Supreme Court refuses to block Texas abortion restrictions

[thraashman]

How many would get an out patient surgery (knee, rotator cuff...etc) from a doctor that didn't have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital?

If there was no nearby hospital that was willing to perform the surgery and there was instead a clinic with a competent professional, then gladly. Probably preferably. You realize how dangerous hospitals are? Thousands of people die each year from infections they pick up in hospitals.

 

[brycejones]

Serious question: Does a single person here honestly believe that the purpose of these regulations is to protect the health of women seeking abortions?

The OP who bought the swill the pro-birth crowd was selling.

 

[brycejones]

Because society never ever controls men?:hmm:

Point to one law that says what you can medically do and not do with your nuts.

 

[fskimospy]

There's restriction for giving pills that induce an abortion, they can continue doing such. They can't perform the abortion procedure without having admitting privileges at a near by hospital.

This is incorrect.

The bill had two sections under review. One was a foolish restriction on how abortion pills can be used, and the second was a requirement that any physician 'performing or inducing (ie pills) an abortion' must have admitting privileges.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

If there was no nearby hospital that was willing to perform the surgery and there was instead a clinic with a competent professional, then gladly. Probably preferably. You realize how dangerous hospitals are? Thousands of people die each year from infections they pick up in hospitals.

🙄 They're not subject to bacteria that causes the same type of infections in clinics???

 

[poofyhairguy]

How many would get an out patient surgery (knee, rotator cuff...etc) from a doctor that didn't have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital?

I would. For many procedures private non-hospital facilities can provide better care.

Often some of the best surgeons have their own practices, while the worst ones are in the hospital system to make a living.

For a talented doctor, the requirements of admitting privileges (being on call, doing X number of surgeries a month in the possibly worse hospital facilities, etc.) aren't worth it.

 

[thraashman]

🙄 They're not subject to bacteria that causes the same type of infections in clinics???

The difference is that a specialized clinic like an abortion clinic is less likely to get the sick people in there who go to hospitals. You don't go to an abortion clinic to treat your pneumonia. Therefore an abortion clinic is less likely to have those pneumonic bacteria around.

 

[Sonikku]

This has nothing to do with overturning Roe vs Wade, it only raises the quality of care for women. That it is shutting clinics down is purely coincidental.

This isn't Obamacare we're talking about people.

 

[monovillage]

I would. For many procedures private non-hospital facilities can provide better care.

Often some of the best surgeons have their own practices, while the worst ones are in the hospital system to make a living.

For a talented doctor, the requirements of admitting privileges (being on call, doing X number of surgeries a month in the possibly worse hospital facilities, etc.) aren't worth it.

Yes, some abortion doctors run the best and cleanest clinics in the country.
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news...-of-Horrors-Trial-Philadelphia-199010891.html

abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell guilty of murder and 233 other crimes

 

[fskimospy]

🙄 They're not subject to bacteria that causes the same type of infections in clinics???

Do you care to address that these admitting privilege restrictions are in place for drug induced abortions as well, despite the fact that they are non-surgical? Can you provide any credible medical evidence for why this is necessary or good?

 

[nehalem256]

Point to one law that says what you can medically do and not do with your nuts.

So now you have changed the goal posts from "controlling women/men". To Controlling women/men in one very narrow way that for obvious anatomical reasons only applies to women.

 

[Atreus21]

Texas, in its effort to protect the health of women passed a new abortion law. But for some reason pro-abortion groups have challenged the law.

Planned parenthood asked the US supreme court to hear the case, but the request was denied.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...exas-abortion-restrictions/?intcmp=latestnews

What is the big deal about requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a local hospital?

It seems to me that simple stuff such as hair salons have more restrictions than abortion providers.

If organizations like planned parenthood truly cared about womens health, why the uproar?

In my experience, on this topic it's a waste of time to lecture the opposition on the merits of your position. Just be glad of a rare victory.

 

[thraashman]

In my experience, on this topic it's a waste of time to lecture the opposition on the merits of your position. Just be glad of a rare victory.

There are no merits to his position. He wants to pass laws that forcibly control women's decisions about their own health that actually detriment not protect their health. It's not just stupid, it's not just sexist, and it's not just wrong, it's fucking shitty.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

The funny thing is the people who support laws like this (including, I guarantee, the OP) are invariably small-government people who object to government interference in their daily lives. This law, ostensibly passed to protect "women's safety," was passed despite the fact that there was no demonstrated safety issue with existing abortion facilities in Texas. If you want to restrict women's rights to get an abortion, just say that and don't pretend that this law is intended to "protect" them.

 

[Atreus21]

There are no merits to his position. He wants to pass laws that forcibly control women's decisions about their own health that actually detriment not protect their health. It's not just stupid, it's not just sexist, and it's not just wrong, it's fucking shitty.

Well, we're already starting with a euphemism.

It's not a decision about their own "health". It's a decision to kill their unborn child after 20 weeks.

Restricting that is a step in the right direction.

 

[brycejones]

So now you have changed the goal posts from "controlling women/men". To Controlling women/men in one very narrow way that for obvious anatomical reasons only applies to women.

No I haven't. I'm trying to get you on the right playing field. You're currently off in bumfuck outrage in general when this thread is about abortion restrictions and their impact on women. So point to one law that impacts men in the same way. Can you?

