What's wrong with requiring docs who do abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital?

[cali]

Everything.

Why am I posting this? Because I've seen too many DUers say it seems reasonable.

IT. IS. NOT.

It is not something that wingnut legislatures are doing in order to safeguard women's health. Not at all. Not even a little teensy bit. It is a strategy to shut down clinics. This is part of the TRAP arsenal that the anti-choicers have been using so effectively. TRAP stands for Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers. These laws serve ONE purpose- to deny women their constitutional rights under Roe v Wade. That's it. Not the health and safety of women. It is notoriously difficult for docs who do abortions in states like TX and Mississippi to get admitting privileges. Hospitals are loath to get involved in the abortion debate. They have right wing board members, etc. They just won't do it. period.

Virtually every non fundie medical association and most hospital associations have stated over and over again that admitting privileges are unnecessary for docs who perform abortions.

The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists- which is the leading group of those practitioners has been emphatically against any such requirement for frickin' years. Now who do you think cares more about the health and welfare of women, ACOG or fucking right wing fundie legislatures in say, Texas?

Statement on State Legislation Requiring Hospital Admitting Privileges for Physicians Providing Abortion Services
April 25, 2013

Washington, DC -- The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) believes physicians who provide medical and surgical procedures, including abortion services, in their offices, clinics, or freestanding ambulatory care facilities should have a plan to ensure prompt emergency services if a complication occurs and should establish a mechanism for transferring patients who require emergency treatment. However, ACOG opposes legislation or other requirements that single out abortion services from other outpatient procedures. For example, ACOG opposes laws or other regulations that require abortion providers to have hospital admitting privileges. ACOG also opposes facility regulations that are more stringent for abortion than for other surgical procedures of similar low risk.

http://www.acog.org/About_ACOG/News_Room/News_Releases/2013/Hospital_Admitting_Privileges_for_Physicians_Providing_Abortion_Services

[Hekate]

1. Kick and Rec

[cali]

2. Thanks so much Hekate

and good morning. I'm waiting until light and hoping we didn't get too much snow last night

[Hekate]

4. I hope you didn't get too much snow, either.

I get so tired of fighting the same battles for women's rights -- all of them -- over and over and over and over again. The *holes are just indefatigable. I sincerely hope that the younger women coming up behind us are aware ...

Remember when it was fashionable for young women to say that they were not feminists? Because like, you know, feminists hate men and don't shave their legs and stuff. When was that? The 1990s? I sure hope that nonsense has ceased.

[cali]

7. yes, me too, Hekate. It's discouraging.

And if younger women don't fight these battles, they will reap the bitter results.

[mountain grammy]

78. As I was telling my 25 year old daughter yesterday...

you better get your friends into this. If SCOTUS rules for HL, there better be a million of us storming the Supreme Court. Are you really going to let 5 old men make decisions that only you should make? In fact you better get people to understand that, right now, the rich have all the money and they are not afraid to spend whatever it takes to force all of us in line with whatever their belief system is, whether it be suppression of women, poor, or minorities. Their influence has produced laws that provide for us to be legally pepper sprayed, beaten, murdered or incarcerated for non compliance with their "rules."

We got 2 new inches of snow here, on top of the couple of feet that hasn't melted yet.

[cali]

79. Absolutely.

the thing is that reproductive rights now exist only in some states. in many ways, they've already won.

snow. yes, I know that substance. It's snowing here now and we have several unmelted feet of the white stuff where I am.

[The Magistrate]

3. Cold Truth, Ma'am

There is nothing 'reasonable' about the thing at all, and those who propose these regulations often speak quite openly about their actual intent that they function to shut down clinics. The regulations are generally accompanied by campaigns to coerce local hospitals into denying such privileges, to make the matter even more clear.

[cali]

5. Thank you so much, Magistrate

TRAP laws have been a brilliant strategy for the right wing anti-choice groups. And getting people to understand that- and understand why these TRAP laws are so pernicious and dangerous, is not easy.

16 Texas clinics have closed because of this law.

Women have died or will die if they already haven't because of this law. Unwanted children have been born because of this law.

This is the law that we'll see being appealed in the SCOTUS. My best guess is that it would be upheld with 5-4 decision.

Abortion rights no longer exist. In reality, they haven't for several years now.

