If it was (is? What's the status on the bill?), it was ill thought out; abortion clinics (in my research anyway) don't seem to be lacking funds. The people who are asking for money to enable the procedure are the patients.
Given that (and I'm willing to be wrong-- I've found one abortion clinic in Kansas that shut down because of financial difficulties, and none else), why would passing this bill be a problem?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Fact Sheet: The Shortage of Abortion Providers
* 87% of all U.S. counties and 97% of all rural U.S. counties have no abortion provider.1 * Since 1982, the number of abortion providers has decreased by 37%.1 * 58% of all OB/GYN doctors who provide abortions are 50 years of age or older. This means the number of providers will continue to decline as current providers reach retirement age, unless younger clinicians learn to perform abortions.2 * In 1983, 42% of all OB/GYN doctors performed abortions. In 1995, only 33% did. The overwhelming majority of abortions are performed by a small group of doctors: Only 2% of U.S. OB/GYN doctors perform more than 25 abortions per month.3 * 72% of OB/GYN residency programs do not train all residents in abortion procedures.4 * From 1982 to 2000, the number of hospitals providing abortions has decreased by 57%.1 * Only 15% of chief residents in family medicine residency programs have clinical experience providing first trimester abortions.3 * “Physician-only” laws in most states require careful legal research to ascertain whether advanced practice clinicians (nurse practitioners, nurse midwives, and physician assistants) can provide medical and/or surgical abortions under their professional regulations. * Many nursing programs do not adequately prepare students to care for women having abortions, contributing to a shortage of nurses willing and trained to assist abortion providers. Lack of faculty qualified to teach about reproductive options, fear of anti-choice backlash, and the absence of appropriate didactic materials are barriers to incorporating abortion into existing curricula. * Abortion is one of the only medical procedures with a “conscience clause” that allows medical providers to refuse to participate in the care of a patient. * There have been 15,087 reported instances of violence and/or harassment against abortion providers since 1977, including 7 murders and 17 attempted murders (actual instances are most likely much higher.)5 In 2000, more than half of all providers experienced anti-choice harassment.6
You'll note that funding is NOT one of the issues brought up-- availability of the operation, and doctors willing to carry it out are.
Can you think of why that might be?
[ April 21, 2004, 09:57 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"You'll note that funding is NOT one of the issues brought up-- availability of the operation, and doctors willing to carry it out is.
Can you think of why that might be?"
I'd imagine it's a combination of several factors, from personal conscience to legal opposition to public intimidation.
---
So, then, you aren't willing to speculate on why a law might have been drafted requiring abortion clinics in SPECIFIC to possess special equipment? Scott, let's face it: it's just another attempt to chip away at the clinics by any means possible.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
jehovoid, I assume you didn't read my various parts that admitted that if you believe in the personhood of the fetus the whole safety argument is nonsensical, right?
Scott, it's a catch-22. I personally would like to see abortion go the way of the dinosaurs. The best way to do it, IMO, isn't to chop the legs out from under "safe" abortions. It's to educate people to the point that only a tiny minority (since I think there will always be a small segment of women who do this) would think of going the abortion route.
If you look at abortion from the perspective of a medical procedure (which some in here are not, as is there right), then from a medical point of view, abortions are being singled out, because there is a large (majority) of people who don't like it. I would love to for there to be a crash cart at every medical facility, period. So ask the lawmakers, why are they restricting this law only to abortion clinics? When kat said that some people are ignoring safety for politics, it could have been just as easily been made for the side she is sympathetic to.
Bok-- When you call a place a 'clinic,' certain laws apply to it. When you call a place a 'hospital,' more laws are applied.
I don't deny that BOTH designations, and the application of the terms to any given office, can be political: the question becomes then, is the medical equipment necessary for the safety of patients undergoing an abortion?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jon Boy - my immediate reaction was to get angry with your link, but I can't work out whether you meant it as satirical against the anti-abortionist lobby, the pro-choice lobby or some other group.
I'm being quite serious here - I guess I'm just being dense.
But if you let me know, I'll respond appropriately. Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Imogen, it seems to me that the article is satire against the pro-choice people. I really don't see the difference between killing a five-year-old and killing a baby that's only moments away from being born.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott: Sure, but so should any other medical facility, 'clinic' or otherwise, that performs procedures with similar (or in my case, I'd even say ANY) complication rates.
If the pro-life folks really wanted to help, they'd propose the same law for any facilities that perform operations with certain complication rates. You'd find much less opposition, I'd bet.
