I must not understand this

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Someone else read it and tell me what it says:

What I think it says is that Louisiana was trying to pass a bill that says abortion doctors must have admitting privileges at at least one local hospital.; it was challenged and the Supremes are putting a hold on it pending further review.

Is that right?

So why wouldn't you want the doctor who is performing a major procedure on you to be able to admit you to the hospital if something goes wrong?

What don't I understand about this?
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Someone else read it and tell me what it says:

What I think it says is that Louisiana was trying to pass a bill that says abortion doctors must have admitting privileges at at least one local hospital.; it was challenged and the Supremes are putting a hold on it pending further review.

Is that right?

So why wouldn't you want the doctor who is performing a major procedure on you to be able to admit you to the hospital if something goes wrong?

What don't I understand about this?
I think it is because most of those doctors that do abortions haven't become staff members of the nearby hospitals thus obtaining the privilege, now whether the hospital doesn't want them or they haven't requested to become staff is unknown. As I understand it only one hospital that has any of these doctors on staff thereby basically shutting down the majority of abortion clinics.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
So if you get an abortion by some quack who can't get hospital privs, how is that different from the back alley people with coat hangers that legal abortion was supposed to eliminate?

How is this supposed to make abortion safer?
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
It isn't safer. I think that many of these type doctors don't want the expense, hassle, mentoring, be subjected to on-call and review of their training to obtain the privilege.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
It isn't safer. I think that many of these type doctors don't want the expense, hassle, mentoring, be subjected to on-call and review of their training to obtain the privilege.
Then this bill appears to be a no-brainer. Yet someone challenged it, and the Supremes agree with the challenge on some level.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Then this bill appears to be a no-brainer. Yet someone challenged it, and the Supremes agree with the challenge on some level.
From what I understand it is because the outcome would basically leave only one location legally able to perform this "Woman's Rights" procedure.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
From what I understand it is because the outcome would basically leave only one location legally able to perform this "Woman's Rights" procedure.
So some quack with a coat hanger is better than no abortion at all?

I'm surprised anyone would have the nads to challenge this and still say they are for safe, legal abortions.
 

Lurk

Happy Creepy Ass Cracka
Abortionists like Kermit Gosnell would have had difficulty obtaining hospital privileges under such a law. This would have severely impeded availability (in the eyes of the gummint) but would have had nearly no impact on availability to obtain an abortion on demand. Gosnell would have continued doing abortions and the State of Pennsylvania would have been no more the wiser (as evidenced by the fact he had been doing these abortions and killing an occasional woman for about 20 years).

Someone in the legislature followed a growing trend who believed that abortion providers endanger their customers who need immediate admission to the hospital for a botched abortion. It's a lot like the Democrats who believe that global, total, and unavoidable background checks will cause non-interested rules skaters to get a background check before they purchase a Saturday night special out of the trunk of a car at McDonalds parking lot. If a woman is bleeding from a botched abortion, no abortion provider is going to accompany her into the E.R. and admit her to the hospital. The woman either dies ot gets herself to the nearest E.R.

The law was technically done to impede availability to abortions, therefore, unconstitutional. (Damnit)
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Quite simply it was done to keep the abortion mills open, because few of these butchers have hospital privileges.
Few Doctors in St Mary's have hospital privileges I believe.
If you go to St Mary's Hospital, you won't be treated by your doctor you will get one of theirs.

I think if you check into it you will see that is true.
If i am wrong I am sure I will be corrected forthwith.
 

LightRoasted

If I may ...
If I may ...

It's like saying: When is a doctor not a doctor? When they are not part of a hospital.
Which of course ins't true. A doctor that has "privileges" at a hospital, in actuality, has a business arrangement with that hospital, or, is employed by that hospital. A hospital cannot be forced to contract with a doctor.

If a procedure does go bad at an abortion doctor's clinic, they can attempt to stabilize the patient and call for an ambulance.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Then this bill appears to be a no-brainer. Yet someone challenged it, and the Supremes agree with the challenge on some level.
not the 1st time a bill like this has been challenged by Progressives

****'em ... let these cows run off to dirty unlicensed clinics Remove ALL Restrictions
 

22AcaciaAve

Active Member
The problem here is that the Louisiana law is clearly targeting abortions. There are plenty of outpatient procedures that are performed by doctors who do not have admitting privileges at any local hospitals. Why not prevent these as well? There still is the 911 option, which quite honestly is probably quicker in a life threatening situation than having a privilege at a local hospital. The court did not reject the law, it simply put it on hold pending further investigation.
 

seekeroftruth

Active Member
Someone else read it and tell me what it says:

What I think it says is that Louisiana was trying to pass a bill that says abortion doctors must have admitting privileges at at least one local hospital.; it was challenged and the Supremes are putting a hold on it pending further review.

