(06-27-2016 12:38 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(06-27-2016 10:04 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'm good with it.

I don't know all the details so I'll not pass judgement on the whole law but from what I understand a big part of the "burden" was wanting the doctor to be able to admit patients to a nearby hospital.

That's not a restriction on the patient, that's a restriction on the doctor. It's akin to saying if you own a gun store you should have to do x/y/z.

For that reason I disagree..

so if I restrict every gun manufacturer to the point where they are unable to produce guns I'm not restricting you...just a manufacturer. right?

We're Regulation Nation. Why does this one regulation cause so much consternation.

(06-27-2016 12:45 PM)Paul M Wrote:  We're Regulation Nation. Why does this one regulation cause so much consternation.

because its true intent is so very evident.

(06-27-2016 12:45 PM)Paul M Wrote:  We're Regulation Nation. Why does this one regulation cause so much consternation.

so therefore pro gun rights folks should STFU?

(06-27-2016 12:47 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(06-27-2016 12:45 PM)Paul M Wrote:  We're Regulation Nation. Why does this one regulation cause so much consternation.

because its true intent is so very evident.

that and it shuts down virtually every clinic.

(06-27-2016 12:48 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-27-2016 12:45 PM)Paul M Wrote:  We're Regulation Nation. Why does this one regulation cause so much consternation.

so therefore pro gun rights folks should STFU?

Just say you don't understand. Be much better than babbling.

(06-27-2016 12:48 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-27-2016 12:47 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(06-27-2016 12:45 PM)Paul M Wrote:  We're Regulation Nation. Why does this one regulation cause so much consternation.

because its true intent is so very evident.

that and it shuts down virtually every clinic.

Are you ever going to get around to making any true statements in this thread.

(06-27-2016 12:43 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-27-2016 12:38 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(06-27-2016 10:04 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'm good with it.

I don't know all the details so I'll not pass judgement on the whole law but from what I understand a big part of the "burden" was wanting the doctor to be able to admit patients to a nearby hospital.

That's not a restriction on the patient, that's a restriction on the doctor. It's akin to saying if you own a gun store you should have to do x/y/z.

For that reason I disagree..

so if I restrict every gun manufacturer to the point where they are unable to produce guns I'm not restricting you...just a manufacturer. right?

Asking a doctor who performs internal surgery in his office to be able to admit patients at a local hospital is now unreasonable?

Hell, the most my family practitioner does in his office is give the flu shot and *he* has admitting privileges at 5 local hospitals.

Now if we want to talk things like "hallway width" and other items which can legitimately be called overregulation, fine, but you do realize what a hypocritical ass you look like trying to overregulate one right (guns) and make another "right" more like the wild wild west.

(06-27-2016 10:36 AM)john01992 Wrote:  if you want to complain about abortion, then stop funding abstinence-only sex education and start funding effective sex ed and easy access to birth control. investing in those measures will do far more to lower the abortion rate than trying to outlaw abortion which will just shift things to the black market or other states.

It already exists. Let's be honest, people wanna f**k and worrying about consequences is the furthest thing from both parties mind when the bed starts rocking.

Texas' law was dumb because it was unnecessary. There are other factors that are reducing abortions far more effectively than legislation. Moreover, you can't use laws to eliminate something as old as humanity itself.

(06-27-2016 12:55 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(06-27-2016 12:43 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-27-2016 12:38 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(06-27-2016 10:04 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'm good with it.

I don't know all the details so I'll not pass judgement on the whole law but from what I understand a big part of the "burden" was wanting the doctor to be able to admit patients to a nearby hospital.

That's not a restriction on the patient, that's a restriction on the doctor. It's akin to saying if you own a gun store you should have to do x/y/z.

For that reason I disagree..

so if I restrict every gun manufacturer to the point where they are unable to produce guns I'm not restricting you...just a manufacturer. right?

Asking a doctor who performs internal surgery in his office to be able to admit patients at a local hospital is now unreasonable?

Hell, the most my family practitioner does in his office is give the flu shot and *he* has admitting privileges at 5 local hospitals.

Now if we want to talk things like "hallway width" and other items which can legitimately be called overregulation, fine, but you do realize what a hypocritical ass you look like trying to overregulate one right (guns) and make another "right" more like the wild wild west.

an abortion is a very safe and very simple procedure. as I said above it has a mortality rate lower than a penicillin shot. it has a mortality rate 16x lower than childbirth. there are many different kinds of clinics that offer these (relatively) minor medical services and yet abortion clinics are the only type from this class getting hammered with regulations that force nearly every single one to close.

as to your question:

Asking a doctor who performs internal surgery in his office to be able to admit patients at a local hospital is now unreasonable?

having and maintaining admitting privileges is no walk in the park. it is an incredibly hard and long process. in some cases you need an application just to get an application form itself and the process after that is quite rigorous. factor in that many hospitals are religiously affiliated and/or rely on donors and in most cases they will tell an abortion doctor to f*** off the second he inquires about obtaining one. then to top it off those privileges are not like membership. in most cases a doctor needs to perform X amount of surgeries and/or have X amount of patients in that hospital.

it is a regulation that only a handful of clinics have been able to come into compliance with.

all of this for a procedure that is incredibly safe for a regulation that has no added benefit. you seriously think a hospital is not going to admit someone if they are in dire need of help before or after this law was made?

(06-27-2016 01:13 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(06-27-2016 10:36 AM)john01992 Wrote:  if you want to complain about abortion, then stop funding abstinence-only sex education and start funding effective sex ed and easy access to birth control. investing in those measures will do far more to lower the abortion rate than trying to outlaw abortion which will just shift things to the black market or other states.

It already exists. Let's be honest, people wanna f**k and worrying about consequences is the furthest thing from both parties mind when the bed starts rocking.

Texas' law was dumb because it was unnecessary. There are other factors that are reducing abortions far more effectively than legislation. Moreover, you can't use laws to eliminate something as old as humanity itself.

there are only two things that reduce the rate of unwanted pregnancies. 1) effective sex ed 2) access to birth control.

if you want to say "it's already there" fine. but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be expanded. I never said it could be eradicated, but it can be significantly lowered.

the fact is that the two things that do the most to reduce abortio

(06-27-2016 12:38 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(06-27-2016 10:04 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'm good with it.

I don't know all the details so I'll not pass judgement on the whole law but from what I understand a big part of the "burden" was wanting the doctor to be able to admit patients to a nearby hospital.

That's not a restriction on the patient, that's a restriction on the doctor. It's akin to saying if you own a gun store you should have to do x/y/z.

For that reason I disagree..

It's valid on its face but invalid in practice. That's the big difference.

I don't think chiropractors should have to have admitting privileges either.

Quote:In the most comprehensive look yet at the safety of abortion, researchers at UC San Francisco have concluded that major complications are rare, occurring less than a quarter of a percent of the time, about the same frequency as colonoscopies.

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2014/12/121781...tudy-shows

Hospital admitting privileges are in no way a reasonable regulation that needs imposed. As was said earlier, if the need arises, there isn't one hospital who is going to turn away a patient who needs admitted immediately in a critical situation, regardless of who the doctor is.

And can we please stop comparing the abortion apple to the gun control orange?

(06-27-2016 09:42 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Have at it ladies lol.

An African-American woman is almost five times likelier to have an abortion than a white woman, and a Latina more than twice as likely, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/27/politics/s...index.html

Oh well, their bodies, their babies, their consciences. Have at it but don't cry about it afterward. Not really anything common folk can do to stop them.

(06-27-2016 01:17 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-27-2016 12:38 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(06-27-2016 10:04 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'm good with it.

I don't know all the details so I'll not pass judgement on the whole law but from what I understand a big part of the "burden" was wanting the doctor to be able to admit patients to a nearby hospital.

That's not a restriction on the patient, that's a restriction on the doctor. It's akin to saying if you own a gun store you should have to do x/y/z.

For that reason I disagree..

It's valid on its face but invalid in practice. That's the big difference.

