Sorry if this results in a double post due to the system’s apparent hiccup this a.m.
Thanks, all of you, for your thoughtful responses. Before I can stake out any particular ground on this topic, I clearly need to do some more research, both into the different “types” of abortion, regulation of hospitals, health care availability, various hospitals’ policies towards various types of abortions, perhaps even my friend’s personal situation, etc. Needless to say, that ain’t gonna happen today.
It seems a lot of folk are responding, observing that they perceive health care options in their area. So do I. As you may recall, my initial comment was, “I personally was not too concerneed…” But I’m not sure that is the universal situation nationwide.
Perhaps there is another way to attack this. Is it a concern of the federal government that every citizen have reasonable access to some level of health care? If so, how are those terms defined? What should be the government’s position if a particular area lacks a hospital within x radius? Should the government provide a hospital? What if the area has a hospital that provides only some services? Then, we have to define the level of health care each individual should have access to, and decide whether what types of abortion qualify.
Thanks again, folks.
Here in St. Louis we’ve had several hospitals shut down their maternity wards. If they want to call themselves a “hospital” should they be required to provide maternity services?
I took a look at my handy state roadmap. In 6 counties in northwest Missouri, there is exactly one hospital with a 24-hour emergency room. Ditto for 5 counties in northeast Missouri. If a business wants to call itself a “hospital” shouldn’t it be compelled to provide a 24-hour emergency room?
Should my insurance company be compelled to pay for everything that is legal?
If a hospital isn’t required to provide everything because of financial or staffing constraints, why should it be required to provide a service if it has an ethical constraint?
Dinsdale: I don’t think that the government should be required to provide hospitals for folks who live in rural areas, but I don’t understand the mindset that compels one to move to the middle of nowhere, either.
If you start saying that every citizen should have access to reasonable health care, then you wind up having (as you said) to define “reasonable”. Which, as has been demonstrated on this very board, makes for a less-than-pleasant experience. I apologize that I’ve not had an opportunity to search for instances of hospitals that are dominant in an area that refuse to perform abortions, but I may very well have a chance today. If I get a chance, and find something, I’ll post it.
Waste
I also read that some of these hospitals do not permit their residents to perform abortions OUTSIDE the hospital, even if it is during a private practice totally unrelated…it was scary.
Where did you read that, Guinistasia? I’m not trying to be confrontational, but that sounds pretty damned harsh.
Waste
[ijack]
Just got back from filing a brief in the 7th Circuit. They were preparing for a big oral argument this a.m. Apparently NOW is appealing a decision on behalf of a class including women seeking abortions, vs. an entity called something like Illinois Pro-Life. They were affording each side 40 minutes, which is really unusual. The courtroom was packed 30 min before the argument started. I was surprised they hadn’t moved it to the much larger ceremonial courtroom. I would have stuck around, but I’m just too busy today. When I get a chance, I’ll dig up what the case is about and what the decision below held.
For the life of me, I cannot remember! IT was in either Redbook or Good Housekeeping, methinks.
Argh!
Guinastasia:
Well, that goes a long way toward explaining why I had never seen it. Thanks, though.
Waste
Hoo boy! I’d say it’s a kinda hot case (I was too interested - work could wait.) This is the case where the Pro-Life Action League, Operation Rescue, etc., got convicted of RICO violation and slapped with a 12 year injunction.
The full caption in the United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, was.
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN, INC., and its women members and other women who use or may use the services of women’s health centers that provide abortions; Delaware Women’s Health Organization, Inc., and Summit Women’s Health Organization, Inc., on behalf of themselves and all other similarly-situated clinics, Plaintiff,
v.
Joseph M. SCHEIDLER; Andrew Scholberg; Timothy Murphy; Pro-Life Action League, Inc.; and Operation Rescue, Defendant.
No. 86 C 7888.
Decision issued July 28, 1999.
These are some of the relevant findings.
- The Defendants have violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. SS 1961 et seq., by operating an enterprise, the Pro Life Action Network (“PLAN”), through a pattern of numerous, repeated acts of racketeering that interfered with the Plaintiff Clinics’ right to provide medical services, including but not limited to abortions, and the right of NOW members and the Plaintiff Class of women to obtain those services.
- The evidence presented at trial established a likelihood that similar illegal conduct would be committed in the future by the Defendants and/or others acting in concert with them.
The Conduct Enjoined
- Defendants Joseph Scheidler, Andrew Scholberg, Timothy Murphy, Pro-Life Action League, Inc., and Operation Rescue, a/k/a Operation Rescue National (the “Defendants”), and each of their officers, directors, agents, representatives, servants, employees, attorneys and any other on their behalf or in concert with them, are hereby enjoined from directly or indirectly:
a. interfering with the right of any member of the Certified Class of Plaintiff Clinics to conduct its business (including but not limited to the right to provide abortion services) or the right of any NOW member or any member of the Certified Class of women to avail herself of the Plaintiff Clinics’ services (included but not limited to abortion services), by:
(1) blocking, impeding, inhibiting, or in any other manner obstructing or interfering with access to, ingress into and egress from any building or parking lot of any Plaintiff Clinic;
(2) trespassing on the premises or the private property of any Plaintiff Clinic;
(3) destroying, damaging or stealing property of any Plaintiff Clinic, its employees, volunteers, or any woman who seeks to use the services of such a Clinic ;
(4) using violence or threat of violence against any Plaintiff Clinic or any of its employees, volunteers, or any woman who seeks to use the services of such a Clinic;
b. aiding, abetting, inducing, directing, or inciting any of the acts enumerated in subsection a. of this paragraph (the “Acts”) through any of the Defendants or through others; or
c. operating an enterprise through any of the Acts described above.
- This injunction does not prohibit or preclude expressive activities that are constitutionally protected, including but not limited to the following conduct:
a. Peacefully carrying picket signs on the public property in front of any Plaintiff Clinic;
b. Making speeches on public property;
c. Speaking to individuals approaching the clinic;
d. Handing out literature on public property; and
e. Praying on public property.
…
- This injunction shall be enforceable by the U.S. Marshall Service and by any other federal, state or local law enforcement authority, each of whom is hereby authorized to arrest any person who appears to be in disobedience of this injunction. The arrestee may be taken before any federal judge or magistrate in the jurisdiction in which the arrest is made. Violation of this injunction may subject the Defendant, or any person within the scope of this injunction, to prosecution for criminal or civil contempt of court, and to the imposition of any penalties available under the law, including but not limited to incarceration or detention, the posting of a bond, monetary penalties, payment of damages to any aggrieved persons or entities, payment of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in connection with a contempt action, and other sanctions deemed appropriate by the court.
Retention of Jurisdiction
The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this injunction for twelve (12) years from the date below.
Damn! I wish I had stuck around! Don’t know who is on the panel.
I’m sorry! 
I wish to GOD I could find it, but it was a while ago…it was in my mother’s magazine, and she must have pitched it.
Damn damn damn damn damn!
If you want, I could try and look it up in the back issues if the library has any, though?
Not to worry, Guinistasia. I appreciate the offer, though.
Also, I found this. It looks like this has come up before. And that Iowa has a pretty progressive take on things. Who’da thunk?
Waste
True, but now I’d like to find it for myself…it was pretty shocking, at least to me.
Anymore, I’m getting fed up with being Catholic. Not with god and all, but with the people. LIke I’m going to believe my mom’s not going to Heaven cause she had her tubes tied?