It's because of TRAP.

Thank you again for posting in this thread.

[Fumesucker]

6. K&R

[cali]

8. thanks for posting in this thread.

I appreciate each and every post. this is important information to know.

[Fumesucker]

14. If you wanted a lot of posts you should have said something about used car salesmen

The claque clucks and flame fests over ephemeral trivia continue while important things drop off the radar, if only people could get that worked up over fundamental human rights being violated.

[SamKnause]

9. Outlawing abortions and contraception

has ZERO to do with protecting the health of women.

It is all about CONTROL over the reproduction rights of women !!!!

Since abortion became legal in the U.S., (1973) approximately 400 women TOTAL have died from legal abortions. Source CDC

Legal abortions are one, if not, the safest medical procedure available.

How many women die per year in the U.S. from pregnancy or delivery complications ? Approximately 650 per year. Source CDC

An average of ten deaths per year for legal abortion versus 650 (266500 total for years 1973 to present) from pregnancy or delivery complications.

The fanatics are not interested in protecting women.

Control is their goal, total control !!!!

[sulphurdunn]

10. I thought there were laws

protecting law abiding people from being discriminated against while conducting legal activities. It is perfectly legal to permit bankers to foreclose on, and throw the same women and children into the street the state would deny legal abortions or public assistance to. Odd really.

[cali]

11. this kick is for the women who will die because of these pigs.

[Demsrule86]

33. poor women are already dying

They have been for a while. Now we will see the middle class join the ranks...and those who have lost a job...Michigan requires 'rape' insurance but there is no such thing on the private market thus ....most Michigan women will have no recourse if they are raped...morning after pill is often denied and now forced to carry a rapist's baby...disgusting. It is not just women who seek abortion who will die either...a few years ago...a rightie doctor (did not know it at the time) waited so long for blood work to come back during a miscarriage to ensure ....a DC was not a gasp abortion that I nearly died. Hubs came back from a trip and went to the ER where he found my on a cot laying in a pool of blood...unconscious...he screamed bloody murder and a young intern or resident saved my life. I needed massive transfusions and three weeks in the hospital, and I was left infertile. I would have left four kids motherless...I was less than three months along...yet that collection of cells was worth more to the doctor than an adult woman. I live in Ohio...if I were to miscarry under current law, I would probably die...and this is true in a number of states.

[cali]

42. thanks for this post. you're absolutely right and you make that point

forcefully.

I'm so sorry, demsrule, for what you went through.

[Demsrule86]

57. hell on earth

You feel just terrible after miscarriage...you lay in the maternity ward and hear the sound of happy moms and babies. In addition to the grief...I was informed I was infertile, and that I had to have an aids test every six months. for the next five years because of all the blood I received...still can't give blood. My doctor who I despise to this day actually said...that I had children and was 'lucky'...if I had the strength, I would have gotten out of bed and punched him...he ended any chance for me to have a baby...and he was not even sorry. I would have given anything to save this baby, but I knew it was over ;I never bleed during pregnancy and carry...and a trained doctor without an agenda would have know that too. I left the church after that because a member wrote me a note that said she did not blame me for having the miscarriage-this seemed to be the consensus in that church...one needed to die if that is what it took to make sure one was not having an abortion. Before this happened to me I had mixed feelings about abortion ...no one is for it after all...but afterwards...I realized this is about a woman's health and no one should be able to tell a woman what to do with her own body.

[Demsrule86]

40. Lived in Georgia at the time

I lived in Georgia at the time of my miscarriage. I live in Ohio now. It is no one's business what a woman does with her body. We also have a woman being tried for murder (she miscarried) and in Georgia you are now investigated if you miscarry...a miscarriage is a painful, deeply personal event in a woman's life....and no woman should face the third degree over this.

[davidpdx]

12. That one is a no brainer

It should be easy for anyone to see how abortion clinics are being shuttered in states like Texas. The Republicans couldn't make it any more obvious.

[cali]

16. I wish you were right, david, but I don't think you are

I suspect that an awful lot of people out there think that it's perfectly reasonable to legislate that doctors who perform abortions have admitting privileges.

[davidpdx]

52. I understand how anyone can be a D and not be fully pro-choice

I have a family member who I can't broach the subject with because the person is not pro-choice, but they vote for Democrats. So yes I know they exist, just wish they would change their opinion on that particular issue.

