No, it isn’t. Abortion does not require use of a gurney.
They do if something goes wrong.
I can think of a reason why a 24-hour waiting period would be considered a bad idea; a minor who wants an abortion without telling her parents about it (there is no parental notification required in California for abortions, despite a number of attempts to change this through ballot initiatives) now has to wait 24 hours and run the risk that, somehow, her parents found out about it.
The same would be true of, say, a dentist’s office. Why is abortion singled out for demands that other medical facilities aren’t?
It’s political, not medical.
I’ve never understood what good a 24-hour waiting period is either.
I do however favor parental notification laws, since all other medical procedures require parental notification.
Botched abortions requiring a patient to be rushed to an emergency room are more frequent than botched root canals requiring a patient to go to the emergency room. People rarely bleed to death in dentists’ offices. While not a common occurrence, patients do bleed to death in abortion clinics. Especially poorly regulated abortion clinics, of which there are many.
If your child disobeys you, you can send them to their room without dinner.
You cannot compel them to bear a child.
People bleed to death a lot of places. People bleed to death in doughnut shops.
How many people bleed to death from botched abortions? You’re still making special exceptions on a political basis, and not on a medical basis.
Then why legally, can you forbid them to get a filling? I don’t have a problem with removing parental notification laws, I just object to abortion being a special category of medicine requiring more deference from the authorities.
Do outpatient clinics require gurney access?
In any case, this will never come up for a vote. Your Senate leader is pro-life, and thus hates women.
Because that’s just a million times less invasive than forcing them to have a baby.
You’re relatively conservative, and have some libertarian touches to your viewpoints: do you really want a government that has the power to compel children to have children? Don’t you think reproductive choice ought to be individual, and not state mandated?
I’m pretty damn liberal, and I think government’s job is to protect us against pollution, corruption, organized crime and so on. But not to force people to have babies. That is just miles and miles too creepy.
Being a libertarian also means favoring rule of law, and law consistently applied. Liberals tend to suddenly turn conservative on regulation issues when it comes to abortion, but freely pile on regulation after regulation on all other businesses without concern about how much its costing or whether they can actually shoulder the load.
Personally, I don’t think government should get involved in medical decisions at all, but abortion excepted, liberals support the government getting between us and our doctor. The latest egregrious example is with the pain clinics. Liberals are going after the pain clinics with as much gusto as Republicans do going after abortion clinics.
The problem with setting aside abortion as a special case is that it enables liberals to avoid the consequences of their ideological beliefs. If liberals had to apply the same regulatory principles to everything, we’d either have a very well regulated abortion industry in which Kermit Gosnells could not function, or we’d have a laissez-faire economy such as to make Rand Paul jump for joy.
Brief highjack: this is entirely new to me. I’ve never heard of a “pain clinic,” and have no idea what the issues are.
Back on the topic, you overlook intent. Liberals favor regulations that actually protect consumers. Some conservatives favor regulations that interfere with consumers’ ability to obtain services at all.
If I thought for one tenth of a millisecond that “admitting privileges in local hospitals” was intended for patient safety, and not as an obstruction, I might even favor it. But when it’s nothing more than a backdoor approach to a ban, I consider it objectionable on constitutional grounds.
It’s as if someone who favored censorship tried to point out how very toxic printing ink is. All printing shops have to have full protections so that no printer ever gets ink on his skin. It isn’t the ostensible claim that I find offensive: it’s the poorly disguised effort to bypass the constitution.
I dunno, but I haven’t heard any complaints so it seems to be working.
Truth be told, I’m not sure what additional medical regulations, if any, apply to Canadian clinics that perform abortions. There’s aren’t any criminal laws in play, and I don’t know of any politician who thinks he can gain by playing the Jesus and/or slut shaming card…
[googling]
What the hell? Private clinic in New Brunswick closed? Approval by two doctors required? Damn, I’ve lost some of my smugness justification.
Intent does matter. And when liberals refrain from regulating abortion clinics, that’s politically motivated and it jeopardizes womens’ health, it doesn’t promote it. This bill might as well be entitled the “Kermit Gosnell Enabling Act”. This would make it much harder for states to prevent future Kermit Gosnells.
Because the law says so.
Laws can be changed. Even the constitution can, if you go through the proper route. Or if the government collapses.
Attempting to find statistics on abortion complications is like walking into a minefield, but here goes.
The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology published a study (Pregnancy-associated mortality after birth, spontaneous abortion, or induced abortion in Finland, 1987-2000) which was a population based retrospective study.
So 83.1 deaths within one year per 100,000 pregnancies ending in spontaneous or induced abortion. That is deaths from all causes.
The journal Obstetrics & Gynecology (the official publication of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) aka The Green Journal) published a study (The comparative safety of legal induced abortion and childbirth in the United States. in Feb 2012) which concluded in part, “The mortality rate related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions.”
The Guttmacher Institute cites a study (Jones RK and Jerman J, Abortion incidence and service availability in the United States, 2011, published in Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2014, 46(1):3-14) which provides some absolute numbers for abortions in recent years in the United States.
Based on the numbers (0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions & 1.06 million abortions performed in 2006) then we would expect about 6 to 7 maternal deaths per year in the United States immediately attributable to abortions.
And at 83.1 deaths per 100,000 & 1.06 million abortions would lead us to expect about 881 maternal deaths in the United States from all causes within one year of the abortion.
By way of comparison, the study Mortality incidence in outpatient anesthesia for dentistry in Ontario showed a mortality rate of yielding a mortality rate of 0.14 per 100,000. So an abortion is about 4.2 times riskier than dental work requiring anesthesia.
It was always a pretty terrible comparison. Other outpatient surgical procedures are better for comparison than dentistry.
For example, what’s the mortality rate for arthroscopic knee surgery compared to abortion?