• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. judge rules against Louisiana abortion restrictions

digsbe said:
I can see the argument behind safety though, and that's my standpoint.
Click to expand...

No, you don't. Your belief that you do is self-delusion which is demonstrated by a complete inability to explain how a patient with a medical emergency will receive better care at an ER if the doctor has admitting priviliges.

Say a woman has an abortion and there is an error or something goes wrong and she hemorrhages or is losing mass amounts of blood. Is that clinic going to keep blood to transfuse in an emergency? Are they equipped to stop the bleed or do surgical intervention if needed? Are they so far from a facility that does to the point that this may be dangerous for patients in that event? Those are valid safety concerns. However, I'd concede they need to do a proper risk assessment to determine prevalence and weigh if it's an acceptable risk or not.
Click to expand...

None of those arguments show how the doctor having admitting priviliges will benefit the patient during an emergency

It might be an argument requiring clinics to keep sufficient inventory of blood on hand,or be located within a reasonable distance of a hospital, but nothing you said is an argument for requiring a doctor have admitting priviliges to the hospital.
 
Last edited:
digsbe said:
Here's the thing about these though... States have a right to regulate medical practice. They set up boards of medicine, define legality and standards behind how one can use various healthcare licenses, and set standards of care. I think it's well within a state's right to make abortion providers have admitting privileges under the umbrella of patient safety. Even if it's a proxy behind trying to ban abortion I think it violates the state's rights to regulate healthcare, they set standards all the time for other things. Heck, this is little to nothing compared to how they regulate controlled substance medications haha.
Click to expand...
The purpose of regulation in not to impede but protect. The proposed laws offered nothing in the form of protection only impeded, so no states rights are not violated, as no right can be used to impede the exercising of another right.
 
sangha said:
No, you don't. Your belief that you do is self-delusion which is demonstrated by a complete inability to explain how a patient with a medical emergency will receive better care at an ER if the doctor has admitting priviliges.



None of those arguments show how the doctor having admitting priviliges will benefit the patient during an emergency
Click to expand...

danarhea said:
They have specific oversight. However, no admitting privileges whatsoever are required.
Click to expand...

My stance is more so the proximity to an ER facility, as stated before. From a regulatory and safety standpoint that makes perfect sense to me. Would you be fine with a law that says abortion facilities must be within 30 miles of a qualified ER/hospital in the event of an emergency during the procedure?

My belief is hardly delusional when you contrast it to other areas that the state can regulate when it comes to medical care and saying there is precedence for allowing this type of thing.
 
Last edited:
digsbe said:
Do you support safe abortion for women? So why not support admitting privileges be standard in the event of an emergency? What if the patient bleeds/hemorrhages or has a major complication or there was an error in the procedure? Should the abortion provider have to recommend that they go to the ER or have privileges to get them care at a facility equipped to do so?
Click to expand...
Admiting privileges are not necessary for an abortion provider in case of an emergency, as the emergency would be addressed by the ER physician anyway.

I know as well as you do it's a back handed way to restrict abortion, but the basis of it makes sense from a patient safety standpoint
Click to expand...
That is exactly it, there is no basis and that was amply demonstrated and substantiated.
 
digsbe said:
My stance is more so the proximity to an ER facility, as stated before. From a regulatory and safety standpoint that makes perfect sense to me. Would you be fine with a law that says abortion facilities must be within 30 miles of a qualified ER/hospital in the event of an emergency during the procedure?

My belief is hardly delusional when you contrast it to other areas that the state can regulate when it comes to medical care and saying there is precedence for allowing this type of thing.
Click to expand...

Then apply it to boob jobs, facelifts, liposuction, and the rest of the field of plastic surgery. The fact that it only applies to abortions, which are not as traumatic, shows what the actual intent of that law is, which is absolutely nothing to do with womens' health. And, if people cannot get abortions in Louisiana, due to all clinics but one being shut down, then that is totally unconstitutional.
 
digsbe said:
But if an ER say is 75 miles away and it's going to take 2-3 hours to receive care is that not dangerous?
Click to expand...

And does having admitting priviliges magically make the clinic closer to the hospital?

If anything the proximity requirement to a hospital makes the most sense to me.
Click to expand...

Read the law again. There is no "proximity requirement"

I'd be shocked if to do a boob job or any kind of procedure like that that the site doesn't need to be registered as a surgical center with specific oversight. Do abortion clinics in Louisiana need to be registered as surgical centers?
Click to expand...

It's outpatient surgery - just like abortion.


Look, I'm not saying that the law isn't a backdoor way to try and ban abortion or make it harder to get one. But the requirements in the law aren't unreasonable from a legal standpoint and I think it's rejection largely lies with the fact that it deals with abortion with abortion being considered falsely "special" compared to other procedures and medical practices. It's about enforcing special interests, not following the established laws or rights of the state.
Click to expand...

Actually, the fact that this law was overturned in LA of all places provides ample proof that this rule is unreasonable from a legal standpoint. You can go on and on about how "special" abortion is, but the fact remains that LA is one of the most politically hostile areas in the country when it comes to abortion which explains why there are so few clinics in the state
 
digsbe said:
My stance is more so the proximity to an ER facility, as stated before.
Click to expand...

There is no proximity requirement. A clinic can be right next door to a hospital and still be prohibited from performing abortions under this regulation.
 
Abortion is a ridiculously safe procedure much safer than boob jobs.

Fail.
 
digsbe said:
And? A right to access abortion doesn't mean it has to be easy to access. If the law says they just need to be 30 miles from a hospital and get admitting privileges I hardly see that as closing all the clinics unless all the clinics are located extremely far away from hospitals or only in far out rural areas (and in that case it's a bit shady).

My argument is from a state's rights to regulate medicine and from a legal standpoint. Not a pro-life or pro-choice standpoint.
Click to expand...

Good point I guess just like a right to bear arms doesn't mean easy access to them or that you can have whatever type you chose or that you get any ammo. I like your style.
 
Paleocon said:
I don't believe in adhering to murderous instructions.



Wanting to kill America's progeny is anti-American.
Click to expand...

Man, you really HAVE gone off the reservation. America is a nation of laws. If you dont want to abide by them, you can always find good company in Iran.
 
digsbe said:
And? A right to access abortion doesn't mean it has to be easy to access. If the law says they just need to be 30 miles from a hospital and get admitting privileges I hardly see that as closing all the clinics unless all the clinics are located extremely far away from hospitals or only in far out rural areas (and in that case it's a bit shady).

My argument is from a state's rights to regulate medicine and from a legal standpoint. Not a pro-life or pro-choice standpoint.
Click to expand...

What if they said 500 feet?
 
danarhea said:
Are you suggesting redistribution of boobs? That's Socialism.
Click to expand...

No my solution would be accretive. Everyone (women) gets a set of bolt ones. We can fund this by eliminating ETD drugs from insurance coverage.
 
danarhea said:
Man, you really HAVE gone off the reservation. America is a nation of laws.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And Louisiana passed a law restricting abortion. They should enforce that law regardless of what the federal courts say.

If you dont want to abide by them, you can always find good company in Iran.
Click to expand...

That if you don't want to live under one legal system, you can move to another, is neither here nor there. This discussion isn't about me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom