David42, if the new law had been written to apply to out-patient surgery clinics, then I’d have a lot fewer problems with it, but it specifies that it applies to abortion clinics only.
Abortion induced via Mifeprestone or methotrexate aren’t surgical procedures. They’re about as life threatening to the mother as taking a couple of extra aspirin.
Vacuum aspiration is somewhat invasive, and hence risky (in the same sense that a gynecological exam is “risky”), but isn’t practiced by any of the Kansas clinics, as far as I can tell.
Just to lay some groundwork, here, I am NOT: [ul]
[li]A doctor of any sort[/li][li]A lawyer of any sort[/li][li]A health inspector[/ul][/li]I’ll do my best to respond to your points, but bear in mind the above caveats and that I am getting my information via web searches.
I’m afraid I have to guess, since I live in Pennsylvania, not Kansas.
In this case, I was simply going with the odds. As of August 2009, there were 67 ambulatory surgical centers, not including the three clinics that provide abortion (Warning: PDF). These are clinics that provide outpatient surgery, such as, oh, polyp removal from the intestines. Certainly invasive procedures requiring anestheisa. These clinics are specifically NOT affected by H Sub for SB36. Do you really think all of them could meet the new regulations imposed on only the abortion clinics? Really?
My wording was too broad. I am specifically referring to medical clinics providing ambulatory surgical services, a.k.a. outpatient surgery. Kansas defines ambulatory surgical clinics as:
Is your dentist putting you under for the procedure? Is he required to have equipment on hand to deal with a bad reaction to the anesthesia? Current ASC regulations in Kansas don’t require that, but the new regulations for abortion centers DO. Is he required to keep a patient who has been anesthized under observation for a specified length of time? Current ASC regulations in Kansas don’t require that; the patient can be discharged as soon as awake and evaluated as having come out ok. The new abortion clinic regulations require the patient be kept for two hours even though the evaluation is that they’re fine. (My assumption here, BTW, is that any ASC would be transporting a patient to the hospital if they do not recover from anesthesia properly.)
As I said above, the wording I used was a bit broad, although I think it was pretty obvious I was not referring to getting your nails done.
You made mention of thinking that specifying that all doors in the clinic be wide enough to pass a gurney through is a good thing. I agree. But isn’t it funny that the current ASC regulations (Warning: PDF) don’t require this? They don’t mention door sizes, they don’t have requirements for lighting, and they don’t require certain narrow temperature ranges in procedure or recovery rooms. NB: I’m still trying to find a copy of the new regulations for abortion clinics so that I can provide cites. There are numerous news stories reporting these requirements, however:
Abortions Not In Kansas Anymore?
Kan. Licensing Rules for Abortion Clinics Blocked
Kansas tightens abortion clinic regulations
Nah, we’re just committed to really really safe abortions in Kansas. We want the economic boom from states that are too chickenshit to make sure they’re the safest around.
I’m just kidding. Some of what you say has merit. But I really do think you ought to at least admit you might be wrong if you’re gonna admit to guessing.
Maybe what I should really complain of is a lousily written article that claimed the right was being meanies and then their only examples are reasonable activities.
Nevertheless, without really getting into the meat of it (questions like how dangerous are the particular drugs used in abortions vs anesthesia and stuff like that) I’m not going to agree 100% with you and I still stand by the assertion that there is nothing wrong with writing a statute that is specific to type of practice. But after all, these drugs are designed to KILL and maybe its not so unreasonable–in outpatient surgeries do they ever give a drug that is designed to kill?
That said, there are a lot of controversial issues that I see the points of both sides. Its prejudice that I am really really against. And some people would complain if Brownback gave a hamburger to a starving kid. I just don’t automatically criticize someone because he’s known to have done things I do not like. I mostly don’t like Brownback, but I am not gonna pretend that people I don’t like are never going to do anything good.
If everyone would do the same the world would have a lot fewer problems.
Y’know there is only one controversial issue that I disagree completely with one side. Thats Marijuana. But I mean no highjack.
What are you talking about? A general anesthetic given for wisdom teeth extraction in your dentist’s office is many times more dangerous than the sedatives given for suction aspiration abortions. The very same general anesthetic is used for a D&C, but for a much shorter duration than with wisdom teeth extraction. If you are referring to RU486, then you are talking out of your ass. It doesn’t KILL, it induces a spontaneous abortion/early miscarriage with symptoms resembling a heavy period. For the record, most anesthetic drugs can kill you.
Like he said, designed to kill. :rolleyes:
Ah I may talk a bit out my ass, but not quite this time. I was assuming for the sake of argument what I misunderstood about a previous post. I thought the poster meant that the drug itself induced the abortion. My lack of specific knowledge was meant to be shown by my comment about how dangerous the drugs were. See? They are questions.
I didn’t mean RU486 but doesn’t that kill the fetus? And what would a large overdose do to an adult? For the sake of the argument let’s say that fetus= a cluster of cells within which cellular metabolism is occurring. (I don’t wanna get hung up on exactly what point a fetus is a human being) let’s define kill=causing the cellular metabolism in that cluster of cells to stop. Under these definitions, does RU-486 kill?
Oh, I see now. Like antibiotics. Right. I sure hope Kansas is planning strict regulations for all doctor’s offices that prescribe those.
Only a quarter of abortions in Kansas are chemically induced, the rest are surgical, if you can even call the 5 minute aspiration procedure surgical. I agree that you lack specific knowledge, yet you chided the previous poster who admitted they were guessing while still supplying a ton of information and cites. If you weren’t talking out your ass, then you are a hypocrite, take your pick.
A large overdose of Tylenol can kill you. How anyone is going to get their hands on enough RU486 to do themselves harm I have no idea, they aren’t available over the counter in bottles of 500. See my prior post about antibiotics re: drugs that KILL cells.
I did a little research on medical and surgical abortion procedures (only a little). From what I read, the medical methods require no anesthesia at all since they are a series of pills taken over the course of several days, and neither do the surgical ones, although the patient can be anesthetized if that makes them more comfortable. Also from what I read, these clinics cannot perform any type of abortion procedure past 21 weeks. Surgical procedures performed up to that point in time are pretty minor, as far as surgical procedures go.
Why thank you.
What **David42 **missed, I think, was that I said I was guessing about whether the non-affected ambulatory surgical centers would meet new building requirements for the abortion clinics. I based that guess on the number of licensed clinics in Kansas and the fact that those clinics don’t *have *any specific regulations to meet regarding things like door widths and janitorial closet size. You think they’re going to check and see if they meet the newly introduced, highly specific, and very stringent regulations?
I wasn’t guessing about the rest of it, and you’ll note that I cited at least 3 different sources that said, essentially, the same thing, so it was hardly “a lousily written article”. (Emphasis mine.)
It isn’t a matter of saying “the right was being meanies”. The Republican Party has publicly stated that it intends to ban abortions of any type, everywhere in the country. Right now Roe v Wade stands against that, so they’re trying to work around it by using things like TRAP laws (Warning: second link is a PDF) to prevent abortions being available without actually making abortion itself illegal. According to the abstract from the second link, a study of the institution of TRAP laws over the period 1978 through 2008:
What you said. Any drug can have bad side effects or can be beneficial in small doses but lethal in larger ones (see: Tylenol and Digitalis, amongst others).
I didn’t think you’d answer the question. What’s the matter?
I “chided” the previous poster without being a hypocrite because I said I was guessing, and might be wrong, and asked questions. To give the poster a little nudge is hardly hypocritical. And I think you’d be ignoring once again the point that I was asking questions. It’s not hypocritical after I admit I might be wrong while guessing to suggest another poster who guesses to also admit he might be wrong, at least about a part of what was said.
You on the other hand are switching from drugs designed to kill to drugs designed to relieve minor to moderate pain. Your next avoidance of the logical admission that RU486 was indeed designed to kill changed the question of what effect an overdose has on an adult to an assertion that adults cannot overdose because of bottle size or something equally irrelevant to the question.
You finish off your avoidance of the question by implying that your thread proves antibiotics kill cells. Irrelevant again, I don’t see what it has to do with a question of whether RU486 is designed to kill which you you oh-so-wittily accused me of talking out my ass over.
Just in case, even though you didn’t say so, do you have a problem with those definitions of “fetus” and “kill?” Do you have other suggestions that might make the question more fair?
It kinda looks like next time I wanna talk out my ass I will have to open your mouth.
I didn’t avoid anything, I answered with my first post in this thread. Here it is again:
Abortion is a legal medical procedure, the method is irrelevant. Unless I’m mistaken your use of KILL in capital letters in your post was meant to project a lot more than killing cells like antibiotics or chemotherapy drugs do. Knock yourself out going down that road, I’ll pass since it has nothing to do with the new regulations Kansas passed to target abortion clinics.
So, yeah, the size of the bottle really does matter. :rolleyes:
CMC fnord!
No, you’re completely right. The democrats that have been successful here would probably be considered conservative in other areas of the country.
I agree about Parkinson as well. It just sucks all around.
It is amazing to me what lengths people will go to to deny something. I mean, this guy wants no-fault marriages gone, he wants divorces to essentially come to a grinding halt, and has done everything he can to show that he’s anti-choice - but no, of course he’s not really trying to close the abortion clinics, he’s just trying to make them SOOPER-SAFE for the poor women.
Please. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, chances are it ain’t a mongoose.
I was listening to an interview with two of the doctors who are suing the state over the new regulations (AP article here). In the interview, one of the doctors (I believe it was Dr. Nauser) pointed out that they regularly perform D&Cs on women who have had a miscarriage. They are licensed to do so, they have passed all required inspections, and the state seems to be completely happy to let them do so.
If the clinic performs the exact same procedure in order to terminate a pregnancy, then they must meet these new, swiftly enacted, and much more stringent regulations. Assuming that the doctor’s characterization of the procedure is correct (that, medically speaking, a D&C as part of miscarriage treatment is identical to one performed as an abortion), this seems to be pretty clear evidence that these new rules are not at all about the health of the women, or about making the procedure safer, but all about effectively banning abortion in the state.
IF we presume that D&C is all that is done you would be correct. However if something else is also done, then perhaps not.
That was quite obviously a joke.
Maybe not. Perhaps you are not aware our previous Governor was quickly called by the Obama administration for a cabinet position. I doubt he did that because she is a good example of being conservative.
You’re apparently one of those people who is always 100% right for emotional reasons. You most certainly did avoid answering the question, it is a yes or no answer. All you do is obfuscate, change the terms of what someone else has said and add irrelevancies to distract from the fact that RU486 does indeed KILL, even though that wasn’t my point.
You’re full of it and I would invite you to take a supersize dose of RU486 so that you will know all about it from experience rather than political soundbites and political correctness.
I’m putting you on the list of impossible to talk to people and invite you not to respond to my posts as I want to talk to people who are seriously interested in logic and reason, and not doing everything you can to avoid it.