 

[Atreus21]

The funny thing is the people who support laws like this (including, I guarantee, the OP) are invariably small-government people who object to government interference in their daily lives. This law, ostensibly passed to protect "women's safety," was passed despite the fact that there was no demonstrated safety issue with existing abortion facilities in Texas. If you want to restrict women's rights to get an abortion, just say that and don't pretend that this law is intended to "protect" them.

Shrug.

It may interest you to know that slavery was abolished in England by obscuring the true intent of the bill which would at passage serve to disable it.

 

[brycejones]

The funny thing is the people who support laws like this (including, I guarantee, the OP) are invariably small-government people who object to government interference in their daily lives. This law, ostensibly passed to protect "women's safety," was passed despite the fact that there was no demonstrated safety issue with existing abortion facilities in Texas. If you want to restrict women's rights to get an abortion, just say that and don't pretend that this law is intended to "protect" them.

But they have to pretend that or else it makes it much harder for SCOTUS to uphold these restrictions later. If they are naked in the approach to just trying kill off abortion they will lose but if they couch it terms of "protecting health" oh while it does limit abortion but only as a side effect then they are much more likely to find 5 justices on the current court who will go along with it. I give the pro-birth crowd credit its a slick strategy.

 

[Atreus21]

But they have to pretend that or else it makes it much harder for SCOTUS to uphold these restrictions later. If they are naked in the approach to just trying kill off abortion they will lose but if they couch it terms of "protecting health" oh while it does limit abortion but only as a side effect then they are much more likely to find 5 justices on the current court who will go along with it. I give the pro-birth crowd credit its a slick strategy.

Changing names and terms and using euphemisms is nothing new in politics. The use of the language "woman's health" to describe (white-wash) abortion was not pioneered by the anti-abortion side.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

It may interest you to know that slavery was abolished in England by obscuring the true intent of the bill which would at passage serve to disable it.

What does that have to do with restricting women's access to abortions? Are you implying that women want to be free from the tyrannical yoke of easily-obtained abortions and lawmakers had to sneak legislation through to meet those needs? Or was there an anti-slavery portion to this bill that no one is talking about because they're caught up with the abortion piece? I can't really work out what you're trying to get at with this comparison.

 

[nehalem256]

No I haven't. I'm trying to get you on the right playing field. You're currently off in bumfuck outrage in general when this thread is about abortion restrictions and their impact on women.

My response was to:

OP: one more man that has a need to control women, even women he has never met.

Clearly the implication is for some nefarious scheme to control women in general. Not just for abortion.

So point to one law that impacts men in the same way. Can you?

Its a non-nonsensical question due to the inherent anatomical differences differences between men and women. There are no laws restricting men on getting abortions, because *gasp* men can't get abortions.

 

[Atreus21]

What does that have to do with restricting women's access to abortions? Are you implying that women want to be free from the tyrannical yoke of easily-obtained abortions and lawmakers had to sneak legislation through to meet those needs? Or was there an anti-slavery portion to this bill that no one is talking about because they're caught up with the abortion piece? I can't really work out what you're trying to get at with this comparison.

The beef some people had with this was dressing anti-abortion laws in the language of "women's health". Not only is this a time-honored tactic in politics (William Wilburforce used it to completely hamstring the slave trade in England), the left does exactly the same thing in reverse by referring to pro-abortion positions as pro-"women's health".

But all of it is really moot. Who is fooled? These battle lines have been drawn for so long it's nearly impossible that the public hasn't gotten savvy with the clever euphemisms used to describe either side.

Amusing to see how displeased the pro-abortion side gets when its favored weapon is adopted by the enemy.

 

[nehalem256]

The beef some people had with this was dressing anti-abortion laws in the language of "women's health". Not only is this a time-honored tactic in politics (William Wilburforce used it to completely hamstring the slave trade in England), the left does exactly the same thing in reverse by referring to pro-abortion positions as pro-"women's health".

But all of it is really moot. Who is fooled? These battle lines have been drawn for so long it's nearly impossible that the public hasn't gotten savvy with the clever euphemisms used to describe either side.

Amusing to see how displeased the pro-abortion side gets when its favored weapon is adopted by the enemy.

:biggrin: ouch

 

[ivwshane]

The beef some people had with this was dressing anti-abortion laws in the language of "women's health". Not only is this a time-honored tactic in politics (William Wilburforce used it to completely hamstring the slave trade in England), the left does exactly the same thing in reverse by referring to pro-abortion positions as pro-"women's health".

But all of it is really moot. Who is fooled? These battle lines have been drawn for so long it's nearly impossible that the public hasn't gotten savvy with the clever euphemisms used to describe either side.

Amusing to see how displeased the pro-abortion side gets when its favored weapon is adopted by the enemy.

Quick! Deflect! Deflect! Make the issue about the "other side does it too!" instead of about the necessity of the law and it's affect on the goal it's trying to address.

 

[Atreus21]

Quick! Deflect! Deflect! Make the issue about the "other side does it too!" instead of about the necessity of the law!

The law is entirely necessary. Late term abortions ought to be severely restricted.

But it seems pro-abortion posters here are more aghast at the fact that we dressed an anti-abortion law in the language of women's health. I suppose they never stopped to think who gave us the idea.