[Arkansas Granny]

13. K & R. It's absolutely not about protecting women. It's not even about protecting "the pre-born".

It's everything to do with control and the fact that they have found this issue to be very useful in gaining votes. Abortion has been one of their most effective political hot buttons for decades.

[Glimmer of Hope]

15. Thanks for pointing this out!

Medical emergencies resulting from abortion are extremely rare and if they do occur, care can be transferred to admitted physicians who have the skills to provide treatment. Procedures riskier than abortions do not require admitting privileges!

[cali]

17. well put! and spot on.

thanks.

[Demsrule86]

47. kasich must go

Here in Ohio...during the dog days of late summer...Kasich and his merry band of minions in the legislator quietly passed one of the most restrictive abortion bills in the country-tacked onto a budget bill because it would certainly be repealed by Ohio's referendum law had it been an ordinary bill...the IUD is banned now in the 21st century...you need an ultrasound for some forms of birth control (very expensive) and the worst part...if you manage to find a clinic to have an abortion (the admitting privilege racket shut down most clinics) and have complications, you can not be admitted to a public hospital...lay on the stairs and bleed to death women of Ohio...of course the worst criminals are not denied medical care but a woman undergoing a legal procedure is denied care...this is bad for another reason too...miscarriage and abortion are indistinguishable in many cases so any number of women could be denied care.

[Control-Z]

117. Nooooo.

I thought I'd heard everything. This is new to me.

"...and the worst part...if you manage to find a clinic to have an abortion (the admitting privilege racket shut down most clinics) and have complications, you can not be admitted to a public hospital."

How can this be? How is it possible? Would you direct me to where I might read more about this?

Thanks! I would welcome you but it looks like you've been here for a few years.

[rdking647]

18. a simple solution

require hospitals to give admitting privledges to abortion docs even if the hospital is anti abortion/religiously run
force a catholic hospitl in west texas to offer privledges to an abortion doc.
see how fast womans health ceases to be a problem and instead the fundies start yelliing about freedom of religion.

tought shit. you cant have it both ways. womans health trumps your outdated belief

[cali]

20. I wish that was possible. Alas, it is not.

[Heidi]

19. Kick, kick, kick!

[cali]

21. thanks so much, heidi!

[Heidi]

22. Good morning, cali!

And thank you for this OP.

[TBF]

23. As usual it is also about profit --

Last edited Fri Mar 28, 2014, 03:20 PM - Edit history (1)

Here is the reason Texas did it:


Governor Rick Perry’s Sister Positioned To Make A Fortune Off The New Texas Abortion Law
by Jean Ann Esselink on July 22, 2013

Despite State Senator Wendy Davis’ impressive 12-hour filibuster, the Texas legislature was able to push through new stringent abortion restrictions in special session. Under the provisions of SB5, doctors performing abortions must have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, and clinics must be licensed as ambulatory surgical centers. Since only five of the forty-two clinics offering abortion services in Texas can meet those standards, without relief from a federal court, thirty-seven clinics will have to close their doors, or no longer offer abortions.

Governor Rick Perry has signed SB5, and it is now the law in Texas. But the stroke of Governor Perry’s pen did more than take away the freedom of many Texas women to plan their own families. It put the doctor-entrepreneur clients of his older sister, Milla Perry Jones, in a position to make millions.

Milla Perry Jones is Vice President of Government Relations of United Surgical Partners International, which runs surgery centers co-owned by doctors. She lobbies for doctor-owned clinics in Washington and Austin, and she teaches trade groups how to do the same. She is described in “Who’s Who in the Ambulatory Surgery Industry” as “a true advocate for the physician-owned healthcare model.” In fact, when Obamacare was first passed, the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, one of the trade groups Milla Perry Jones worked with, sued Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius over a provision that barred new doctor-owned medical facilities. The restriction was seen as a way to rein in healthcare costs, because services at doctor-owned clinics cost an average of 20% more than traditional clinics, since doctor-owners have a financial incentive to order more tests ...

More here: http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/governor-rick-perrys-sister-positioned-to-make-a-fortune-off-the-new-texas-abortion-law/news/2013/07/22/71470

[cali]

24. Jaysus. Thanks for that (awful) info

That's certainly part of it, but make no mistake, much of the anti-choice movement is populated and directed by True Believers- true believers in controlling women an forcing them to give birth against their will.

