Should abortion meet basic safety and sanitary stanards

[Benedictus]

19 hours ago, little2add said:

really?

Yes, in the context of physical health. Isn't that what the legislation was about or are you wanting to expand the legislative remit even more?

[little2add]

it is a fact that over 500 Texas women a year are rushed to hospital from botched abortions, from unregulated clinics.  At issue is whether the state's pro-life regulations are intended to preserve women's health and safety, or if they impose obligations that make it impossible for women to have an abortion.   An average of 10 Texas women are taken to the emergency room due to a botched abortion every week, or 500 a year, according to the Texas-based Justice Foundation. More than 200 are hospitalized annually.

the legislation that was struck down (Health v. Hellerstedt ) was argued before the Supreme Court required:  A) regulations that make abortion facilities meet the same safety standards as other surgical facilities and B) a requirement that all abortionists have admitting privileges at local hospitals, for late term abortions only (20 weeks)

Texas state legislators enacted such laws after learning that Dr. Kermit Gosnell's record of serially injuring, and sometimes killing woman.  Lawmakers “required that all abortion doctors have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, in order to ensure that abortion doctors are well qualified and to promote continuity of care,”

 

2 hours ago, Benedictus said:

Yes, in the context of physical health. Isn't that what the legislation was about or are you wanting to expand the legislative remit even more?

what about the fetus?

Edited July 31, 2016 by little2add

[Anomaly]

3 hours ago, little2add said:

 

what about the fetus?

VERY unsafe for the unborn person.   But we are talking about legal technicalities, not philosophy.   Unborn persons have no legal status so have no protection or remedy via the law.    That is the tragedy. 

[Socrates]

On 7/30/2016 at 3:00 PM, Benedictus said:

What you said is a Moral position, which every Catholic knows. But what's that got to do with the safety of the woman having the procedure? Not everything that's immoral is unsafe

If the conditions and hygiene are unsafe then it should be clear to anyone, right? Even a pro choice person shouldn't technically want a woman to use a dirty clinic. However, like I said, most women don't have surgical abortions anymore. So the issue of their safety isn't as big as it was in past decades. 

Doesn't mean filthy and unsanitary "clinics" don't exist and aren't allowed.  Most abortionists care primarily about turning a profit, rather than women's health.  In many places, standards on abortion clinics are very lax, or even practically non-existent.

Also, under the constitution, state standards for medical facilities should not be the business of the federal courts.

While, of course, grossly inadequate (baby-killing should be outlawed), the reality is that these regulations greatly reduced the number of abortion mills, as well as the number of abortions, in Texas.  That is what the abortion-loving left was so upset about, and sought to "remedy" through the federal courts.

[little2add]

45 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

VERY unsafe for the unborn person.   But we are talking about legal technicalities, not philosophy.   Unborn persons have no legal status so have no protection or remedy via the law.    That is the tragedy. 

Philosophy this

[LittleWaySoul]

[Anomaly]

13 hours ago, little2add said:

Philosophy this

LOL.  

I'll simplify snd re-state so you can get your underwear unwadded.

I agree that abortion is bad and should be eliminated.   I think that it can't be eliminated with restrictions on clinics because that is ineffective and not addressing the one of the fundamental causes.   This law was treating tuberculosis with NyQuil.   A minor improvement, but doesn't address the root cause.  

The consistent argument for pro abortionists is its only about the mother's health.   That argument only works if unborn persons aren't legally recognized as persons, giving them legal rights to life and health.  

 I'd like @Catherine to comment on if and under what circumstances a fetus is recognized as a person, or if they are only protected as an extension of the mother, if harmed. 

 

[little2add]

How is:

A) regulations that make abortion facilities meet the same safety standards as other surgical facilities

B) a requirement that all abortionists have admitting privileges at local hospitals

a restriction?  Both proposed rules are reasonable.   Mind you this Texas law only pertained to late- term abortions

the non-existent legal status of a third trimester fetus maybe unrecognized by the  supreme court of the US but that doesn't make it right.

 

[Benedictus]

On 02/08/2016 at 1:52 AM, little2add said:

How is:

A) regulations that make abortion facilities meet the same safety standards as other surgical facilities

B) a requirement that all abortionists have admitting privileges at local hospitals

a restriction?  Both proposed rules are reasonable.   Mind you this Texas law only pertained to late- term abortions

the non-existent legal status of a third trimester fetus maybe unrecognized by the  supreme court of the US but that doesn't make it right.

 

Well apparently not all surgical facilities have the same requirements regarding those two points -  that formed part of the criticism that the law reforms were being unreasonably directed at abortion clinics. 

It's interesting though that many people, especially legislatures in southern states, will state they believe in deregulated market healthcare and personal choice in doing so. Litigation and market forces are seen as the way to ensure good services etc. But when it comes to certain controversial topics they start wanting to introduce heavy regulations and laws to interfere.

[Benedictus]

On 01/08/2016 at 2:27 AM, Socrates said:

Doesn't mean filthy and unsanitary "clinics" don't exist and aren't allowed.  Most abortionists care primarily about turning a profit, rather than women's health.  In many places, standards on abortion clinics are very lax, or even practically non-existent.

Also, under the constitution, state standards for medical facilities should not be the business of the federal courts.

While, of course, grossly inadequate (baby-killing should be outlawed), the reality is that these regulations greatly reduced the number of abortion mills, as well as the number of abortions, in Texas.  That is what the abortion-loving left was so upset about, and sought to "remedy" through the federal courts.

There may well be less than ideal clinics out there, some offering abortions and others not. The issue is are the laws directed at them all reasonably and equally. 

Lot's of healthcare is done for profit -  that's usually seen as something to celebrate by most Republicans 

I think they did say the closures formed part of the grievance, as it would have likely closed all provision in Texas. If the legislature wants to come back with this then I suspect they will have to increase the scope of the regulations -  I don't think that will be popular.  

 

 

 

 

[Socrates]

On 8/3/2016 at 9:27 AM, Benedictus said:

There may well be less than ideal clinics out there, some offering abortions and others not. The issue is are the laws directed at them all reasonably and equally. 

Lot's of healthcare is done for profit -  that's usually seen as something to celebrate by most Republicans 

I think they did say the closures formed part of the grievance, as it would have likely closed all provision in Texas. If the legislature wants to come back with this then I suspect they will have to increase the scope of the regulations -  I don't think that will be popular.  

There's nothing wrong with profit per se; there is something very wrong with killing babies.

I don't see anything wrong with holding abortion clinics to the same standards as other surgical clinics in the state (other than the fact that these slaughter mills are still allowed to operate).  Previously, and in many other states, abortion mills were held to much lower standards than other medical facilities (and the federal courts never had a problem with that).  But again, per the constitution, the minutiae of state regulations on medical facilities is none of the federal government's business.

But, yeah, let's put lots more regulations on guns, businesses, schools, and everything else - just not on baby-killing.  I mean, God forbid baby-killing should become burdensome!