Argument Against Regulating Abortion Facilities is Disingenuous
abortion facilities, the abortion industry always plays the part of the victim to
drum up sympathy and support for their cause. They often claim safety
regulations are unnecessary because complications from abortion rarely arise. Abortion
complications may be rare. However, that
doesn’t mean they don’t happen and that clinics shouldn’t be required to be
prepared for them.
 |
| Above: In Birmingham, AL, EMTs struggle to carry a victim of a botched abortion to her stretcher |
According to the Guttmacher Institute, which strongly supports abortion, approximately 0.5%
of abortion patients have a complication that requires hospitalization. That’s likely a low figure, but let’s assume that they’re right for the sake of argument. When you consider that there are well over one
million abortions performed in the United States annually, the number of
patients requiring hospitalization after an abortion would be over 5,000! Don’t these 5,000+ women deserve
optimal care?
percentage of women doesn’t settle the question. Look at our school buildings. How
often does a school go up in flames? Almost never. But think about all
the government-required safeguards in place in case a school does cat
ch
fire. There are alarm pull stations,
portable and overhead fire extinguishers, emergency exit doors, fire drills,
and fire lanes around the school building. Even though school fires are rare, we still plan for the
worst-case scenario regardless of the chances of such an event happening. If a school went up in flames and only one
child died as a result of the school not having enough fire doors, it would be
a horrible, preventable tragedy and legislators would be scrambling to pass
laws preventing such a thing from happening again.
clinic being wide enough to accommodate a stretcher if a patient needs to be transported
to an emergency room? What is the
problem with an abortion doctor needing to have admitting privileges at a
nearby hospital? Yes, abortion problems
don’t happen often, but if compliance with the new laws saved just one woman’s
life, wouldn’t it be worth it?
care about women’s health. If they
really cared, they wouldn’t oppose safety measures for their clinics. It’s sad that abortion clinics must be forced
to provide safety for their patients. If
they really cared about the women in their clinics, they would already have
these measures in place without the government having to get involved.
and say what they really mean. That they
don’t care about women, they care about money. That it’s not about health care, it’s about herding women like cattle
through their clinics and turning as high a profit as possible. If they were honest about it, I would at
least have a tiny, microscopic amount of respect for them.
I wouldn't even have a tiny microscopic bit of respect for them, I would just have less than half a decimal point of disrespect that I had for them before. Abby Johnson posted on Facebook today that the clinic she used to work at closed today because they couldn't perform abortions. No one forced them to close, they decided to close rather than disassociate with Planned Parenthood to receive government funding. Rather than continue the charade of caring about women, they closed up shop.
Just look if Dr. Gosnell's or Dr. Karpen's clinics had been checked out? Dr. Gosnell blood on the walls and chairs in halls! Disgusting! We cannot challenge the sacrament of abortion because Dr. Gosnell was really good at doing abortions as early as 1973 can we? Truly is amazing!!
Johno, his clinic WAS checked out in the beginning. It was reported over and over again for almost 20 years. The state health department dropped the ball and did not investigate again until it was far too late.
PCers are not against regulations, in general. They are against meaningless regulations designed to close clinics under the guise of protecting women. Abortion clinics should be held to the same stand as other outpatient facilities. If these laws targeted ALL outpatient facilities, then I would believe that the PL lobbyists that push these laws were really concerned about women.
Now, doctors with admittance privileges: this is another attempt to close clinics, because a hospitals can refuse to give a doctor admittance privileges on a whim. And many hospitals will/do refuse to give a doctor admittance privileges JUST because they provide abortion. The hospitals do not have to use any sort of objective measure. PL lobbyists know this, so they know if admittance privileges is made a requirement, clinics will close automatically. Never mind that the abortion doctor having admittance privilege at a near-by hospital in no way (positively or negatively) affects the patient. It only affects the ability for a clinic to provide abortions.
So, I say, PLers need to be honest about why they push these laws. Abortion could be the safest procedure in the world, but PLers would still try to find ways to ban it. These laws are just an attempt at "banning" abortion without making the act of abortion illegal.
Those in Penn. state health department should be fired then. I agree with you since 1993 nothing was done until cops were checking out pills being sold illegally. Yes, back in 1993 then Gov. Casey did check out clinics, however ,Gov. Ridge stopped this checking because of too much of a burden for abortion providers. This is the real travesty of Dr. Gosnell.
Right. He should have been shut down years ago. Really sad all the way around.
If a abortion clinic cannot pass the same regulations of a Outpatient surgical center or a ER then maybe it should not be open until it does. There are reasons why Hospitals are heavily regulated by the Health Department and if the cannot pass basic health regulations they are closed
McDonald's is more regulated then a Abortion Clinic
Good job at missing the point entirely. I had already stated: "Abortion clinics should be held to the same stand as other outpatient facilities."
That's not what the legislation is asking for. It's asking for abortion clinics to be held at a different standard than other outpatient facilities that perform other minor outpatient procedures. Again, if the PL goal was really about protecting women's health, then push for ALL clinics that perform outpatient procedures to have the same regulation. What's the harm in it?
I'm not certain an abortion is considered minor surgery. :/ And I'm sure most people would agree that if other laws or regulations need to change for abortion clinics to be regulated properly, then that's fine. You say hospitals can refuse to let an abortion providing dr in: well then that needs to change. Any dr should be able to follow up with his patient if they end up at a hospital. You bring up good points, but just because there might be obstacles l in holding abortion clinics to the standards of other surgical centers doesn't mean they can't be overcome.
To be clear, I am referring to the majority of abortions: surgical abortions in the first trimester) are considered a minor, out-patient procedures. No incisions are required, no suturing and minimal anesthesia. It is about as routine as other out-patient procedures. (I'm not making light of what abortion does, just speaking on abortion as a medical procedure).
Why give abortion clinics standards that other outpatient facilities do not have to follow? Why not make all clinics that perform outpatient procedures adhere to surgical center standards since the obstacles are no big deal?
Again, if you (PLers) will work to make every single clinic that performs ANY outpatient procedure adhere to the same standard, I wouldn't have another word to say about the issue.
Ah that is interesting about first trimester abortions. I am familiar with the procedure but didn't know it was considered min risk.
I guess, either we need to consider all abortions major surgery (even in early trimesters) and have them adhere to the standards of ever other major surgical procedure, or consider some such as first trimester minor surgery and have them adhere to the standards set for other minor out patient surgeries. This would make abortions at other times higher risk and should have the same standards for other higher risk surgeries.
Whoever is in charge of setting these standards (FDA, whoever) needs to make this decision. I agree whatever the case, the standards need to be uniform for everyone.