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

[Montrovant]

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?

If you mean 0.7% of 100,000, you should say that. This is what you wrote :

This report lists the rates at .7 to 1.5 deaths per 100,000 abortions.

 

[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?

If you mean 0.7% of 100,000, you should say that. This is what you wrote :

This report lists the rates at .7 to 1.5 deaths per 100,000 abortions.

You got me, I forgot the %, so sorry.

Your comparison is still way off. Your link, it specifically states this is data for a period from 1966 to 2001:

When to Worry About the Risks of Colonoscopy

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.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

How, specifically, does a doctor performing abortions having admitting privileges at a hospital help the pregnant women? Any hospital will admit a woman who has an emergency due to a complication from abortion.

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?

If you mean 0.7% of 100,000, you should say that. This is what you wrote :

This report lists the rates at .7 to 1.5 deaths per 100,000 abortions.

You got me, I forgot the %, so sorry.

Your comparison is still way off. Your link, it specifically states this is data for a period from 1966 to 2001:

When to Worry About the Risks of Colonoscopy

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.

Yes, and as I have said more than once, that long period of statistics makes it difficult to say if the numbers are accurate for today.

What about the link regarding liposuction? What about any other outpatient procedures which do not require the doctor performing the procedure to have hospital admitting privileges? You seem to be avoiding answering the important question of how abortion differs from those other procedures so that it requires such admitting privileges. For that matter, you have not actually said how having those admitting privileges increases the safety of women undergoing an abortion.

 

[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.

>>>>

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.

1. Yes it did close facilities. Any facility outside of 30 miles from a hospital would have to close. Read the link I provided earlier to Oral Arguments from this morning, there was a lengthy discussion of clinic closing.

2. The Standards didn't apply to clinics that perform outpatient surgeries, they applied only to abortions. What to go to a doctor and have 20 lbs of fact sucked out of your stomach, that surgery clinic didn't have to meet the same standards.

3. Where did I say "abortion is critical", I'm not a big abortion proponent. I'm simply posting because of the unconstitutional nature of the law. As I said before, if the standard was applied to all clinics that perform minor surgery (ophthalmologists, OB/GYN procedures that aren't abortion, colonoscopies, liposuctions, minor plastic surgery, Oral Surgeons doing in office procedures, etc.) than I'd have on problem with the Ambulatory Surgical Facility, Admitting Privileges, and 30 mile radius of a hospital provisions of the law.



>>>>

 

[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.

How, specifically, does a doctor performing abortions having admitting privileges at a hospital help the pregnant women? Any hospital will admit a woman who has an emergency due to a complication from abortion.

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?

If you mean 0.7% of 100,000, you should say that. This is what you wrote :

This report lists the rates at .7 to 1.5 deaths per 100,000 abortions.

You got me, I forgot the %, so sorry.

Your comparison is still way off. Your link, it specifically states this is data for a period from 1966 to 2001:

When to Worry About the Risks of Colonoscopy

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.

Yes, and as I have said more than once, that long period of statistics makes it difficult to say if the numbers are accurate for today.

What about the link regarding liposuction? What about any other outpatient procedures which do not require the doctor performing the procedure to have hospital admitting privileges? You seem to be avoiding answering the important question of how abortion differs from those other procedures so that it requires such admitting privileges. For that matter, you have not actually said how having those admitting privileges increases the safety of women undergoing an abortion.

I have spent hours responding to the long list of hurdles, that you folks somehow disqualify me or anyone from discussing abortion.

I have had to exchange posts a few times simply to clarify a point on your numbers.

Abortions result in major complications and deaths, admitting privileges establish a relationship between doctors and hospitals. Admitting Privileges are not some new trick recently invented. Need I site the history, need I research all the details, the case histories of malpractice lawsuits when these rules and regulations of hospitals are utilized or become important? Need I research how these rules and regulations relate to Insurance policies, liabilities.

Abortion is not the simple as simple as taking a pill, nor is it the same as colonoscopy.

I get it, you will not give one inch in the battle to keep abortion as easy as pie, available anywhere at anytime.

Either way, this regulation does not close any abortion clinic, they can move, spend a little money, improve and provide better care. People die from abortions, they are not statistics.

 

[sealybobo]

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

You're making women wait a month and drive 400 miles.

They used to give a million abortions a year in Texas. The hospitals now can handle 20,000 a year.

You're evil crazy people but hey, if women in Texas don't vote or vote for it, that's on them. If you don't like Texans move

 

[sealybobo]

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.

How, specifically, does a doctor performing abortions having admitting privileges at a hospital help the pregnant women? Any hospital will admit a woman who has an emergency due to a complication from abortion.

