• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Texas bans abortion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
newyorkguy said:
But it's not clear. Anyone can be admitted to an emergency room.
Click to expand...
Precisely, and this is how private practice doctors who are not affiliated with hospitals (and there are plenty of them) handle emergency situations. They stabilize the patient as best they can while waiting for an ambulance, which will take the patient (and possibly the doctor) to the ER where the patient will receive further treatment and potential admission by the hospital's attending physician(s).

"Admitting privileges" mean that the doctor can a) authorize an admission directly to that hospital (e.g., straight to an ICU or other inpatient department) and b) directly attend the patient (and thus preempt the hospital's own physicians' decisions in cases of disagreement) on the floor. They're handy abilities to possess but neither is really medically necessary for outpatient procedures with very low complication rates.
 
Babbylonian said:
<snip> They're handy abilities to possess but neither is really medically necessary for outpatient procedures with very low complication rates.
Click to expand...

The requirement that abortion clinics have admitting privileges is a clever tactic for anti-abortion groups. First, it sounds good. "It ensures that abortion doctors are vetted by their peers," says Denise Burke, vice president of legal affairs at Americans United for Life. But in practice it provides a way for Pro-Life groups to shutdown clinics legally.

The example was given in the Washington Post news story. Two clinics in Dallas secured admitting privileges at a Dallas hospital. Then the Pro-Life groups began picketing and demonstrating at the hospital grounds. Eventually it became too much and the hospital revoked the admitting privileges. Unable to get privileges at other hospitals the clinics were forced to shut down.

I'm sure this has happened in many other places as well.
 
newyorkguy said:
The requirement that abortion clinics have admitting privileges is a clever tactic for anti-abortion groups. First, it sounds good. "It ensures that abortion doctors are vetted by their peers," says Denise Burke, vice president of legal affairs at Americans United for Life. But in practice it provides a way for Pro-Life groups to shutdown clinics legally.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. The worst part is that to people who may be ambivalent on the issue, and who don't really know what "admitting privileges" are, requiring this of private practice doctors doing any procedures might not seem like a bad idea. It makes it easier to paint opponents of the legislation as somehow being advocates of bad medical practices, when the opposite is closer to the truth.
 
Last edited:
Unabogie said:
I don't know. Isn't the point of the OP that Texas is passing laws that curtail freedoms? Shouldn't people at least try to address that point rather than picking at the wording?
Click to expand...

The point of the OP is that abortions were banned in Texas. That is not true. If the OP wanted to address restrictions on abortion, I'm sure he would have done that.
 
Has anyone provided data that shows that restricting abortions actually does anything other than impose hardship and barriers on women seeking to exercise their rights?

Is there any practical purpose to the new law?

State Facts About Abortion: Texas
 
Keep in mind that many if not most these so called "pro-life" people are against social services to care for poor children who are a result of an unwanted pregnancy.

Now if we could only bring back child labor laws.
 
Unabogie said:
According to the OP, it just got much harder for women to exercise their freedom. Isn't that more important than scoring internet points for a self-described "conservative"?

The Central Scrutinizer said:
I have no idea. You'd have to ask a "conservative".

Unabogie said:
You've claimed to be one on this forum.

The Central Scrutinizer said:
Evidence?

As a conservative, I have many liberal friends, who I respect.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Which is worse, to dissemble or to engage in hyperbole?

Those of us who are actively discussing the merits of the law are not hung up on the thread title.
 
RandFan said:
Which is worse, to dissemble or to engage in hyperbole?

Those of us who are actively discussing the merits of the law are not hung up on the thread title.
Click to expand...

As a doctor, astronaut, and NBA superstar, I totally concur. Dissembling is the worst.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom