Women's Rights & Issues
Related: About this forumFifth Circuit Court Refuses to Reconsider Ruling Blocking Mississippi TRAP Law
Fifth Circuit Court Refuses to Reconsider Ruling Blocking Mississippi TRAP Law
Feminist Majority Foundations National Clinic Access Project team with clinic escorts and legal observers outside of the Jackson Womens Health Organization in Mississippi.
The full US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Thursday refused to reconsider a panel decision blocking enforcement of a Mississippi law that threatened to close the last remaining abortion clinic in the state.
In July, a panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a preliminary injunction against a Mississippi TRAP (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) law requiring abortion providers to obtain admitting privileges at local hospitals. Had the law gone into effect, Mississippis last remaining abortion clinic, Jackson Womens Health Organization (JWHO), would have had to shut its doors.
For now, the sole clinic providing safe, legal abortion care can keep its doors open for the women of Mississippi, said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which is representing JWHO in the lawsuit. Earlier decisions in this case have rightly recognized the very real and severe harm that would befall countless women in Mississippi if the states only abortion clinic were shuttered.
Admitting privileges requirements are a political tool used by anti-abortion politicians to close abortion clinics. Both the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Medical Association (AMA) have opposed these laws, which have no health benefit and do not increase patient safety. In fact, admitting privileges laws jeopardize womens health by cutting off access to comprehensive reproductive healthcare.
After the Mississippi law was passed, two of the three doctors affiliated with JWHO attempted to obtain admitting privileges at at least seven Jackson-area hospitals, but every hospital denied their request, even though the doctors are both board-certified OB-GYNs. Reasons for the denials included the nature of your proposed medical practice and fear that extending privileges would disrupt the hospitals relationship with the community.
. . .
http://feminist.org/blog/index.php/2014/11/21/fifth-circuit-court-refuses-to-reconsider-ruling-blocking-mississippi-trap-law/
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Why not have abortions performed in hospitals? It seems to be a better option anyway. Ok fine Catholic Hospitals don't have too, but that still ensures a ton more hospitals will and it is better then one clinic anyway for an entire state. It gets rid of all the protestors and the feet business. It just seems logical to me. If something goes wrong, doctor, nurse operating room right there. Where am I wrong in my brilliance? I literally just thought of this.
niyad
(112,435 posts)catholic hospital, so that would automatically eliminate services. complications from legal abortions are fairly rare. and what in the world gives you the idea that protestors will not target hospitals. no, your "brilliance" is only ensuring that women will not get the health care they need and want.
did you catch the part in that article about hospitals REFUSING admitting privileges to qualified doctors, because it might endanger their relationship with their woman-hating, hide-bound, narrow-minded, bigoted, ignorant communities?
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)I guess you like 1 clinic for an entire state. I think I am just brilliant.
niyad
(112,435 posts)but a slight acquaintance with the facts would help.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)In having more access to abortions. That is really my goal in the long run.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)$3,000 (or more), rather than the $200 or so clinics charge.
niyad
(112,435 posts)for the hospitals or something.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Of the 99 percent. I didn't think what I wrote would be controversial. In fact, I was expecting accolades and patss on the back. I just thought that it was never thought of before and wanted to share in case. Well certainly not the first time I was wrong here and sadly won't be the last.
niyad
(112,435 posts)for most women? you are not going to get accolades for suggesting an untenable, and horrendously expensive solution. and the idea has been thought of before, and discounted for a number of reasons, including the ones given here.
but we do appreciate that you are trying to help. perhaps you would consider volunteering as a clinic escort?
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Escorting but you did put it in my mind. I will see about doing that seriously. Thanks!
niyad
(112,435 posts)Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)2) most of the remainder are minor surgical out patient procedures that can be handled by a skilled doc-in-the-box, and
3) in 1) and 2) the costs are much lower outside of a hospital setting.
Novara
(5,754 posts)....there are donors who would refuse to give the hospital any more money, the community would be up in arms and they would boycott, regular doctors wouldn't feel safe with the protesting, and the entire community suffers.
I'm glad the article pointed out that these laws are purely political. It's too bad the mainstream press doesn't notice that as well. These have absolutely nothing to do with medical care.
niyad
(112,435 posts)any of their bs has anything to do with women's actual health and well-being.
Novara
(5,754 posts)the better it is for us.
It almost feels like a lot of women haven't been paying attention. I do think Hillary's candidacy will help wake them up.