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?

If you mean 0.7% of 100,000, you should say that. This is what you wrote :

This report lists the rates at .7 to 1.5 deaths per 100,000 abortions.

You got me, I forgot the %, so sorry.

Your comparison is still way off. Your link, it specifically states this is data for a period from 1966 to 2001:

When to Worry About the Risks of Colonoscopy

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.

Yes, and as I have said more than once, that long period of statistics makes it difficult to say if the numbers are accurate for today.

What about the link regarding liposuction? What about any other outpatient procedures which do not require the doctor performing the procedure to have hospital admitting privileges? You seem to be avoiding answering the important question of how abortion differs from those other procedures so that it requires such admitting privileges. For that matter, you have not actually said how having those admitting privileges increases the safety of women undergoing an abortion.

I have spent hours responding to the long list of hurdles, that you folks somehow disqualify me or anyone from discussing abortion.

I have had to exchange posts a few times simply to clarify a point on your numbers.

Abortions result in major complications and deaths, admitting privileges establish a relationship between doctors and hospitals. Admitting Privileges are not some new trick recently invented. Need I site the history, need I research all the details, the case histories of malpractice lawsuits when these rules and regulations of hospitals are utilized or become important? Need I research how these rules and regulations relate to Insurance policies, liabilities.

Abortion is not the simple as simple as taking a pill, nor is it the same as colonoscopy.

I get it, you will not give one inch in the battle to keep abortion as easy as pie, available anywhere at anytime.

Either way, this regulation does not close any abortion clinic, they can move, spend a little money, improve and provide better care. People die from abortions, they are not statistics.

You aren't being intellectually honest.

If a woman wants an abortion she shouldn't have to wait a month or drive 400 miles.

 

[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.

1. Yes it did close facilities. Any facility outside of 30 miles from a hospital would have to close. Read the link I provided earlier to Oral Arguments from this morning, there was a lengthy discussion of clinic closing.

2. The Standards didn't apply to clinics that perform outpatient surgeries, they applied only to abortions. What to go to a doctor and have 20 lbs of fact sucked out of your stomach, that surgery clinic didn't have to meet the same standards.

3. Where did I say "abortion is critical", I'm not a big abortion proponent. I'm simply posting because of the unconstitutional nature of the law. As I said before, if the standard was applied to all clinics that perform minor surgery (ophthalmologists, OB/GYN procedures that aren't abortion, colonoscopies, liposuctions, minor plastic surgery, Oral Surgeons doing in office procedures, etc.) than I'd have on problem with the Ambulatory Surgical Facility, Admitting Privileges, and 30 mile radius of a hospital provisions of the law.



>>>>

They do not have to close. They can spend the money to make their facility equal to what the law requires.

Standards? Apples and Oranges, all things are not equal. 15 year old girls can get an abortion without their parents permission in many places, but nowhere can they get liposuction.

Unconstitutional nature of the law? Decreased levels of Medical Care are constitutionally protected? The Constitution states the government must provide health care within walking distance to a pregnant woman?

Nobody is restricting Abortion providers from actually building a hospital, are they?

 

[elektra]

You're making women wait a month and drive 400 miles.

They used to give a million abortions a year in Texas. The hospitals now can handle 20,000 a year.

You're evil crazy people but hey, if women in Texas don't vote or vote for it, that's on them. If you don't like Texans move

I am making a woman who is free to choose wait? I am forcing her to drive after she made her choice? And if it is 400 miles to the nearest hospital, is it not ridiculous to perform a procedure that may kill the Mother, so far away from a place that can save her life.

 

[elektra]

You aren't being intellectually honest.

If a woman wants an abortion she shouldn't have to wait a month or drive 400 miles.

Nobody is stopping Abortion doctors from building abortion hospitals next to their patients. You are simply advocating that everybody take care of your whims at your convenience at the place of your choosing. Force your doctor to provide the care you need, you are the advocate, build a damn hospital where it is needed.

 

[sealybobo]

You aren't being intellectually honest.

If a woman wants an abortion she shouldn't have to wait a month or drive 400 miles.

Nobody is stopping Abortion doctors from building abortion hospitals next to their patients. You are simply advocating that everybody take care of your whims at your convenience at the place of your choosing. Force your doctor to provide the care you need, you are the advocate, build a damn hospital where it is needed.

And hey, don't like it then vote. Or move. Or don't get pregnant.

 

[elektra]

And hey, don't like it then vote. Or move. Or don't get pregnant.

Or simply build what you need, where you need it.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

So you're saying the feds can interfere with the licensing of professionals and their conduct within the State. Exactly where does the Constitution grant that authority?

