread is about, not you, given I choose to argue some points you make, fine. But the thread is about Hypocrisy, Regulations are fine if the only effect Conservatives? Christians? But try and pass a regulation to make an abortion a bit more safe and that is one Regulation to many.

Regardless of your opinion, the Texas Legislature is concerned about the Health of the Mother! You have nothing but conjecture and the inane argument that abortion is nothing more than issuing a pill?

Abortion is very much a surgical procedure, that at a early stage a pill may perform an Abortion is irrelevant to the other types of Abortion that are performed, and if I am to believe the propaganda, then Planned Parenthood is performing Life Saving Abortions.

The law should require an abortion be performed in a hospital, or at the morgue, why would you want such a long ride in an ambulance or hearst?

 

[elektra]

The problem is that hospital boards will refuse admitting privileges to abortion doctors creating a backdoor ban.

Which makes no sense what-so-ever. "Admitting privileges" sounds like an important medical thing which most people don't even understand. All it means is that the doctor has the abiity to admit and order tests for patients as if (s)he were a staff member of the hospital. It does not mean that if there were a complication with a laser eye surgery, oral surgery, liposuction, colonoscopy, or abortion that if the patient went to the hospital they they would not bee seen or helped. Of course the would.

It's an attempt to restrict the access to clinics that do abortion.


>>>>

But it does mean that if your Doctor has admitting procedures with a hospital, that hospital is better prepared, as is the doctor better prepared, to meet all needs of the Mother when complications that threaten life, arise.

I think, continuity is one term being used in the courts as well as abandonment, as in Mothers who have been abandoned. You would think those who support abortion would want the best Health Care for patients, this is just one more tool, to help.

The only real inconvenience would be the Mother would have to be close to a hospital to have an abortion? I would prefer to be close if I had a stroke, here the Mother has a choice, she can choose to have a baby or an abortion where her life could be saved.

 

[bendog]

Keller replied that more than 210 women had to be hospitalized as a result of complications from abortion in a recent year. Pressed by Ginsburg, Keller acknowledged that was a complication rate of less than 1 percent of the state’s 70,000 abortions, but said the state still could act to make abortion safer.

Texas abortion case appears to sharply divide Supreme Court

Why would you possibly give a star to me? The link shows that 3 justices appear likely to side with the state in saying ANY regulation, regardless of intent, that could possibly make a medical procedure with a complication rate of less than 1% more safe is a legit restriction on a fundamental right. 4 say no. 1 is wavering, because to apply the same law as O'Connor construed, would require striking down the law.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Why does a clinic have to meet have surgical standards to issue a pill but a clinic that does liposuction, colonoscopies, oral surgery, and eye laser surgery does not?

Since when does Planned Parenthood and Abortion clinics, simply, "issue a pill". I find it hard to believe that you will choose to ignore all the other "life-saving" services that Planned Parenthood and the Abortion advocates claim, Abortion is performed for.

Planned parenthood and other abortion clinics use a variety of methods depending on the progression of the pregnancy. In early stages medical abortions are induced with a pill. But on under the law passed by the Texas Legislature the clinic has to have surgical facilities to do that.

That makes no sense and exposes why the law was written.

We are talking about the Texas legislatures attempt to make operating an abortion clinic untenable by holding them to standards that they do not require other, similar level, outpatient surgery clinics to meet. A transparent attempt to restrict abortion since the rules only apply to them.

No, Wrong again! I decide what my thread is about, not you, given I choose to argue some points you make, fine. But the thread is about Hypocrisy, Regulations are fine if the only effect Conservatives? Christians? But try and pass a regulation to make an abortion a bit more safe and that is one Regulation to many.

Go back and read the thread title and OP again. YOU are the one that is talking about the "regulations" (i.e. law) passed by the Texas Legislature.

Regardless of your opinion, the Texas Legislature is concerned about the Health of the Mother! You have nothing but conjecture and the inane argument that abortion is nothing more than issuing a pill?

Horse shit.

They are attempting to close abortion clinics untenable through regulation. It's not about improving the safety of the patient because the law doesn't do that.

Again from the link in the report YOU provided:

"CONCLUSION: Although primary prevention of unintended pregnancy is optimal, among women who choose to terminate their pregnancies, increased access to surgical and nonsurgical abortion services may increase the proportion of abortions performed at lower-risk, early gestational ages and help further decrease deaths. (Obstet Gynecol 2004; 103:729–37. © 2004 by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists."​

It removes increased access to earlier abortions which are lower risk and pushes them to later in the preganancy which are higher risk.

The law should require an abortion be performed in a hospital, or at the morgue, why would you want such a long ride in an ambulance or hearst?

