Texas bans abortion.

[bynmdsue]

Well, from testimony we know that he had cats wandering around his "clinic" but did we call in the VP (veterinary police) to find out that it had fleas? Or is that hyperbole, 'cuz it sounds dirtier?
(ETA: No argument from this quarter that the place wasn't filthy and unsafe nor that Gosnell was anything less than a disgusting ********* and deserved to be buried under the jail.)

Gosnell was/is the poster boy for the RtL crowd. They had themselves an actual Satan and of course tried to use the miscreants mis-deeds as a way to assure that there would be more Kermit Gosnell's... greedy ************ who exploit desperate women. The pro-choice side looks at Gosnell and sees as horrible a monster as the purest-thinking God-fearing right-to-lifer. The right-to-lifer, though, doesn't see how the saddling of more and more bureaucratic hurdles onto the poor and desperate is going to inevitably create WTG(worse than Gosnell) scenarios.

The detail about the cats comes right from the Grand Jury report.

Gosnell is what happens when clinics aren't kept up to standards. Why wasn't it up to standards? Because the state didn't inspect it for 17 years. Why not? Again, from the GJ Report...

The Pennsylvania Department of Health abruptly decided, for political reasons, to stop inspecting abortion clinics at all. The politics in question were not anti-abortion, but pro. With the change of administration from Governor Casey to Governor Ridge, officials concluded that inspections would be “putting a barrier up to women” seeking abortions.

So even the very act of inspection to see if standards are being maintained is a bridge too far for some pro-choicers. So what if some woman leaves a clinic with an STD she didn't go in there with? The important thing is she's no longer pregnant.

So TX is shutting down clinics that don't meet certain standards. Why don't those clinics just clean up their acts? Is that really too unfair a burden?

 

[uke2se]

So what if some woman leaves a clinic with an STD she didn't go in there with?

Out of interest, how many times has that happened? Feel free to approximate.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The detail about the cats comes right from the Grand Jury report.

Gosnell is what happens when clinics aren't kept up to standards. Why wasn't it up to standards? Because the state didn't inspect it for 17 years. Why not? Again, from the GJ Report...


So even the very act of inspection to see if standards are being maintained is a bridge too far for some pro-choicers. So what if some woman leaves a clinic with an STD she didn't go in there with? The important thing is she's no longer pregnant.

So TX is shutting down clinics that don't meet certain standards. Why don't those clinics just clean up their acts? Is that really too unfair a burden?

I dislike how you try to keep up with the Republican lie that this is about health standards. However, you're not fooling anyone. Everyone knows this is only about making abortion inaccessible to more women and another step towards a total ban.

 

[newyorkguy]

I think the problem is Texas crafted the legislation to make the burden of reaching the new standards impossible for some of the clinics to meet. Was there a health problem the legislation was addressing? I think that's naive. It's about restricting abortion.

The new law is largely Republican-initiated and the flaw I see in the GOP strategy is this:

Pro-Life Texas had been campaigning for Republican support for the new law arguing it would be a key factor enabling the GOP to defeat Wendy Davis the Democrat in the governor's election. However, polls show Texans are split on abortion rights about 45% pro/45 anti%/10% no preference. The people who are pro abortion include many women and people with a college education. These people vote at a higher rate than average. I think the new law may actually help Davis get elected. Voter turnout in Texas is among the lowest of any state but women normally comprise 55% of the voters.

We'll see.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I think the problem is Texas crafted the legislation to make the burden of reaching the new standards impossible for some of the clinics to meet. Was there a health problem the legislation was addressing? I think that's naive. It's about restricting abortion.

The new law is largely Republican-initiated and the flaw I see in the GOP strategy is this:

Pro-Life Texas had been campaigning for Republican support for the new law arguing it would be a key factor enabling the GOP to defeat Wendy Davis the Democrat in the governor's election. However, polls show Texans are split on abortion rights about 45% pro/45 anti%/10% no preference. The people who are pro abortion include many women and people with a college education. These people vote at a higher rate than average. I think the new law may actually help Davis get elected. Voter turnout in Texas is among the lowest of any state but women normally comprise 55% of the voters.

We'll see.

The problem is that they are also making it very hard for those affected by this law to vote. There is no need to worry about the voters if you can choose who the voters are. This is the GOP mindset.

 

[tyr_13]

So TX is shutting down clinics that don't meet certain standards. Why don't those clinics just clean up their acts? Is that really too unfair a burden?

Yes, it is really too unfair a burden. The standard is capricious and arbitrary, and designed to shut down clinics not for any medical reason, but to restrict access to abortions. The clinics don't need to 'clean up' their act because they're not failing any reasonable standard.

There is no medical need for the new standard. Without that, there is no good reason for this law. This latest court ruling seems to be based on 'there isn't enough harm caused by this law to throw it out'.


_______________________________

theprestige, is this what you meant by 'noboby is fooled'?

 

[newyorkguy]

Some health advocates have said a bigger threat to women's health is the drastic reduction in the number of clinics statewide that this law has triggered. These clinics do provide services other than performing abortions.

Last year, there were 41 abortion clinics in Texas. On Thursday, 21 were left in the entire state. Today [Oct. 3rd] there were just seven. Newsweek link

 

[theprestige]

Some health advocates have said a bigger threat to women's health is the drastic reduction in the number of clinics statewide that this law has triggered. These clinics do provide services other than performing abortions.

Is it the clinics that are shutting down, or just the abortion services they provide?

If they're electing to cut off other services, I'm not sure how the "bigger threat" can be blamed on the law.

 

[bynmdsue]

So, if Texas only allowed guns to be purchased in 7 locations, that would be okay? After all, it wouldn't be a ban, so it should be fine, right?

But that's not what happened. TX didn't say "You can only have abortion clinics here, here and here but none here, here or here." They said that the clinics must conform to a predetermined standard. The clinics that don't are to be closed. You want to open a clinic then make sure it conforms to the standards. You want to go into business selling guns make sure you have a Federal Firearms License. If not they will shut your store down.

 

[uke2se]

Is it the clinics that are shutting down, or just the abortion services they provide?

If they're electing to cut off other services, I'm not sure how the "bigger threat" can be blamed on the law.

Are you saying that there would be harsher regulations against the abortion parts of a clinics business, and as such, the other services would remain unaffected? If so, why would that be?

 

[uke2se]

But that's not what happened. TX didn't say "You can only have abortion clinics here, here and here but none here, here or here." They said that the clinics must conform to a predetermined standard. The clinics that don't are to be closed. You want to open a clinic then make sure it conforms to the standards. You want to go into business selling guns make sure you have a Federal Firearms License. If not they will shut your store down.

About the number of cases of women getting STDs from abortion clinics... got a figure yet?

 

[newyorkguy]

Is it the clinics that are shutting down, or just the abortion services they provide? If they're electing to cut off other services, I'm not sure how the "bigger threat" can be blamed on the law.

That's disingenuous. Doctors know if you cut off women from legal abortion many of the women will get illegal abortions. That's the health threat. That this new law is driving that.

Yes there are other services provided but I think the clinics are totally shut down.

For right-to-lifers that's a twofer. Because not only is the availability of abortions greatly reduced but so is the availability of services like affordable contraception and family planning.

 

[johnny karate]

But that's not what happened. TX didn't say "You can only have abortion clinics here, here and here but none here, here or here." They said that the clinics must conform to a predetermined standard. The clinics that don't are to be closed. You want to open a clinic then make sure it conforms to the standards. You want to go into business selling guns make sure you have a Federal Firearms License. If not they will shut your store down.

Exactly. If a law was passed that said anyone wishing to own a gun must first complete 100 hours of safety training that they must pay for out of their own pocket, bynmdsue would be totally cool with that, because it's not a law restricting gun ownership.

 

[thaiboxerken]

But that's not what happened. TX didn't say "You can only have abortion clinics here, here and here but none here, here or here." They said that the clinics must conform to a predetermined standard. The clinics that don't are to be closed. You want to open a clinic then make sure it conforms to the standards. You want to go into business selling guns make sure you have a Federal Firearms License. If not they will shut your store down.

You aren't tricking anyone. Everyone knows it's about paving a path to ban abortion.

 

[newyorkguy]

What if Diane Feinstein proposed changes in the way firearm dealers are regulated. But it turned out the immediate effect of the new law would be to require about 80% of the dealers to shut down. If posters then wrote, "I support the new law, not because I'm pro gun control but because I want safe gun dealers," would that seem credible?

 

[Minoosh]

God I'm about to hate myself for saying this.

I'm not stupid. I know full well this has nothing to do with any actual concern over the medical standards of these clinics. <snip>

The fact that you feel the need for a preamble indicates IMO a regrettable Internet forum reality. You want to ask a simple question, yet feel you can't, even on this forum, without being met with a pugnacious response. You really are just asking a question. From my point of view, anyone who responds, "Oh, you're just asking a question (smirk, wink, nod)," is violating a very basic premise of skepticism. People get to ask questions. If they go on to reveal bad faith, then skepticism of their questions may be warranted. But if forum members react defensively to a question on a first go - IMO, they lack confidence in the process of skeptical inquiry.

That all being said... feet to the fire, truth or dare, warts and all honest I can't get that outraged over an abortion clinic being held to the same outpatient medical clinic standards as a place where you get liposuction or Lasik and by its letter, if not its meaning, I don't see this law doing anymore then that.

It would take more research but I want to point out a distinction: "Medical" abortions are noninvasive. They rely on administering drugs to effect a miscarriage. From past threads I believe this is a point that Texas officials wish to suppress. "Surgical" abortions involve dilating the cervix, reaching into the uterus with some type of instrument and scraping out the lining.

Now: The Texas law may be trying to erase that distinction, and I'm not sure of the medical justification. If a "medical" abortion fails, and health-care providers have to go in and finish the job with instruments, then those standards for invasive procedures could be in play. I don't know how common this scenario is.

I found this link very educational:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_abortion

It interests me that in Canada this is a viable option for 2nd-trimester pregnancies, while U.S. practitioners rely much more heavily on the surgical model. Noteworthy: Providers charge more for induced miscarriage than they do for full-on surgery. This doesn't make sense to me.

I can't complete this post without making a plug for the morning-after pill, which is not RU-486, which does not require a prescription, which may be purchased by minors in many places and which drastically cuts down the potential for complications by being almost real-time contraception. It is very important to me that women are educated on this option. I've used it; its use for preventing unwanted pregnancies cannot, IMO, be overstated. If a woman is a month or two along, it's too late. At that point, to terminate you would seek a "medical" abortion. In the U.S., the default after 9 weeks would be surgery; whereas in Canada, the default at that point would still be medical abortion.

I won't lie my first reaction to a law requesting abortion clinics be held to medical clinic standards is "You mean they weren't already?"

You shouldn't have to lie. IMO, your question on this forum should be met with good faith. If you expect intimidation from skeptics - then they are not skeptics, they are bullies.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Pop quiz time:

Does Ziggurat think abortion should be legal or illegal?

I'm guessing legal.

ETA: I think the best way to deal with these Texas laws on abortion clinics is to donate a bunch of money to outfits like Planned Parenthood so that they can pay for the upgrades now required by the law.

 

[RandFan]

I think the problem is Texas crafted the legislation to make the burden of reaching the new standards impossible for some of the clinics to meet. Was there a health problem the legislation was addressing? I think that's naive. It's about restricting abortion.

The state has a compelling interest to protect the health of women. If there is data that supports the proposition that clinics present a significant health risk then I would support such policies.

Why would that not work in reverse?

This report focuses on women's health and, specifically, on the provision of abortion care. However, the growing trend of imposing ideology on medical care has far broader implications. Similar restrictions impair health care providers' ability to counsel patients on gun safety or environmental risk factors, among other health and safety concerns. Major medical organizations from the American Medical Association (AMA), to the American College of Physicians (ACP), to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), have all recognized that this trend of political interference in medical decision-making is detrimental to patient care.

All patients deserve accurate information, high-quality care and the treatment options that best meet their needs. Health care providers should not be forced to choose between adhering to their ethical and professional obligations to provide the highest standard of care and following legal restrictions enacted in pursuit of a political agenda. [National Partnership for Women & Families, Bad Medicine: How a Political Agenda is Undermining Women's Health Care, July 2014]

So TX is shutting down clinics that don't meet certain standards. Why don't those clinics just clean up their acts? Is that really too unfair a burden?

Do you have any citations from experts that these clinics posed a significant risk to women?

 

[xjx388]

This may be the catalyst that wins the Governor's race for Wendy Davis.

You ain't from Texas, are ya?

It seems that most Texans are OK with this. Further, abortions have long been hard to obtain in rural areas for a variety of economic and social reasons. This changes absolutely nothing for rural Texans.

 

[RandFan]

This changes absolutely nothing for rural Texans.

Do you have something other than a bald assertion? Should we take your word for it or the word of experts?

“The fact is that these bills will not help protect the health of any woman in Texas. Instead, these bills will harm women’s health in very clear ways,” the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said in an open letter to Texas legislators. “The fact is that abortion is one of the safest medical procedures, with minimal — less than 0.5 percent — risk of major complications that might need hospital care.”