 

[OKTexas]

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.

How, specifically, does a doctor performing abortions having admitting privileges at a hospital help the pregnant women? Any hospital will admit a woman who has an emergency due to a complication from abortion.

.7 of a 100000 is 700?

If you mean 0.7% of 100,000, you should say that. This is what you wrote :

This report lists the rates at .7 to 1.5 deaths per 100,000 abortions.

You got me, I forgot the %, so sorry.

Your comparison is still way off. Your link, it specifically states this is data for a period from 1966 to 2001:

When to Worry About the Risks of Colonoscopy

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.

Yes, and as I have said more than once, that long period of statistics makes it difficult to say if the numbers are accurate for today.

What about the link regarding liposuction? What about any other outpatient procedures which do not require the doctor performing the procedure to have hospital admitting privileges? You seem to be avoiding answering the important question of how abortion differs from those other procedures so that it requires such admitting privileges. For that matter, you have not actually said how having those admitting privileges increases the safety of women undergoing an abortion.

I have spent hours responding to the long list of hurdles, that you folks somehow disqualify me or anyone from discussing abortion.

I have had to exchange posts a few times simply to clarify a point on your numbers.

Abortions result in major complications and deaths, admitting privileges establish a relationship between doctors and hospitals. Admitting Privileges are not some new trick recently invented. Need I site the history, need I research all the details, the case histories of malpractice lawsuits when these rules and regulations of hospitals are utilized or become important? Need I research how these rules and regulations relate to Insurance policies, liabilities.

Abortion is not the simple as simple as taking a pill, nor is it the same as colonoscopy.

I get it, you will not give one inch in the battle to keep abortion as easy as pie, available anywhere at anytime.

Either way, this regulation does not close any abortion clinic, they can move, spend a little money, improve and provide better care. People die from abortions, they are not statistics.

You aren't being intellectually honest.

If a woman wants an abortion she shouldn't have to wait a month or drive 400 miles.

There is no place in TX that is 400 miles from a hospital.

 

[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

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.

That is a nice rant, which I see everywhere on the internet, you learn well.

Unwarranted and enacted in bad faith? Protecting the Health of Women in the when major complications arise is hardly, acting in bad faith. Violation of privacy rights? Right.

Similar medical procedures? There is no procedure that is sim liar. As far as the risk of other procedures go, those are irrelevant in the eyes of the law. Those particular cases will have to stand or die on their own merit.

Yes, one can be admitted, at any emergency hospital room, but there is nothing better than demanding that the Doctor that botched the abortion be present at the Hospital, and what better way than assuring great care for the patient, than if we think this through and prepare for the worst, instead of the simply dumping women out the door with a nice kick in the ass.

Yes, it is all about Liberty and Freedom, Privacy and Rights, it is about time you consider the Liberty and Freedom and Privacy and Rights of the hospitals that have to provide the expensive care that the abortion clinics seek to drop off on their door steps.

Conservatives get to pick up the bloody mess of the Democrats ideals.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

How, specifically, does a doctor performing abortions having admitting privileges at a hospital help the pregnant women? Any hospital will admit a woman who has an emergency due to a complication from abortion.

If you mean 0.7% of 100,000, you should say that. This is what you wrote :

You got me, I forgot the %, so sorry.

Your comparison is still way off. Your link, it specifically states this is data for a period from 1966 to 2001:

When to Worry About the Risks of Colonoscopy

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.

Yes, and as I have said more than once, that long period of statistics makes it difficult to say if the numbers are accurate for today.

What about the link regarding liposuction? What about any other outpatient procedures which do not require the doctor performing the procedure to have hospital admitting privileges? You seem to be avoiding answering the important question of how abortion differs from those other procedures so that it requires such admitting privileges. For that matter, you have not actually said how having those admitting privileges increases the safety of women undergoing an abortion.

I have spent hours responding to the long list of hurdles, that you folks somehow disqualify me or anyone from discussing abortion.

I have had to exchange posts a few times simply to clarify a point on your numbers.

Abortions result in major complications and deaths, admitting privileges establish a relationship between doctors and hospitals. Admitting Privileges are not some new trick recently invented. Need I site the history, need I research all the details, the case histories of malpractice lawsuits when these rules and regulations of hospitals are utilized or become important? Need I research how these rules and regulations relate to Insurance policies, liabilities.

Abortion is not the simple as simple as taking a pill, nor is it the same as colonoscopy.

I get it, you will not give one inch in the battle to keep abortion as easy as pie, available anywhere at anytime.

Either way, this regulation does not close any abortion clinic, they can move, spend a little money, improve and provide better care. People die from abortions, they are not statistics.