There is a good chance the law isn't going to require anything. As was pointed out in oral arguments today the law doesn't increase a woman's safety, it actually decreases it by lowering access to early term abortions. The law was enacted to obstruct abortions and will likely be found unconstitutional be the SCOTUS. The law is a sham and a lame attempt to bypass the previous rulings.

>>>>

 

[Montrovant]

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.

• 
  

 

[bendog]

I'm not sure why Electra has a issue with simply telling the truth. Roberts Alito and Thomas simply think ANY, no matter how small, safety rational makes the law constitutional The intent of the law is irrelevant for them. they questioned whether evidence shows the law results in clinic foreclosures, and evidence shows that. There's no need to lie.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Wrong again, as usual.

The measures are unwarranted and enacted in bad faith, a clear undue burden intended to violate the privacy rights of women, not protect their health.

Similar medical procedures, and those which pose a greater risk, are not subject to the same regulatory measures – inconsistent law is bad law.

And 'admitting privileges' are completely unnecessary, as anyone is afforded treatment in a hospital ER.

This is yet another manifestation of the bane of the social right, and the desire of conservatives to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

 

[elektra]

Why does a clinic have to meet have surgical standards to issue a pill but a clinic that does liposuction, colonoscopies, oral surgery, and eye laser surgery does not?

Since when does Planned Parenthood and Abortion clinics, simply, "issue a pill". I find it hard to believe that you will choose to ignore all the other "life-saving" services that Planned Parenthood and the Abortion advocates claim, Abortion is performed for.

Planned parenthood and other abortion clinics use a variety of methods depending on the progression of the pregnancy. In early stages medical abortions are induced with a pill. But on under the law passed by the Texas Legislature the clinic has to have surgical facilities to do that.

That makes no sense and exposes why the law was written.

We are talking about the Texas legislatures attempt to make operating an abortion clinic untenable by holding them to standards that they do not require other, similar level, outpatient surgery clinics to meet. A transparent attempt to restrict abortion since the rules only apply to them.

No, Wrong again! I decide what my thread is about, not you, given I choose to argue some points you make, fine. But the thread is about Hypocrisy, Regulations are fine if the only effect Conservatives? Christians? But try and pass a regulation to make an abortion a bit more safe and that is one Regulation to many.

Go back and read the thread title and OP again. YOU are the one that is talking about the "regulations" (i.e. law) passed by the Texas Legislature.

Regardless of your opinion, the Texas Legislature is concerned about the Health of the Mother! You have nothing but conjecture and the inane argument that abortion is nothing more than issuing a pill?

Horse shit.

They are attempting to close abortion clinics untenable through regulation. It's not about improving the safety of the patient because the law doesn't do that.

Again from the link in the report YOU provided:

"CONCLUSION: Although primary prevention of unintended pregnancy is optimal, among women who choose to terminate their pregnancies, increased access to surgical and nonsurgical abortion services may increase the proportion of abortions performed at lower-risk, early gestational ages and help further decrease deaths. (Obstet Gynecol 2004; 103:729–37. © 2004 by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists."​

It removes increased access to earlier abortions which are lower risk and pushes them to later in the preganancy which are higher risk.

The law should require an abortion be performed in a hospital, or at the morgue, why would you want such a long ride in an ambulance or hearst?

There is a good chance the law isn't going to require anything. As was pointed out in oral arguments today the law doesn't increase a woman's safety, it actually decreases it by lowering access to early term abortions. The law was enacted to obstruct abortions and will likely be found unconstitutional be the SCOTUS. The law is a sham and a lame attempt to bypass the previous rulings.

>>>>

The law does not close Abortion Offices? They can move closer to a hospital, businesses move all the time. The Law does not force women to wait to have an abortion? Certainly a woman is very mobile, in the early stages of a pregnancy.
I not see where it states that abortion clinics will be closed, certainly some will have to move, but close?

Yes, surgical facilities, because as you state, abortion clinics provide many methods of abortion. Complications arise, that is no fault of mine nor the courts, they are simply protecting the life of the Mother, as you wish to do. It is funny how this is such a black and white issue, all or nothing, for you.

Either every abortion clinic is allowed to operate anyway they please or women die! But try to make an abortion clinic fit for the procedures and the complications that arise and that is going to far and Women will die?

Your argument is nonsense. if abortion is critical, then simply build a hospital where you need them. Oh, that would cost too much money for the Abortion People though, that would cut into the profits, so that is so unreasonable. Hospitals are too expensive, modern medical facilities are too expensive, it is best to suffer a few dead women than to ensure they are all as safe as possible, close to Modern Medical Facilities.