[TBF]

25. Sure, but if a repug can make money

off doing what they love they will. I may have a biased view living down here in Texas - I'm surrounded by these wackos.

[cui bono]

105. No. Absolutely not "only for profit".

That may play a part but it is mostly about controlling women and about lunatics trying to force their extreme and ignorant religious views onto the rest of society.

[TBF]

107. You're right -

that word needs to change. It is not "only" about profit - it is "also" about profit. Whether it's their religion "guiding" them or their own corrupt need for power, control and profit - there are definitely a couple of evil things going on here. I made the edit.

[cui bono]

108. Oh good. I meant to also say that that was good info you posted!

They are evil and ignorant in so many ways it's hard to keep track!

[yardwork]

26. Thank you!

If these folks cared about women's health they wouldn't be cutting Medicaid.

[Puzzledtraveller]

29. Medicaid, or do you mean Medicare?

Where is Medicaid being cut? Medicaid is part funded by each state, that is why each state has their own Medicaid eligibility criteria, thats why I'm asking.

[yardwork]

31. Most of the south is cutting Medicaid

They're looking at any way to reduce Medicaid costs by reducing eligibility. My state of NC used to be fairly progressive in getting pregnant women and children on Mcd. Since the tea party took over in 2010 it's a disaster.

[Puzzledtraveller]

27. If there was an emergency then they would just use the 911 system like everyone else right?

[yardwork]

34. What type of emergency?

[Puzzledtraveller]

45. a medical emergency effecting the woman

[yardwork]

50. Do you mean "affecting?"

How would requiring admitting privileges of the providers at the abortion clinic help in an emergency?

I'm very curious to hear how this would work. Please proceed.

[Puzzledtraveller]

62. I don't know where I said I ever supported admitting privileges

in fact I disagree, I stated that in an emergency, wouldnt the facility or doctor just call 911? Which is to say why would they need admitting privileges if they can just call 911?

[uppityperson]

111. They are saying the opposite, that it is not needed. In case of an emergency, call 911

[Squinch]

63. Is that a problem?

For the miniscule number of "emergencies," yes. That would work.

[Puzzledtraveller]

64. Exactly

If there were an emergency then using the 911 system would suffice, so their is no reason doctors should be required to have admitting privileges.

[Squinch]

28. Doesn't it suck that we need to defend that position - on DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND?

That it is still treated as if it is a legitimate point of discussion, even HERE?

Pisses me off no end.

[cali]

38. Yes! It's scary that people think it's reasonable to require admitting privileges

but here's the thing: I get why, at first look, people would think that. It's important that folks understand the facts.

Thanks.

[Tanuki]

30. Thank you for this thread. I too have seen several posts from people who seem to think

this requirement is about safeguarding womens' health, which is about as logical as thinking that the voter i.d. laws are about preventing voter fraud. The take-away line from your OP: These laws serve ONE purpose- to deny women their constitutional rights under Roe v Wade.

[yardwork]

36. There's one in this thread. /nt

[whopis01]

104. Where?

Where in this thread is there someone saying that this should be in place to safeguard women's health?

I have looked over the whole thread and for the life of me can not find anyone who is promoting that idea.

[cap]

32. The simple fact of the matter is this..

To get admitting privileges, a doctor needs to generate a certain number of referrals to a hospital.

The problem with abortion is that the procedure is so safe that it does not have a large number of complications. So no referrals. Unlike other procedures that do have the potential to generate a lot of referrals like obstetrics. A certain number of child births do lead to hospitalization.

Abortion as a procedure is so safe that it does not need all the overhead of a hospital. So insurance companies don't want to pay for all the overhead of a hospital when a hospital is not needed. Also, federal funds can not be used to cover abortions. So Medicaid can't be used to cover an abortion as a general rule. Hospitals don't want to eat the cost of more uninsured patients.

Also, abortion is so controversial that hospitals don't want to pay for the additional security.

I think if we mandated that all abortions occur in a hospital, all hospitals must provide abortions, and that insurance companies must cover abortions in a hospital, this conversation would come to an end quickly.

