Should abortion meet basic safety and sanitary stanards

[little2add]

On July 19, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Anomaly said:

what about the morality of tightening restrictions via lies?   The legislature didn't just put to a vote a law to restrict abortion.   They said it was needed for the woman's health reasons.  That justification proved to be a falsehood.  

The problem with using BS as justification, is it risks being discredited.   I understand the politics, but it ended up being a wasted effort, made anti-abortionists look disingenuous, liars, and stupid.   Also, it did absolutely NOTHING about providing legal status for in-womb persons. 

It wasn't an ideological ruling.  It was simple proving BS on a misguided strategy.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYijO3OrWBQ

the texas law is a direct result  or response to the atrocities  committed by "Kermit Gosnel"

it is neither a lie,  BS, misguided or falsehood  strategy.   

 

[little2add]

watch the youtube link , if you dare

[Anomaly]

1 hour ago, little2add said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYijO3OrWBQ

the texas law is a direct result  or response to the atrocities  committed by "Kermit Gosnel"

it is neither a lie,  BS, misguided or falsehood  strategy.   

 

Kermit was convicted of murder and is spending life in prison.   There are PA laws covering what he did.

The significant point is that he could only be charged with murders for persons AFTER they were born alive.  That right there supports my point that a fundamental issue is no legal protection for unborn persons.   It is misguided to think abortion will be resolved by limiting abortion clinics and never fight for legal status of in-womb persons.  In Kermit's case, PA didn't even follow its own laws or investigate multitudes of complaints.  

What use is another bureaucratic law that won't be enforced when the victims have no legal status?

Edited July 20, 2016 by Anomaly

[little2add]

38 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

 

What use is another bureaucratic law that won't be enforced when the victims have no legal status?

If this activity is okay with you, vote democrat.  They will make sure that this kind of behavior is tolerated and even called "women's health."

[Socrates]

On 7/19/2016 at 3:05 PM, Anomaly said:

what about the morality of tightening restrictions via lies?   The legislature didn't just put to a vote a law to restrict abortion.   They said it was needed for the woman's health reasons.  That justification proved to be a falsehood.  

The problem with using BS as justification, is it risks being discredited.   I understand the politics, but it ended up being a wasted effort, made anti-abortionists look disingenuous, liars, and stupid.   Also, it did absolutely NOTHING about providing legal status for in-womb persons. 

It wasn't an ideological ruling.  It was simple proving BS on a misguided strategy.  

I'm not sure what "lies" are being referred to.  The prevention of filthy and unhealthy hell-holes like Grosnell's (and his case was not unique; I've read of other, similar horrors) would be justification enough for such restrictions.  Such operations are definitely not beneficial to women's health.  Absolutely nothing immoral about holding abortion mills subject to the same standards as other medical facilities that provide surgery.  (other than that they still allow abortion, of course.)

And, of course, constitutionally speaking, such state regulations are entirely outside the federal government's jurisdiction.  Interestingly, the SCOTUS generally sees no need to subject the countless government regulations (both federal and state) on nearly everything else to similar scrutiny.  This just happened to touch on the left-liberal ideological sacred cow of abortion.

Your attack on the Texas legislation is extremely misplaced and ironic given that the whole Supreme Court decision you defend is itself based on nothing but lies, falsehoods, and BS.  Chief among them being:

A)  That killing unborn children is "women's health."

B)  That abortion is an absolute "right" somehow enshrined in the Constitution.

and C)  That such state regulations are any of the federal government's beaver dam business.

And if you're actually interested, you might look up Thomas's dissent.  The three remaining SCOTUS justices who actually give a beaver dam about the Constitution (well, sometimes, in the case of Roberts) evidently see things different from you and the liberal justices.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/27/8-best-quotes-from-clarence-thomass-texas-abortion-dissent/

 

Edited July 21, 2016 by Socrates

[Benedictus]

On 28/06/2016 at 2:08 AM, little2add said:

Abortion entails known medical risks.   Shouldn't abortion clinics should have to meet basic sanitary requirements and safety standards.

the first major abortion case in nearly a decade. On Monday, the court ruled 5-3 to reverse Texas’ law requiring abortion clinics meet commonsense safety standards regularly followed by facilities that perform invasive outpatient surgeries and requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

 it's a sad day for women and their health

Most abortions now are increasingly medical [pill form], not surgical. So the need for complex regulations are reduced, but obviously not eliminated. 

The issue is whether statistics are kept on abortion rates, complications and so on. This can be used as a measure as to whether the safety element is adequate or not. Laws, especially out of some states, are far from being based on commonsense. Is safety the issue really or were the regulations politically motivated to reduce abortions? I suspect a mix of both, but especially the latter. It's just obvious that they're not upfront about it.

[little2add]

4 hours ago, Benedictus said:

 Is safety the issue really or were the regulations politically motivated to reduce abortions?

Abortion using a pill or knife is “cruel and unusual” punishment.  Pretending that a fetus is not a person doesn't change anything.  

It is not safe

 

[Benedictus]

2 minutes ago, little2add said:

Abortion using a pill or knife is “cruel and unusual” punishment.  Pretending that a fetus is not a person doesn't change anything.  

It is not safe

 

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. 

Antiabortionists wanting higher medical standards so women can feel more content to have abortion procedures makes no sense unless there's a secondary objective. 

 

[little2add]

See: http://www.phila.gov/districtattorney/pdfs/grandjurywomensmedical.pdf

[little2add]

3 hours ago, Benedictus said:

Not everything that's immoral is unsafe

really?

[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.