Is that right?

So why wouldn't you want the doctor who is performing a major procedure on you to be able to admit you to the hospital if something goes wrong?

What don't I understand about this?
As I understand it, Vraiblonde, they need admitting privileges because if something goes wrong during the abortion then the Doctor can send them straight to the hospital under their care. If they don't have privileges and there is a problem with the abortion, the admitting doctor at the hospital would become liable [lawsuit] for any complications that cannot be corrected. It puts the hospital in a precarious spot.

That's the way I heard it explained.... the problem is... a couple of clinics are in a spot too far from a hospital.... putting the lives of the patients in harms way.

It's practical so it's hard to argue with.... however.... people want abortion on demand at convenient locations....

These are molochians..... I saw them in a Tarzan movie....

☕
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
As I understand it, Vraiblonde, they need admitting privileges because if something goes wrong during the abortion then the Doctor can send them straight to the hospital under their care. If they don't have privileges and there is a problem with the abortion, the admitting doctor at the hospital would become liable [lawsuit] for any complications that cannot be corrected. It puts the hospital in a precarious spot.

That's the way I heard it explained.... the problem is... a couple of clinics are in a spot too far from a hospital.... putting the lives of the patients in harms way.

It's practical so it's hard to argue with.... however.... people want abortion on demand at convenient locations....

These are molochians..... I saw them in a Tarzan movie....

☕
You don't need to have Hospital privileges to send someone to the Emergency Room, which is where they will end up in most cases.
More than likely they would call an ambulance and they might send a note telling the ER Doctor what the problem is and then they go out to their BMW and go to the golf course.
 

Lurk

Happy Creepy Ass Cracka
You don't need to have Hospital privileges to send someone to the Emergency Room, which is where they will end up in most cases.
More than likely they would call an ambulance and they might send a note telling the ER Doctor what the problem is and then they go out to their BMW and go to the golf course.
Yes, it is true that the abortion provider could send the hemorrhaging woman away in an ambulance and expect the E.R. to clear up the dirty work. The reason state legislatures have been requiring abortion providers to have privileges is to make them responsible for their muffed cases. If the abortion provider must admit the patient to the hospital and take responsibility for their cases, it puts a lot more pressure on them to not do dangerous cases. It would also place the hospitals and medical staff in the quandary of having to approve of or censure abortion providers. (That would place some of the responsibility on the medical profession which has avoided taking a stand on local abortion providers.)
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Yes, it is true that the abortion provider could send the hemorrhaging woman away in an ambulance and expect the E.R. to clear up the dirty work. The reason state legislatures have been requiring abortion providers to have privileges is to make them responsible for their muffed cases. If the abortion provider must admit the patient to the hospital and take responsibility for their cases, it puts a lot more pressure on them to not do dangerous cases. It would also place the hospitals and medical staff in the quandary of having to approve of or censure abortion providers. (That would place some of the responsibility on the medical profession which has avoided taking a stand on local abortion providers.)
I agree with all you say, but right now the Supreme Court doesn't.
The law was passed for the exact reasons you just stated.
But right now killing babies is more important than saving mothers and separating the quacks and butchers from the real Doctors.
 

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member
So if you get an abortion by some quack who can't get hospital privs, how is that different from the back alley people with coat hangers that legal abortion was supposed to eliminate?

How is this supposed to make abortion safer?
I can't see that privileges really matter, it's not like the hospital can turn them away if something goes sideways.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
I can't see that privileges really matter, it's not like the hospital can turn them away if something goes sideways.
I think it would provide a layer of peer review and training to help assure the abortionist is adequately qualified and performing in an acceptable medical manner. Furthermore, the hospital might not have an abundance of qualified OB/GYN staff to be able to provide additional on-call services for these type emergencies. And why should the hospital be required to fix what the non-privileged doctor caused? If one is concerned with woman's health and safety it would seem to be a no-brainer. The same for requiring these "clinics" to comply with other ambulatory surgery clinic rules for cleanliness and emergency services access that many don't meet (some don't have hallways wide enough to get the ambulance gurney through).
 
Top