[Squinch]

56. ^^^^^ Lots in that. Especially: "Abortion is so safe that it does not have a large number of

complications. So no referrals."

[el_bryanto]

35. It's a calculated strategy, designed to sound reasonable, while not actually being reasonable.

It seems to work.

Bryant

[cali]

39. yep. exactly.

[LuvNewcastle]

37. K&R

[Recursion]

41. That's what's so dangerous. It *sounds* reasonable

Unless you actually dig down to what that means.

[cali]

48. yes. dangerous and frustrating. That's why the facts need to be disseminated- repeatedly

we need to be able to counter the "it's a reasonable precaution" bullshit argument.

[secondwind]

43. K&R....

[lillypaddle]

44. Good job explaining this, cali

[cali]

49. thanks, lillypaddle.

love your name, btw.

[lillypaddle]

53. Thanks.

[get the red out]

46. By saying it is "reasonable'

We completely leave out the motive, which is to STOP women from utilizing their right to choose. We can't look at ploys by conservatives in a vacuum as if motive was outside some air-tight bubble around a single idea.

[yardwork]

54. Well, it's not reasonable when you take costs into account

The Republicans supposedly care so much about reducing healthcare costs, and then the propose the mother if all unnecessary government regulations that would drive abortion costs sky high.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

51. Requiring admitting privileges is about the health of the woman.

Just like requiring a drivers license to vote for 90-year-old black women is about safeguarding our democracy.

And I'm The King of Fucking Prussia.

[cali]

70. I couldn't agree more, your majesty.

[Starry Messenger]

55. K&R

[kairos12]

58. +1000

[Laffy Kat]

59. K&R. Can't believe we are still fighting this battle.

Total bullshit. I'm sick of it.

[Savannahmann]

60. I remember talking about this at the time Cali

The entire plan was to make it seem reasonable. This if nothing else should show that the Rethugs are not a bunch of knuckle dragging idiots, despite the assurances of many of the cheerleaders here.

The argument is simple. If a Doctor is removing a mole in his office, that Doctor should have admitting privileges in a hospital. If something goes terribly wrong, a real possibility in any surgical procedure, then the Doctor should be able to do something more than dial 911 and ask for an ambulance.

We discussed this at the time, and I'm sure you remember that we agreed that this was a real problem. First, many doctors who do the procedure fly in or drive in and are only in town a few days a month. Second, it would be prohibitively expensive to expect the Doctor to be accredited in every hospital that he passed over or around. Then the licensing of a clinic as a outpatient surgical center, again an argument to sound reasonable.

If we needed any proof that the Rethugs are not dumb, this should have done it. But since this story broke, we've seen how many hundreds of threads all with the same meme which is that our opponents are mouth breathing idiots who are barely able to string a complete sentence together. Underestimating your opponent leads to defeat every time. Right now, the arguments are revolving around Nate Silver, if he is a RW troll who is determined to suppress the Democratic turn out and achieve the victory he so desires. Or is he a man who is looking at the polls and sees what many of us see, which is serious weakness in the idea of Democrats holding the Senate. If we hold the Senate, it will be by the narrowest of margins. With a little luck, we might keep it with Joe Biden as the 51st Dem.

The problem with threads like yours is this my friend. It requires that we throw our preconceptions out the window, and look seriously at the Republican Party as a genuine threat. That is unthinkable to the majority here. They won't even consider it. They will shout down anyone who says we should do it.

If you want to know why I think Wendy Davis is going to lose in Texas, the answer is obvious. On this issue alone, she will have to explain why these reasonable sounding arguments are unreasonable. That means she's going to have to do the RW work for them, and that is identify the doctors who fly in and out to perform abortions. She's going to have to highlight the workers at the clinics, and identify them and risk their lives to some psychotic RW lunatic who sees them as the embodiment of evil and himself as the hand of God. If she does that, then one or more of them are liable to be harmed. Then we start the whole debate again, and this time we can add in Stand your own ground where the lunatic was acting to save lives by taking a life. In a Texas court, there is no telling how that will turn out. Unless the victim is black, then we know the RW tool has a 60% chance of getting away with it.

I said at the time, and you agreed that this was the most dangerous argument that the RW has ever put forth. But nobody was taking it seriously then, and nobody will now, because they are hoping that Wendy wins in Texas, and if she does, then she'll fix it somehow.