You aren't being intellectually honest.

If a woman wants an abortion she shouldn't have to wait a month or drive 400 miles.

There is no place in TX that is 400 miles from a hospital.

That's what I heard on radio and saw on TV. Texas is pretty big. I'll try to find link tomorrow

 

[elektra]

There is no place in TX that is 400 miles from a hospital.
That's what I heard on radio and saw on TV. Texas is pretty big. I'll try to find link tomorrow

220 miles? And what stops an abortion provider from building a hospital?
Texas abortion clinics: How far is too far to drive?

 

[OKTexas]

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.

How, specifically, does a doctor performing abortions having admitting privileges at a hospital help the pregnant women? Any hospital will admit a woman who has an emergency due to a complication from abortion.

You got me, I forgot the %, so sorry.

Your comparison is still way off. Your link, it specifically states this is data for a period from 1966 to 2001:

When to Worry About the Risks of Colonoscopy

Yes, and as I have said more than once, that long period of statistics makes it difficult to say if the numbers are accurate for today.

What about the link regarding liposuction? What about any other outpatient procedures which do not require the doctor performing the procedure to have hospital admitting privileges? You seem to be avoiding answering the important question of how abortion differs from those other procedures so that it requires such admitting privileges. For that matter, you have not actually said how having those admitting privileges increases the safety of women undergoing an abortion.

I have spent hours responding to the long list of hurdles, that you folks somehow disqualify me or anyone from discussing abortion.

I have had to exchange posts a few times simply to clarify a point on your numbers.

Abortions result in major complications and deaths, admitting privileges establish a relationship between doctors and hospitals. Admitting Privileges are not some new trick recently invented. Need I site the history, need I research all the details, the case histories of malpractice lawsuits when these rules and regulations of hospitals are utilized or become important? Need I research how these rules and regulations relate to Insurance policies, liabilities.

Abortion is not the simple as simple as taking a pill, nor is it the same as colonoscopy.

I get it, you will not give one inch in the battle to keep abortion as easy as pie, available anywhere at anytime.

Either way, this regulation does not close any abortion clinic, they can move, spend a little money, improve and provide better care. People die from abortions, they are not statistics.

You aren't being intellectually honest.

If a woman wants an abortion she shouldn't have to wait a month or drive 400 miles.

There is no place in TX that is 400 miles from a hospital.

That's what I heard on radio and saw on TV. Texas is pretty big. I'll try to find link tomorrow

There might and I stress might be a few places that are a couple of hundred miles from a TX hospital, but even those places are closer than that to hospitals in neighboring States.

 

[sealybobo]

How, specifically, does a doctor performing abortions having admitting privileges at a hospital help the pregnant women? Any hospital will admit a woman who has an emergency due to a complication from abortion.
Yes, and as I have said more than once, that long period of statistics makes it difficult to say if the numbers are accurate for today.

What about the link regarding liposuction? What about any other outpatient procedures which do not require the doctor performing the procedure to have hospital admitting privileges? You seem to be avoiding answering the important question of how abortion differs from those other procedures so that it requires such admitting privileges. For that matter, you have not actually said how having those admitting privileges increases the safety of women undergoing an abortion.

I have spent hours responding to the long list of hurdles, that you folks somehow disqualify me or anyone from discussing abortion.

I have had to exchange posts a few times simply to clarify a point on your numbers.

Abortions result in major complications and deaths, admitting privileges establish a relationship between doctors and hospitals. Admitting Privileges are not some new trick recently invented. Need I site the history, need I research all the details, the case histories of malpractice lawsuits when these rules and regulations of hospitals are utilized or become important? Need I research how these rules and regulations relate to Insurance policies, liabilities.

Abortion is not the simple as simple as taking a pill, nor is it the same as colonoscopy.

I get it, you will not give one inch in the battle to keep abortion as easy as pie, available anywhere at anytime.

Either way, this regulation does not close any abortion clinic, they can move, spend a little money, improve and provide better care. People die from abortions, they are not statistics.

You aren't being intellectually honest.

If a woman wants an abortion she shouldn't have to wait a month or drive 400 miles.

There is no place in TX that is 400 miles from a hospital.

That's what I heard on radio and saw on TV. Texas is pretty big. I'll try to find link tomorrow

There might and I stress might be a few places that are a couple of hundred miles from a TX hospital, but even those places are closer than that to hospitals in neighboring States.

Just forcing poor women into having kids they don't want to have. Undue burdons.

But this won't stop rich girls.

 

[elektra]

Just forcing poor women into having kids they don't want to have. Undue burdons.

But this won't stop rich girls.

Who is forcing poor women into having sex, that is Rape and is already illegal.