I don't think chiropractors should have to have admitting privileges either.

You could make a case for chiropractors but I agree with you.

For the most part I say (1) if you give perscription medication to be taken at your office or (2) if you perform internal surgury of any kind, then you should need privlidges.

Those are both situations which can go sideways really fast.

(06-27-2016 01:16 PM)john01992 Wrote:  there are only two things that reduce the rate of unwanted pregnancies. 1) effective sex ed 2) access to birth control.

if you want to say "it's already there" fine. but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be expanded. I never said it could be eradicated, but it can be significantly lowered.

the fact is that the two things that do the most to reduce abortio

I don't think effective sex ed actually exists but I don't see any harm in keeping it around. But when my wife asks her 13-17 year old patients what kind of birth control were they using, she gets nothing but a shoulder shrug. Skyrocketing STD rates are also indicative of the impulsiveness of sex as no one it seems is interested in doing the joint testing before intercourse.

(06-27-2016 01:34 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(06-27-2016 01:17 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-27-2016 12:38 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(06-27-2016 10:04 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'm good with it.

I don't know all the details so I'll not pass judgement on the whole law but from what I understand a big part of the "burden" was wanting the doctor to be able to admit patients to a nearby hospital.

That's not a restriction on the patient, that's a restriction on the doctor. It's akin to saying if you own a gun store you should have to do x/y/z.

For that reason I disagree..

It's valid on its face but invalid in practice. That's the big difference.

I don't think chiropractors should have to have admitting privileges either.

You could make a case for chiropractors but I agree with you.

For the most part I say (1) if you give perscription medication to be taken at your office or (2) if you perform internal surgury of any kind, then you should need privlidges.

Those are both situations which can go sideways really fast.

I have to admit to being ignorant of the statistics on either side.

I do see the logic in the decision if you take everybody's claims at face value though.

(06-27-2016 01:34 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(06-27-2016 01:16 PM)john01992 Wrote:  there are only two things that reduce the rate of unwanted pregnancies. 1) effective sex ed 2) access to birth control.

if you want to say "it's already there" fine. but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be expanded. I never said it could be eradicated, but it can be significantly lowered.

the fact is that the two things that do the most to reduce abortio

I don't think effective sex ed actually exists but I don't see any harm in keeping it around. But when my wife asks her 13-17 year old patients what kind of birth control were they using, she gets nothing but a shoulder shrug. Skyrocketing STD rates are also indicative of the impulsiveness of sex as no one it seems is interested in doing the joint testing before intercourse.

there are plenty of types of sex ed and there are effective types. abstinence only sex ed is counterproductive. at best it is terrible only for rape victims. at worst it is both terrible for rape victims and increases unwanted pregnancies. abstinence only contradicts many of the teachings of effective forms of sex ed hence the problem with it. plus there is no science behind which means it's only justification is based on religious morality.

so BIE you just willfully ignored what I said?

(06-27-2016 01:34 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I don't think effective sex ed actually exists but I don't see any harm in keeping it around. But when my wife asks her 13-17 year old patients what kind of birth control were they using, she gets nothing but a shoulder shrug. Skyrocketing STD rates are also indicative of the impulsiveness of sex as no one it seems is interested in doing the joint testing before intercourse.

We've raised a generation who thinks Aids and pregnancy are the only two bad things that you care really get from sex. Most have no idea that for many STD's there is no effective counter-measure, except abstinence.

"joint testing" before sex will *never* be a thing. People are just not wired that way. Boy meets girl, girl digs boy, girl and boy are about to hook up for the first time and who says "wait, let's go do a joint STD test"

The number of people with chlamydia infections has skyrocketed. In 1997 there were over 500,000 reported diagnoses, but as of 2014 that's more than doubled to about 1,250,000.

It is estimated that one in five Americans have genital herpes, a lifelong infection.

Chlamydia and Herpes are not prevented by condoms or safe sex practices.

For Pete's sake we have created Tindr and other tools aimed at anonymous sex.And if you try to tell people that STI's are bad they will "shout their status" claiming it's not a sign of poor judgement or bad health.