With Robert's Vote, Supreme Court Blocks Louisiana's Abortion Restrictions

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,365
23,784
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#4
But I thought all the pink hats said the court was a war on women now. Could that have been an overreaction? Nah, people never do that when politics are involved.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,569
2,440
1,743
So Cal
#5
and the left's war on women continues.... I hope none of those women have that "surgery" ever need hospital care.... they'll have to go through the emergency room and be at the mercy of the on call Dr. and the ER chaos.

It seems fitting though, since the left also wants nurse practitioners to be able to perform these procedures on women.... they don't really care about what the women may need, they only care about their "right to abort the unborn".
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,057
31,713
1,743
oklahoma city
#6
and the left's war on women continues.... I hope none of those women have that "surgery" ever need hospital care.... they'll have to go through the emergency room and be at the mercy of the on call Dr. and the ER chaos.
.
This is nonsense.

If something happens at any surgery center that requires hospital transfer urgently, those patients go through the ER and, depending on the system, to the on-call doctor if their doctor is at a surgery center doing surgery all day. If it is non-urgent, the patient could be sent from one doctor to the other and avoid the ER, but this is rare these days. If the doctor is at a surgery center doing eye, joint, plastic, gyn, or any of the other hundreds of surgeries done outside a hospital, those patients go to the on call doctor also. It is how the system works.

IF the legislators wanted to "protect patients" they would have required all doctors performing procedures outside of a hospital to have hospital privileges. But, no, they picked a single procedure, one that has a far lower complication rate than many others. And, there is no evidence that any of this protects patients anyway.
This is an obvious attempt to make it more difficult to get an abortion. Big government getting involved in the doctor-patient relationship. And, the hypocritical "freedom" lovers want it. There is no rational argument that this is about patient safety at all.
 
Jul 25, 2018
1,309
366
163
48
Boulder, CO
#7
This is nonsense.

If something happens at any surgery center that requires hospital transfer urgently, those patients go through the ER and, depending on the system, to the on-call doctor if their doctor is at a surgery center doing surgery all day. If it is non-urgent, the patient could be sent from one doctor to the other and avoid the ER, but this is rare these days. If the doctor is at a surgery center doing eye, joint, plastic, gyn, or any of the other hundreds of surgeries done outside a hospital, those patients go to the on call doctor also. It is how the system works.

IF the legislators wanted to "protect patients" they would have required all doctors performing procedures outside of a hospital to have hospital privileges. But, no, they picked a single procedure, one that has a far lower complication rate than many others. And, there is no evidence that any of this protects patients anyway.
This is an obvious attempt to make it more difficult to get an abortion. Big government getting involved in the doctor-patient relationship. And, the hypocritical "freedom" lovers want it. There is no rational argument that this is about patient safety at all.
As someone who works in hospital & outpatient settings, I completely agree.

I'd also add that people are largely ignorant to how much care NP's provide. I work with alot of fantastic NP's.
 
Jul 20, 2018
1,376
191
143
77539
#8
This is nonsense.

If something happens at any surgery center that requires hospital transfer urgently, those patients go through the ER and, depending on the system, to the on-call doctor if their doctor is at a surgery center doing surgery all day. If it is non-urgent, the patient could be sent from one doctor to the other and avoid the ER, but this is rare these days. If the doctor is at a surgery center doing eye, joint, plastic, gyn, or any of the other hundreds of surgeries done outside a hospital, those patients go to the on call doctor also. It is how the system works.

IF the legislators wanted to "protect patients" they would have required all doctors performing procedures outside of a hospital to have hospital privileges. But, no, they picked a single procedure, one that has a far lower complication rate than many others. And, there is no evidence that any of this protects patients anyway.
This is an obvious attempt to make it more difficult to get an abortion. Big government getting involved in the doctor-patient relationship. And, the hypocritical "freedom" lovers want it. There is no rational argument that this is about patient safety at all.
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.go...clHMWEIEKPQMuTANnZiFvu34TVfeUq_x_xAJSooNgKWhA

I really don't understand the big deal. If I'm having ANY surgery at a surgical center, I would want them to be able to transport me to a hospital if something happened.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,569
2,440
1,743
So Cal
#9
This is nonsense.