Basically, what you conceded to Tom was what I, and I presume Suneun, were saying. This wasn't really about patient safety, this was about making political hay. If you still believe that the opposition should step aside when there are possible long term repurcussions, well, that's a fair difference of opinion. --
As an aside: I can see 2 reasons for the drop in doctors learning the abortion procedures. One is moral, and one is financial (okay, there is also a societal pressure one as well, but that won't change anyone's mind).
posted
So now do we get to talk about the inconsistency with pro-choice advocates' stand on parental consents when compared with consent needed for other surgeries?
posted
Jon Boy - ok. And I can understand that satire in terms of late birth / partial birth abortions. Especially in the terms you couched it - if a baby is "only moments away from being born" then I cannot justify an abortion in any way, shape or form *except* if it is *absolutely* necessary to save the mother's life.
I do see a difference in first trimester abortions, but I guess that's a different discussion for a different thread.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:This wasn't really about patient safety, this was about making political hay. If you still believe that the opposition should step aside when there are possible long term repurcussions, well, that's a fair difference of opinion.
I don't understand your last sentence-- can you clear it up for me?
I concede that the the bill may have been introduced to 'chip away' at abortion rights; however, my question stands: is it a good idea to have this equipment? If it is, no matter what everyone else in the medical field is doing, isn't it JUST to require it?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, I think it IS good to require it. To put it in more neutral terms, I think the law is poorly written because it only applies to a subset of medical facilities that ought to have these safety requirements. I think the state legislative body ought to go back and draw up a more comprehensive law that will protect more patients. Why should abortion seekers get more safety than some other patient with a comparable (in terms of complications) medical procedure?
posted
Then only Jorge would survive the car crash.
Proof that America cares about immigrants.
Tom, I get where you're going-- but the simple fact is that, as I stated earlier, there's a big difference between having a tooth extracted, and having a fetus pulled out of your body.
I am fine with having all invasive surgeries require the same type of safety precautions as is required with abortive surgery.
Why were the clinics not required to implement these safety precautions in the first place? To turn the argument on its head, why did the law seem to state, 'Everyone but Hispanics needs to wear seat belts?'
Who is to say that this law wasn't a rectification of an oversight?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
But did the law actually say the equivalent of "evryone but..."?
I think that is an assumption that has yet to be tested. I think it's more likely that there are many "out-patient" procedures [EDIT: done] at doctor's offices separate from hospitals that may not have the same safety equipment.
quote:Bok-- When you call a place a 'clinic,' certain laws apply to it. When you call a place a 'hospital,' more laws are applied.
This is misleading. I attended a lecture today by a Reproductive Rights advocate (medical director of Planned Parenthood of RI). He told us that at Four Women, the abortion clinic at which I volunteered for several afternoons last summer, the hallways must be wider than at the hospital, the OR room must be bigger than at the hospital, and there is more "life saving equipment" present in the room than in the hospital OR. There was a law passed (not sure what state) stating that an abortion clinic OR must have fresh air pumped in 6 times the volume of the room every minute. Doesn't that seem a little excessive to you?
Yes, if "Seat belts for all non Hispanics" was the legal rule beforehand, then extending it makes sense. I've agreed to this since the VERY BEGINNING of this conversation.
But through some basic poking around, it seems that such "seat belts" are only recommended in private offices and clinics. Therefore I maintain my stance that the reason it received opposition was because of singling out a particular practice for the main purpose of making it more difficult to perform.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then I come back to my question as to why abortion rights advocates want different parental consent laws for abortion than for other surgery?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The kind of parental consent law I currently support allowed the child to petition a judge for permission for the abortion. The adolescent is asked to show that they are making a choice free of coersion and with all relevant knowledge at hand.
It's tough to defend why this procedure should be allowed such an exception while others not. I guess any procedure should allow this sort of exception. It just seems most necessary for this procedure, because of the politics and social stigma. A fifteen year old girl should not be forced to keep the baby if she doesn't want it, the same way a fifteen year old cancer patient shouldn't be refused treatment because her parents don't want her to get treatment. It's just that in the second case, it's often exterior forces acting.
If a child feels threatened by her parents, and sees potential for an abusive situation to arise, I'd like her to be able to petition a judge for permission to waive parental permission.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:A fifteen year old girl should not be forced to keep the baby if she doesn't want it, the same way a fifteen year old cancer patient shouldn't be refused treatment because her parents don't want her to get treatment. It's just that in the second case, it's often exterior forces acting.
In this case, though, who is legally responsible for the baby that is born? Can the 15 year old even be responsible, given that she's a minor? Doesn't the responsibility fall to the parents anyway? I'm asking because I really don't know, if anyone has specifics on the legal ramifications that'd be helpful.
I would support a law saying that parental permission is required, but if the girl wants an abortion and the parents don't, then the parents become the permanent legal guardians of the baby. As in, they can't force the kid on the girl when she turns 18 and the girl can't turn around and demand custody 5 years down the road.
Posts: 134 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that's not too bad of an idea. I also believe that in most states the mother, 15 or not, is the legal guardian of the child. I could be wrong though.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
