Supreme Court refuses to block Texas abortion restrictions

The Supreme Court may block these laws at a later date.

 

Of which part?

Roe v. Wade

Or abortions being artificially cheep because they are not required to adhere to very basic safety standards.

 

Since you are always so big to reference the conclusion of large scientific bodies when it comes to global warming lets test if you are a hypocrite.

Those signing on to this.

1. Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care
2. American Academy of Cosmetic Surgery,
3. American Academy of Dermatology,
4. American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery,
5. American Academy of Ophthalmology,
6. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons,
7. American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery,
8. American Academy of Pediatrics,
9. American Association for Accreditation of Ambulatory Surgery Facilities,
10. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,
11. American College of Surgeons,
12. American Medical Association,
13. American Osteopathic Association,
14. American Society for Dermatologic Surgery,
15. American Society for Reproductive Medicine,
16. American Society of Anesthesiologists,
17. American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery,
18. American Society of General Surgeons,
19. American Society of Plastic Surgeons,
20. American Urological Association,
21. Federation of State Medical Boards,
22. Indiana State Medical Society,
23. Institute for Medical Quality-California Medical Association,
24. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations,
25. Kansas Medical Society,
26. Massachusetts Medical Society,
27. Medical Association of the State of Alabama,
28. Medical Society of the State of New York,
29. Missouri State Medical Association,
30. National Committee for Quality Assurance,
31. Pennsylvania Medical Society, and
32. Society of Interventional Radiology.

So now is your test.

 

The OP is incorrect.

The Supreme Court refused to issue an injunction, not to block the laws.

 

which dozen out of curiosity

 

The above - please show me proof from a non-biased website, that this is so because from my understanding they come under the same regulations as hospitals and clinics. The Philadelphia case was an anomaly that seems to have existed through either ineptitude or greed or both

- - - Updated - - -

That says nothing about standards of care or artificially lowering prices and "this" is not specific to abortion it is specific to anaesthesia - abortion, especially "medical" abortion does NOT need anaesthesia (but may need pain relief)

 

What the hell are you talking about. Anaesthesia is standard practice, either local, sedation, or general.

 

But not required for a "medical" abortion - one that uses RU486

You are applying the rules for one procedure to a different circumstance and procedure

 

Do you ever get tired inventing bull arguments to cover for the hypocrisy in your own arguments.

Medical abortions ars what? Less than 20%. And the clinics that do medical abortions do surgical abortions.

You are trying to to come up with any excuse you can to keep from admitting that clinics should have admitting.

 

Sorry but you are the one trying to apply the rules for one procedure to another. Now you STILL have not proven your contention that abortion clinics have a lower standard of compliance and that this has led to cheaper procedures

 

No they are applying a rule to abortion clinics. Th courts have already ruled in this country that your argument is bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Just because you can come up with a minority scenario does not invalidate the law.

And the lower cost is self evident. The clinics are complaining about the cost of compliance with standard surgical regs in their arguments to the court.

 

Then link to THAT rather than go off on a tangent - and medical abortion is no longer a "minor scenario"

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

And the use is growing - especially as there are more moves to restrict access to surgical abortion

and "self-evident " is short hand for "I have no proof and am not willing to admit it

 

Yeah well, you are OBVIOUSLY wrong. In Texas they are trying to stop the senseless abortion slaughter!

 

Which they will never do through legislation

 

We will see. I know you are terrified that the killing might stop.

 

Nice Ad Hom - I live in a state where abortion is illegal - and still common

 

This is in the United States?

 

NO.And the only place in Australia where abortion is "illegal", (Queensland), still allows it to save the life of the mother, or prevent serious health damage to her.

 

Abortion clinics in the US are NOT held to the SAME sanitary/safety/medical standards are ALL OTHER ambulatory/surgical centers/clinics.

The NEW LAWS address that gloring inequit, which consitutes a public heath hazard, and are, quixotically, OPPOSED by ther same people who are always trumoeting their Great Concern for Women's Health issues.

Go figure.

 

The new law is a cynical attempt to limit access to abortion while pretending to be concerned with women's health. The requirement for admitting privileges are an attempt force doctors providing abortions to associate with hospitals and serves no rational purpose in protecting the health of patients.

 

I said "minority scenario". You do know that changing quotes is against forum rules don't you.

As to the law. It is very simple. Here in the states when the courts are looking at laws they look to see if the state had a compelling legal interest in creating the law. An abortion clinic cant argue that they should be exempt from the law because they only do medical abortions anymore than medical marijuana providers can argue that they are exempt from federal law because they only grow and sell their pot in state.

No its short hand for you are engaging in deceptive debate practices.

#1 Have the providers not argued that this will increase cost?

Yes or no? No obfuscating.

#2 Are these requirements standard practice for surgical facilities and endorsed by a vast amount of major of medical bodies?
Yes or no? No obfuscating.

If the answer to #1 and #2 is yes. When the evidence presented in this thread proves conclusively then the cost of abortion has been held artificially low by not requiring abortion clinics to adhere to the same standards as any other surgical facilities.

Game over you lose!

 

That is a non sequitur. Even if you are correct that it is an attempt to limit access to an abortion that does not mean that it serves no rational purpose for limiting protecting the patient.

Abortion clinics perform surgery which means they should be required to adhere to the same standards as any other surgical facility.

A woman has no more right to an abortion than she does to cosmetic surgery. The price and availability of cosmetic surgery is effected just as much by the same safety regs as abortion clinics will now be forced to adhere to. There is no loss of anyone rights here because there is no right to a cheep abortion any more than there is a right to a cheep tummy tuck.

 

The fact that it is admitted by many proponents of the law that the goal is limiting access to abortion will weaken the argument that it serves a rational purpose.

The law is not a general regulation of outpatient procedures and you have not provided any proof of similar regulation of procedures with similar risks.

The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) released a statement in response to the Texas bill stating:

The bills would require physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles, allowing abortions only in surgical clinics and setting a higher standard than for other procedures with similar low risk such as colonoscopy. The fact is that abortion is one of the safest medical procedures. The risk of complications from abortion is minimal, with less than 0.5% of abortions involving major complications.

 

Amongsts those signing this statment

10. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,

And yes the American College and the American Congress is the same organization.

Ha Ha Ha

 

Again the law is not a general regulation of office based surgeries. Features that are delayed will require abortion providers to become ambulatory surgical centers. These requirements are not proportional to the risk and other more risky and similarly risky procedures and surgeries are not similarly regulated.

Their signature on that statement does not mean what you claim. Abortion is not defined by the ACOG as surgery...

http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...erry-says-abortions-are-nations-second-most-/

Dr. Barbara Levy, vice president of health policy for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and former medical director of the Women’s Health and Breast Center in Washington state, said by telephone that abortions are "minimally invasive" procedures, akin to colonoscopies, and do not involve surgical cutting unlike, say, hysterectomies. "We call these procedures, not surgeries," Levy said. "I don’t even think it’s appropriate to talk about" abortion "as a surgical procedure."

Ha ha ha ha