If something happens at any surgery center that requires hospital transfer urgently, those patients go through the ER and, depending on the system, to the on-call doctor if their doctor is at a surgery center doing surgery all day. If it is non-urgent, the patient could be sent from one doctor to the other and avoid the ER, but this is rare these days. If the doctor is at a surgery center doing eye, joint, plastic, gyn, or any of the other hundreds of surgeries done outside a hospital, those patients go to the on call doctor also. It is how the system works.

IF the legislators wanted to "protect patients" they would have required all doctors performing procedures outside of a hospital to have hospital privileges. But, no, they picked a single procedure, one that has a far lower complication rate than many others. And, there is no evidence that any of this protects patients anyway.
This is an obvious attempt to make it more difficult to get an abortion. Big government getting involved in the doctor-patient relationship. And, the hypocritical "freedom" lovers want it. There is no rational argument that this is about patient safety at all.
uh huh.... got cha...

The CDC reported an increase in the maternal mortality ratio in the United States from 18.8 deaths per 100,000 births to 23.8 deaths per 100,000 births between 2000 and 2014, a 26.6% increase; and in 2016, as many as 900 women between the ages of 16 and 43 died from pregnancy- and childbirth-related causes.

Is it really that hard to get admitting privileges? (I really don't know)

1549672033435.png
 
Last edited:

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,569
2,440
1,743
So Cal
#10
As someone who works in hospital & outpatient settings, I completely agree.

I'd also add that people are largely ignorant to how much care NP's provide. I work with alot of fantastic NP's.
we're not talking about "providing care"... we're talking about abortion. Isn't that considered a surgery?

I have nothing against a NP, but they are not licensed doctors - they are licensed by entirely different board (nurses)
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,569
2,440
1,743
So Cal
#11
This is nonsense.

If something happens at any surgery center that requires hospital transfer urgently, those patients go through the ER and, depending on the system, to the on-call doctor if their doctor is at a surgery center doing surgery all day. If it is non-urgent, the patient could be sent from one doctor to the other and avoid the ER, but this is rare these days. If the doctor is at a surgery center doing eye, joint, plastic, gyn, or any of the other hundreds of surgeries done outside a hospital, those patients go to the on call doctor also. It is how the system works.

IF the legislators wanted to "protect patients" they would have required all doctors performing procedures outside of a hospital to have hospital privileges. But, no, they picked a single procedure, one that has a far lower complication rate than many others. And, there is no evidence that any of this protects patients anyway.
This is an obvious attempt to make it more difficult to get an abortion. Big government getting involved in the doctor-patient relationship. And, the hypocritical "freedom" lovers want it. There is no rational argument that this is about patient safety at all.
The total abortion-related complication rate including all sources of care including emergency departments and the original abortion facility is estimated to be about 2%.

The incidence of abortion-related emergency department visits within six weeks of initial abortion procedure is about 40%
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK430793/
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,569
2,440
1,743
So Cal
#12
This is nonsense.

If something happens at any surgery center that requires hospital transfer urgently, those patients go through the ER and, depending on the system, to the on-call doctor if their doctor is at a surgery center doing surgery all day. If it is non-urgent, the patient could be sent from one doctor to the other and avoid the ER, but this is rare these days. If the doctor is at a surgery center doing eye, joint, plastic, gyn, or any of the other hundreds of surgeries done outside a hospital, those patients go to the on call doctor also. It is how the system works.

IF the legislators wanted to "protect patients" they would have required all doctors performing procedures outside of a hospital to have hospital privileges. But, no, they picked a single procedure, one that has a far lower complication rate than many others. And, there is no evidence that any of this protects patients anyway.
This is an obvious attempt to make it more difficult to get an abortion. Big government getting involved in the doctor-patient relationship. And, the hypocritical "freedom" lovers want it. There is no rational argument that this is about patient safety at all.
CDC: (these are DEATHS, not "emergencies")

Using national data from the Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System (51), CDC identified six abortion-related deaths for 2014 (Table 23). Investigation of these cases indicated that all six deaths were related to legal abortion and none to illegal abortion.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/ss/ss6713a1.htm#T23_down
 

P4L

Sheriff
Nov 7, 2007
2,996
6,614
1,743
Kenosha, WI
#13
CDC: (these are DEATHS, not "emergencies")

Using national data from the Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System (51), CDC identified six abortion-related deaths for 2014 (Table 23). Investigation of these cases indicated that all six deaths were related to legal abortion and none to illegal abortion.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/ss/ss6713a1.htm#T23_down
And in 2014, the were approximately 650k abortions performed for a mortality rate of 0.00092%.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,569
2,440
1,743
So Cal
#16
And in 2014, the were approximately 650k abortions performed for a mortality rate of 0.00092%.
like I said... that stat did not reflect hospitalizations from abortion procedures (which was the issue), and exactly how many DEATHS are acceptable to you before there are protections provided for women?

How many? apparently 6-10 women actually dying annually is not enough for you to want to ask for more protection for them... how many deaths of women before it becomes real for you?
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,569
2,440
1,743
So Cal
#17
There were 4 million births, 23,000 died after birth, 650,000 were aborted. That's an infant mortality rate of 14.5%.
I think we were talking a side bar about the mortality rate for women getting abortions, not infant mortality rate

the infant mortality rate from abortions would actually be 100%
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,057
31,713
1,743
oklahoma city
#18
uh huh.... got cha...

The CDC reported an increase in the maternal mortality ratio in the United States from 18.8 deaths per 100,000 births to 23.8 deaths per 100,000 births between 2000 and 2014, a 26.6% increase; and in 2016, as many as 900 women between the ages of 16 and 43 died from pregnancy- and childbirth-related causes.

Is it really that hard to get admitting privileges? (I really don't know)

View attachment 68114
That is mortality mostly from giving birth, which is far higher than the mortality rate for abortion (no need for the "it's 100% for the baby" comments as we are talking about maternal mortality in both numbers). If more pregnancies were aborted, that rate would drop (not advocating that of course, just stating).

Yes, it can be extremely difficult to get admitting privileges. It is like any business, the hospital is not going to want to be associated with the "abortion doctor" when the abortions are done at an external clinic and are not profitable for the hospital. I worked at a hospital that tried to get rid of the privileges of an OB who did not even do abortions but was interviewed on the news and was against a "view ultrasound before abortion" law. People picketed his office. Hospital did not want to be involved in the controversy.

Even without that, it is time consuming and difficult these days of big bureaucratic hospital systems (thanks obamacare). I've been working on it since returning to the US in October still not done despite clean record and not an abortion provider. I've had to sign and review literally hundreds of documents.

Again, these laws are not for patient safety. It is just government intrusion. Being that you seem to be a big freedom advocate, I am surprised you think this is OK. This would be similar to requiring every gun owner to be a member of a shooting range to show that they practice enough to be safe with the gun. But, its is just for gun safety. Yea, right, it is government intrusion. When it comes to freedom, the ends do not justify the means.

The comparative safety of legal induced abortion and childbirth in the United States.
Raymond EG1, Grimes DA.
Author information

Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
To assess the safety of abortion compared with childbirth.
METHODS:
We estimated mortality rates associated with live births and legal induced abortions in the United States in 1998-2005. We used data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System, birth certificates, and Guttmacher Institute surveys. In addition, we searched for population-based data comparing the morbidity of abortion and childbirth.
RESULTS:
The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered live neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions. In the one recent comparative study of pregnancy morbidity in the United States, pregnancy-related complications were more common with childbirth than with abortion.
CONCLUSION:
Legal induced abortion is markedly safer than childbirth. The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion. Similarly, the overall morbidity associated with childbirth exceeds that with abortion.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,569
2,440
1,743
So Cal
#19
That is mortality mostly from giving birth, which is far higher than the mortality rate for abortion (no need for the "it's 100% for the baby" comments as we are talking about maternal mortality in both numbers). If more pregnancies were aborted, that rate would drop (not advocating that of course, just stating).

Yes, it can be extremely difficult to get admitting privileges. It is like any business, the hospital is not going to want to be associated with the "abortion doctor" when the abortions are done at an external clinic and are not profitable for the hospital. I worked at a hospital that tried to get rid of the privileges of an OB who did not even do abortions but was interviewed on the news and was against a "view ultrasound before abortion" law. People picketed his office. Hospital did not want to be involved in the controversy.