Even if by some miracle Wendy Davis does win, without the legislature, she won't be able to overturn this, and if she refuses to enforce the law, or tries to go around, the Legislature will come after her with a battleship. Does anyone really think that Democrats are going to take the Texas Legislature with the gerrymandered districts they have?

[cali]

67. so many good points in your post, SM

You are absolutely right to point out that they aren't a bunch of morons. they've been very smart tactically regarding destroying reproductive rights. Lots of sleight of hand- getting people on the left to wax indignant about constitutional amendments, while diligently crafting TARP laws that many in the middle and even on the left see as reasonable.

I agree, sadly, with every word of your thoughtful post. It would be a good op.

[Savannahmann]

77. If we were as smart as the Rethugs here

We should have proposed a policy that removed the obstructions. First, all Doctors who practice medicine in the state are licensed by the state. So make it a rule that all Doctors who practice medicine are eligible to practice medicine in all Hospitals licensed to operate in the state. The arguments of the Hospitals would sound stupid, sure the Doctor might be good enough to practice in the state, but not good enough for the Hospital? Nope, that argument would fall flat before it got started.

Then the regulation of the clinics. Make it simple, an annual inspection of any clinic that performs any kind of outpatient surgical procedure is the only regulatory standard. Much like we do with restaurants, the Department of Health goes in and checks the blocks to make sure that the facility is sterilizing the instruments properly, and cleaning up properly, and you're done.

But right now, by ceding the argument to the Rethugs while we are left with the usual answers of "restricting a woman's right to choose" we lose the argument.

Here is our best chance of success. By allowing any Doctor to admit any Patient to any Hospital, we make it possible for Doctors to provide greater services to people in the State. A doctor from Houston is in Dallas for a long weekend. There is a structural collapse at the stadium where the Cowboys are playing. Tens of thousands of people are injured, or dead. The Hospitals are overwhelmed. The Doctor from Houston is powerless to offer more than basic first aide because he is not licensed to operate through the Hospitals in Dallas. If we had a statewide recognition and privileges for that Doctor, he could be providing critical life saving procedures for the flood of casualties. Instead, he's little more than a badly over qualified paramedic who is watching people die because he can not get to the equipment and tools he needs to save lives.

Doctors Offices have a wide ranging sort of basic instruments. By making the licensing of those facilities easier, we could shunt the less critical patients to those doctor offices and allow the simple suturing of cuts, and allow the Hospitals to care for the more critically injured, freeing up personnel and resources to be more intelligently directed. But for that to happen, the doctors office would have to be rated for simple surgical procedures, which under the legislation provided by the Rethugs would not be guaranteed. Also the visiting doctor from Houston would be unable to legally provide services even there because he is not certified to practice the trade he is licensed by the state to perform at that location because he is not given privileges at the local Hospital in case something does go wrong.

Turn the argument around, be smarter than your opponent. Instead we are left with shouting and screaming and we lose.

[FSogol]

61. Completely agree. Pediatricians, Dentists, Optometrists, podiatrists, and others

aren't held to this standard. Singling out abortion doctors should be a clear sign that this is about suppressing choice and not about caring for women's health.

[bossy22]

123. podiatrists do have admitting abilities

in many hospitals.

[FSogol]

124. Some do. They aren't required to, which is the point. n/t

[cali]

125. exactly and thanks.

[blackspade]

65. K&R

Fundies should stay as far away from a vagina as possible.
If they can't be responsible, women should take away the keys....

[ReRe]

66. I don't know how any of the states are getting away with any of the...

...prohibitive laws concerning abortion. Abortion is legal. I can not understand it. If it's legal and it's being done safely at these clinics, what the eff is the beef? Religion. What happened to the separation of church and state? I don't even think the insane pro-life people should be anywhere NEAR an abortion clinic. Yes, they can have their organization. Get together and plan rallies and have conventions and get themselves all worked up into a dither, but NOT outside of an abortion clinic. It's not freedom of speech... it's religious harassment.

[cali]

68. Ah. I do.

If you go back a reread Roe and subsequent decisions such as Casey, you will too.

[peace13]

69. In my neck of the woods...

...if you need to be admitted to a hospital you will not have any of your doctors who practice in the outside world. In the hospital you will be seen by hospitalists. Seriously! These are doctors who work only inside the hospital.

[Thinkingabout]

71. If it was about women and their well being then they should vote overwhelmingly

For VAWA, in order to provide protection but the same a$$holes who favor the laws limiting abortion votes against VAWA. Go figure, it is about forced births and no support to the children they force births.

[Myrina]

72. Say it loud!

[malthaussen]

73. Well, off to the USSC we go.

The decision was going to be appealed either way it went. It would have been nice to go in with the momentum, but the 5th Circuit is pretty notoriously conservative.

-- Mal

[cali]

74. yep. If I had to bet, I'd bet that it would be upheld- given Kennedy's history

5-4

[mopinko]

75. they will never get those privileges. they are levers to control doctors.

i had 4 babies at home. the hospitals do not like that. other doctors do not like that.
just like how er's used to treat women coming in with complications from illegal abortions- they treat a woman showing up transferred from a home birth like shit.
you have to have a doc with privileges to protect your patients. usually, a doc will admit a couple of transfers, the ptb will get wind of it, and that doc will be told to stop it or move on.
i had 4 babies, each one was a different back up at a different hospital.


they would never propose these rules in a state where they did not control the majority of docs/big hospitals. and believe me, the states dish out plenty to build and control the hospital business.

but you are right, it sounds reasonable. warm and fuzzy even. warm and fuzzy like a grizzly bear.

[steve2470]

76. k&r nt

[Le Taz Hot]

80. K & R

This is SUCH an important issue. It's hard to believe that, this many years later, we're actually going BACKWARDS on women's issues. It's hard to wrap my mind around that fact. There is such huge disparity between the states it's difficult to believe we're even part of the same country.

[cali]

81. thanks for the post Le Taz

[laundry_queen]

82. K&R nt

[historylovr]

83. K & R

Every time someone says a conservative position is reasonable, he or she gives it validity. AND, by extension, he or she is saying liberal positions must be invalid and unreasonable. We have to stop giving them that power.

Thanks for staying on top of these issues, Cali!

[ljm2002]

84. Thanks for laying it out, cali...

...this is such an important issue and it is so painful to see people falling for the BS put out by the right wing.

The thing is, the right wing is really, really good at framing. They come up with these rational-sounding justifications, they distribute the talking points, they get on radio and TV and into op-ed pages in newspapers, and they all sing the same song, mouth the same soothing words that lull people into their false narrative: "We're only doing it for you, dears, we want to PROTECT you from those awful abortion mills. And really, you're better off not having an abortion, don't you realize that?"

They play the long game, and they have the big $$$ on their side so they can continue their underhanded campaigns to overturn the law of the land and take us back to the 50s and earlier.

These people pushing for these laws like requiring admitting privileges are NOT friends of women. They never have been. But people continue to be duped. It is shameful.

[cali]

85. thank you so much for posting in this thread

you're right- they framed these TARP laws quite well indeed.

[XemaSab]

86. The only good hospital here is Catholic

[niyad]

87. k and r

[Gothmog]

88. Targeted Regulations Against Abortion Providers

TRAP laws are really bad idea. The 5th Cir. opinion is simply horrible. Edith Jones is a racist idiot who needs to be impeached

[kcr]

89. Another kick and rec for truth

[riderinthestorm]

90. Back to the top of the page and rec #100 Cali. Great OP. K&R! nt

[cali]

96. thanks so much, rider!

[WillyT]

91. K & R !!!

[DeSwiss]

92. It. Is. Not.

- Bingo. It. Is. Intended. To. Be. And. Is. A. Barrier. To. Women. Created. By. Fuckwads.

K&R

[cali]

94. Thanks, DS

You made me a bit embarrassed by highlighting my kinda cheap rhetorical trick, but what the hell, the fuckwads deserve it.

[one_voice]

93. k&r

[Ohio Joe]

95. K&R - nt

[redqueen]

97. K&R

Thank you.

I saw the subject line and was ready to light into someone. Glad it wasn't what I expected.

[cali]

98. thank you, redqueen

I'm a bit weirded out that you thought I'd defend that. I actually wasn't trying to be provocative with the op title. I just really wanted to explain what it's actually about.

[redqueen]

99. Geez no, there's no way I'd ever expect you to do so...

I'm on my phone and can't see who posted a thread till I open it. If I'd have seen your name next to the title I'd have known exactly what to expect

[Geoff R. Casavant]

100. It always pays to click through on some posts.

When I see "cali" with a headline like that there's always that little bit of cognitive dissonance. Wait, is cali arguing in *favor* of the Texas law? That can't be right -- I've read too many of cali's other posts. What am I missing?

And then I click through, read just the first word, and my world settles back. Phew!

[cali]

102. thanks, Geoff!

and thanks for giving this thread a kick.

[Shoonra]

101. Reason by "admitting privileges" is a sham

Last edited Fri Mar 28, 2014, 03:52 PM - Edit history (4)

Not every doctor, no matter how skilled, gets "Admitting privileges". It doesn't mean that, without admitting privileges, the doctor can't get an ambulance to take his patient to the hospital. It's actually a sort of club membership, like Frequent Flyers. Hospitals grant it to doctors who send them a lot of business that can be shared by the on-staff physicians and surgeons.

A good family planning doctor, even one who performs abortions, very very seldom needs to have his patients go to the hospital and therefore he isn't at all likely to qualify for admitting privileges.
Additionally, if the local hospital has a church-affiliation, it may refuse his admitting privileges simply because of his specialty. Hospitals are not obliged to give a doctor admitting privileges no matter how good a doctor he may be. In a small town, there might be only one hospital within the required 30 miles, or all the hospitals might be pressured or inclined to refuse privileges to a doctor connected to a birth control clinic.

[url]http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/07/24/why-admitting-privileges-laws-have-no-medical-benefit/ [/url]


An extreme analogy would be a law requiring any black person who wants to register to vote to have a letter of recommendation from the local sheriff - even if he's a member of the Klan. No other medical clinics, not even liposuction clinics - where there is at least as much chance of a patient needing hospitalization, are required to jump through this hoop.

So the legislature cooked up a Catch-22, a good abortion doctor wouldn't need or qualify for admitting privileges because his patients so seldom need hospitalization, and moreover the hospitals are a second line of 'defense' for refusing the doctor even if he applies for admitting privileges.

This will not end abortions -- it will only end safe and skilled abortions.

[cali]

103. thanks for making this thread your first post here and welcome.

I just want to add that hospitals in red states, even those without religious affiliations will not give admitting privileges to docs who perform abortions no matter what. This has proven to be the case in state after state.

Again, welcome to DU and thanks

[cui bono]

106. Great post!

[riqster]

109. Kick and Rec. Spot on.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

110. Hear Here! Don't ever be fooled by pukes claiming "concern" for women's safety.

they lie.

[uppityperson]

112. k&r with thanks. We need to keep speaking out about this.

[Lithos]

113. Well said

Thank you for such an articulate response. When the pros (ACOG) says it is not necessary, such a demand is nothing more than the legislature getting between a woman and her rights.

L-

[cali]

115. thank you so much, Lithos

so good to 'see' you.

cali

[Lithos]

122. Very welcome

It is good to 'see' you as well.

To continue from above, I live in Texas and this is a fight I live with 24/7. People who think this is about "medical" competence are just fooling themselves. There are more than a few people would roll back all of the great social programs and reforms to the 19th Century (and likely back to slavery if given a chance - after all it was a great economic solution </sarcasm>.)

[Cooley Hurd]

114. Recommended. In the age where (formerly non-profit Hospitals) FOR-PROFIT...

...CORPORATIONS run hospitals, and are managed by Right Wing Dickeads like Bill Frist and entities funded by the Koch Brothers, this "requirement" is a surreptitious ploy to deny women of their right to choose AS GUARANTEED by the Constitution.

[tooeyeten]

116. Many physicians

Perform surgical procedures in their offices/practices and are not required to follow a "special law" mandating privileges at a local or particular neighborhood hospital.

This is nothing but anti-women legislation which the GOP is pushing.

[awoke_in_2003]

118. K&R...

It is a bunch of bullshit.

[neverforget]

119. Very well said cali!

K&R

[SunSeeker]

120. K & R

[Kokonoe]

121. As long as admitting privileges at a hospital are 372 FT from the clinic.

Then I say its oll korrect with the law I pulled outta my a**.

[Feral Child]

126. K&R n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

127. Such a good post.

The title had me worried.