Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Malpractice insurance is not mentioned in the bill.That's usually the type of response I get around here nowadays,
when I've won the argument.
I'm sure it comforts you to pretend that.
However, back in reality:
Yet the training is to be provided by the Board of Registered Nursing, not by physicians, and the protocols for defining "supervision" have not been specified. There is nothing in the legislation requiring a physician to be present or on-site during an abortion.Yet more badly-written liberal legislation.
Here's the thing Dave; if this makes abortions much more dangerous in California, don't you think that the malpractice insurance rates for these will go through the roof? If they do, then it won't pay to allow non-doctors to perform the abortions in the first place. Of course, insurance underwriters have most likely already determined that there is no greater risk, and therefore rates will remain as is making this a feasible and "safe" option. Insurance underwriters have no skin in the game other than money, so I would tend to believe them over anyone else. You should too.
Daveman -
Conservatives respect the right of the unborn not to be killed.
Conservatives want the right to rule every aspect of people's lives.
Keep reading. You'll find his point is meaningless. The law does not require insurance for the new abortionists.I'm sure it comforts you to pretend that.
However, back in reality:
Yet the training is to be provided by the Board of Registered Nursing, not by physicians, and the protocols for defining "supervision" have not been specified. There is nothing in the legislation requiring a physician to be present or on-site during an abortion.Yet more badly-written liberal legislation.
Here's the thing Dave; if this makes abortions much more dangerous in California, don't you think that the malpractice insurance rates for these will go through the roof? If they do, then it won't pay to allow non-doctors to perform the abortions in the first place. Of course, insurance underwriters have most likely already determined that there is no greater risk, and therefore rates will remain as is making this a feasible and "safe" option. Insurance underwriters have no skin in the game other than money, so I would tend to believe them over anyone else. You should too.
Factual, intelligent reasoning such is this is anathema to conservative hyperbole and demagoguery.
Really? Then perhaps you can explain how progressives opposing laws requiring abortion clinics being safer and supporting laws allowing non-surgeons to perform abortions REALLY means progressives want abortions to be safe and rare?Progressives lie.Daveman -
Conservatives want the right to rule every aspect of people's lives.
The evidence would indicate otherwise.
Conservatives seek to give government greater authority to interfere with citizens private lives, such as dictating to a woman whether she may have a child or not, or dictating to homosexuals whom they may or may not marry.
There are examples of conservatives advocating that government prohibit how or where Muslims might worship, that government compel citizens take unwarranted, un-Constitutional drug tests, and that government discriminate against married same-sex couples.
So, no, it's not a progressive lie.
It's easy to claim there's no evidence when you ignore it.Since there is zero evidence that this makes abortion less safe,
you've lost the argument.
Again:
Yet the training is to be provided by the Board of Registered Nursing, not by physicians, and the protocols for defining "supervision" have not been specified. There is nothing in the legislation requiring a physician to be present or on-site during an abortion.
None of that is evidence that this procedure is less safe when performed by a trained professional who isn't a doctor.
btw, why are you pretending this matters to you?
Some professionals think it will be, as shown in the OP. Do you think you know better than them?It's easy to claim there's no evidence when you ignore it.Since there is zero evidence that this makes abortion less safe,
you've lost the argument.
Again:
Yet the training is to be provided by the Board of Registered Nursing, not by physicians, and the protocols for defining "supervision" have not been specified. There is nothing in the legislation requiring a physician to be present or on-site during an abortion.
None of that is evidence that this procedure is less safe when performed by a trained professional who isn't a doctor.
No pretense. Human life matters to me.btw, why are you pretending this matters to you?
Awww, it's so cute when you think you have a point.It's easy to claim there's no evidence when you ignore it.
Again:
Yet the training is to be provided by the Board of Registered Nursing, not by physicians, and the protocols for defining "supervision" have not been specified. There is nothing in the legislation requiring a physician to be present or on-site during an abortion.
None of that is evidence that this procedure is less safe when performed by a trained professional who isn't a doctor.
btw, why are you pretending this matters to you?
Clearly conservatives dont believe in states rights, otherwise it shouldnt matter.
Daveman -
Conservatives respect the right of the unborn not to be killed.
Conservatives want the right to rule every aspect of people's lives.
Malpractice insurance is not mentioned in the bill.I'm sure it comforts you to pretend that.
However, back in reality:
Yet the training is to be provided by the Board of Registered Nursing, not by physicians, and the protocols for defining "supervision" have not been specified. There is nothing in the legislation requiring a physician to be present or on-site during an abortion.Yet more badly-written liberal legislation.
Here's the thing Dave; if this makes abortions much more dangerous in California, don't you think that the malpractice insurance rates for these will go through the roof? If they do, then it won't pay to allow non-doctors to perform the abortions in the first place. Of course, insurance underwriters have most likely already determined that there is no greater risk, and therefore rates will remain as is making this a feasible and "safe" option. Insurance underwriters have no skin in the game other than money, so I would tend to believe them over anyone else. You should too.
http://lldf.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/AB154Factsheet.pdf
Further, AB 154 does not require the non-physician abortionists to carry special malpractice insurance.
That's true. You can read the text of the law here: Bill Text - AB-154 Abortion.
No mention of insurance.
So insurance underwriters have no skin in the game at all.
Considering that abortions due to rape and incest are a vanishingly small percentage of the reasons given for seeking abortion, perhaps women (and their partners) should take a few more precautions to prevent getting pregnant.An unwanted pregnancy is not something a woman should be forced to endure.
How is the bill not safe and sound?
How is it you don't know you're a dumbass?
Letting barely-trained personnel perform what is essentially surgery? THIS is safe to you?
Moron.
It is illegal for anyone to perform an abortion=government tyranny.
Or
A woman may choose whether or not to have an abortion=freedom from government tyranny.
And of course the fact that the rest of the developed world has had safe, legal abortion for generations is news to the OP....
Here's a tip for conservatives - if you don't believe in abortion - don't have one. Otherwise, respect the rights of others to make their own decision.