Even without that, it is time consuming and difficult these days of big bureaucratic hospital systems (thanks obamacare). I've been working on it since returning to the US in October still not done despite clean record and not an abortion provider. I've had to sign and review literally hundreds of documents.

Again, these laws are not for patient safety. It is just government intrusion. Being that you seem to be a big freedom advocate, I am surprised you think this is OK. This would be similar to requiring every gun owner to be a member of a shooting range to show that they practice enough to be safe with the gun. But, its is just for gun safety. Yea, right, it is government intrusion. When it comes to freedom, the ends do not justify the means.

The comparative safety of legal induced abortion and childbirth in the United States.
Raymond EG1, Grimes DA.
Author information

Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
To assess the safety of abortion compared with childbirth.
METHODS:
We estimated mortality rates associated with live births and legal induced abortions in the United States in 1998-2005. We used data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System, birth certificates, and Guttmacher Institute surveys. In addition, we searched for population-based data comparing the morbidity of abortion and childbirth.
RESULTS:
The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered live neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions. In the one recent comparative study of pregnancy morbidity in the United States, pregnancy-related complications were more common with childbirth than with abortion.
CONCLUSION:
Legal induced abortion is markedly safer than childbirth
. The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion. Similarly, the overall morbidity associated with childbirth exceeds that with abortion.
lol..... that's some funny stuff there..... abortions are safer than child birth... unless you're the child... LOL

SMH.

why do idiots even prepare nonsense like that? Besides, it was never a question of which is "safer", it is an issue of whether more can be done to make abotions even safer for women - whether abortion care was good enough or can be even better.

How many woman's deaths for you? You didn't answer that, I noticed... 15? 50? How many is too many deaths for you before you advocate for better care for women?

and once again... you focused on the tangential point of ACTUAL DEATH, rather than the point of the legislation, all emergency post abortion care. My inclusion of death was only to emphasize the severity that arises from post abortion procedures. Death is like final. It's always fatal. The worst outcome... and the other endless cases of maiming and permanent injury go largely unreported.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,057
31,713
1,743
oklahoma city
#20
lol..... that's some funny stuff there..... abortions are safer than child birth... unless you're the child... LOL

SMH.

why do idiots even prepare nonsense like that? Besides, it was never a question of which is "safer", it is an issue of whether more can be done to make abotions even safer for women - whether abortion care was good enough or can be even better.

How many woman's deaths for you? You didn't answer that, I noticed... 15? 50? How many is too many deaths for you before you advocate for better care for women?

and once again... you focused on the tangential point of ACTUAL DEATH, rather than the point of the legislation, all emergency post abortion care. My inclusion of death was only to emphasize the severity that arises from post abortion procedures. Death is like final. It's always fatal. The worst outcome... and the other endless cases of maiming and permanent injury go largely unreported.
You post about death and I respond about death so you complain I "focused on death." Nice, that is pathetic even going by your baseline level of pathetic responses.

And, despite me saying don't bother with fetal mortality we are talking about maternal mortality you lead with that anyway. Weak. Yawn. Proves you did not have a valid argument.

And, if you had any idea what you are talking about (you clearly do not) the journal article I posted CLEARLY STATED that, "Similarly, the overall morbidity associated with childbirth exceeds that with abortion."
For those without the knowledge to know, that "morbidity" word includes "maiming and permanent injury." I shot down your argument before you even made it but you could not figure that out. So, being that abortion is per the experts is "markedly safer" than childbirth, where are the laws requiring childbirth providers to have hospital privileges? They don't exist, because these laws are not about women. They are about impeding abortion. All your emotional heart tugs about "Death is final" make no sense when ignoring the major cause of maternal death. Any half-wit could figure that out.

Discussion with you is pointless. The dumbest thing I repeatedly do is think I can get you to understand logic. Despite your claims that you are some principled freedom lover, you will make any argument to justify your position, even if it goes against the very principles you claim to espouse.

I disagree with a lot of what you say around here. But, I did have a tiny bit of respect for the fact that you typically came down on the side of personal freedom no matter the case. That tiny bit of respect is gone. You are Sean Hannity, a simple political blowhard who will say anything no matter how dumb if he thinks it will advance his position. I'm done here, science and logic are on my side, you can respond with another emotional "its for safety" post if you want since you have already ignored all the evidence that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that isn't true anyway.
 
Last edited: