IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags abortion issues , abortion laws , Texas issues

Reply
Old 4th October 2014, 10:30 AM   #81
bynmdsue
Graduate Poster
 
bynmdsue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,892
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
Well, from testimony we know that he had cats wandering around his "clinic" but did we call in the VP (veterinary police) to find out that it had fleas? Or is that hyperbole, 'cuz it sounds dirtier?
(ETA: No argument from this quarter that the place wasn't filthy and unsafe nor that Gosnell was anything less than a disgusting ********* and deserved to be buried under the jail.)

Gosnell was/is the poster boy for the RtL crowd. They had themselves an actual Satan and of course tried to use the miscreants mis-deeds as a way to assure that there would be more Kermit Gosnell's... greedy ************ who exploit desperate women. The pro-choice side looks at Gosnell and sees as horrible a monster as the purest-thinking God-fearing right-to-lifer. The right-to-lifer, though, doesn't see how the saddling of more and more bureaucratic hurdles onto the poor and desperate is going to inevitably create WTG(worse than Gosnell) scenarios.
The detail about the cats comes right from the Grand Jury report.

Gosnell is what happens when clinics aren't kept up to standards. Why wasn't it up to standards? Because the state didn't inspect it for 17 years. Why not? Again, from the GJ Report...
Quote:
The Pennsylvania Department of Health abruptly decided, for political reasons, to stop inspecting abortion clinics at all. The politics in question were not anti-abortion, but pro. With the change of administration from Governor Casey to Governor Ridge, officials concluded that inspections would be “putting a barrier up to women” seeking abortions.
So even the very act of inspection to see if standards are being maintained is a bridge too far for some pro-choicers. So what if some woman leaves a clinic with an STD she didn't go in there with? The important thing is she's no longer pregnant.

So TX is shutting down clinics that don't meet certain standards. Why don't those clinics just clean up their acts? Is that really too unfair a burden?
bynmdsue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2014, 10:32 AM   #82
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14,213
Originally Posted by bynmdsue View Post
So what if some woman leaves a clinic with an STD she didn't go in there with?
Out of interest, how many times has that happened? Feel free to approximate.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2014, 10:51 AM   #83
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,823
Originally Posted by bynmdsue View Post
The detail about the cats comes right from the Grand Jury report.

Gosnell is what happens when clinics aren't kept up to standards. Why wasn't it up to standards? Because the state didn't inspect it for 17 years. Why not? Again, from the GJ Report...


So even the very act of inspection to see if standards are being maintained is a bridge too far for some pro-choicers. So what if some woman leaves a clinic with an STD she didn't go in there with? The important thing is she's no longer pregnant.

So TX is shutting down clinics that don't meet certain standards. Why don't those clinics just clean up their acts? Is that really too unfair a burden?
I dislike how you try to keep up with the Republican lie that this is about health standards. However, you're not fooling anyone. Everyone knows this is only about making abortion inaccessible to more women and another step towards a total ban.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2014, 10:53 AM   #84
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 11,810
I think the problem is Texas crafted the legislation to make the burden of reaching the new standards impossible for some of the clinics to meet. Was there a health problem the legislation was addressing? I think that's naive. It's about restricting abortion.

The new law is largely Republican-initiated and the flaw I see in the GOP strategy is this:

Pro-Life Texas had been campaigning for Republican support for the new law arguing it would be a key factor enabling the GOP to defeat Wendy Davis the Democrat in the governor's election. However, polls show Texans are split on abortion rights about 45% pro/45 anti%/10% no preference. The people who are pro abortion include many women and people with a college education. These people vote at a higher rate than average. I think the new law may actually help Davis get elected. Voter turnout in Texas is among the lowest of any state but women normally comprise 55% of the voters.

We'll see.
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2014, 10:55 AM   #85
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,823
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
I think the problem is Texas crafted the legislation to make the burden of reaching the new standards impossible for some of the clinics to meet. Was there a health problem the legislation was addressing? I think that's naive. It's about restricting abortion.

The new law is largely Republican-initiated and the flaw I see in the GOP strategy is this:

Pro-Life Texas had been campaigning for Republican support for the new law arguing it would be a key factor enabling the GOP to defeat Wendy Davis the Democrat in the governor's election. However, polls show Texans are split on abortion rights about 45% pro/45 anti%/10% no preference. The people who are pro abortion include many women and people with a college education. These people vote at a higher rate than average. I think the new law may actually help Davis get elected. Voter turnout in Texas is among the lowest of any state but women normally comprise 55% of the voters.

We'll see.
The problem is that they are also making it very hard for those affected by this law to vote. There is no need to worry about the voters if you can choose who the voters are. This is the GOP mindset.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2014, 10:59 AM   #86
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,699
Originally Posted by bynmdsue View Post
So TX is shutting down clinics that don't meet certain standards. Why don't those clinics just clean up their acts? Is that really too unfair a burden?

Yes, it is really too unfair a burden. The standard is capricious and arbitrary, and designed to shut down clinics not for any medical reason, but to restrict access to abortions. The clinics don't need to 'clean up' their act because they're not failing any reasonable standard.

There is no medical need for the new standard. Without that, there is no good reason for this law. This latest court ruling seems to be based on 'there isn't enough harm caused by this law to throw it out'.


_______________________________

theprestige, is this what you meant by 'noboby is fooled'?
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2014, 11:08 AM   #87
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 11,810
Some health advocates have said a bigger threat to women's health is the drastic reduction in the number of clinics statewide that this law has triggered. These clinics do provide services other than performing abortions.

Quote:
Last year, there were 41 abortion clinics in Texas. On Thursday, 21 were left in the entire state. Today [Oct. 3rd] there were just seven. Newsweek link
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2014, 11:14 AM   #88
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 53,838
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
Some health advocates have said a bigger threat to women's health is the drastic reduction in the number of clinics statewide that this law has triggered. These clinics do provide services other than performing abortions.
Is it the clinics that are shutting down, or just the abortion services they provide?

If they're electing to cut off other services, I'm not sure how the "bigger threat" can be blamed on the law.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2014, 11:18 AM   #89
bynmdsue
Graduate Poster
 
bynmdsue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,892
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
So, if Texas only allowed guns to be purchased in 7 locations, that would be okay? After all, it wouldn't be a ban, so it should be fine, right?
But that's not what happened. TX didn't say "You can only have abortion clinics here, here and here but none here, here or here." They said that the clinics must conform to a predetermined standard. The clinics that don't are to be closed. You want to open a clinic then make sure it conforms to the standards. You want to go into business selling guns make sure you have a Federal Firearms License. If not they will shut your store down.
bynmdsue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2014, 11:18 AM   #90
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14,213
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Is it the clinics that are shutting down, or just the abortion services they provide?

If they're electing to cut off other services, I'm not sure how the "bigger threat" can be blamed on the law.
Are you saying that there would be harsher regulations against the abortion parts of a clinics business, and as such, the other services would remain unaffected? If so, why would that be?
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2014, 11:19 AM   #91
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14,213
Originally Posted by bynmdsue View Post
But that's not what happened. TX didn't say "You can only have abortion clinics here, here and here but none here, here or here." They said that the clinics must conform to a predetermined standard. The clinics that don't are to be closed. You want to open a clinic then make sure it conforms to the standards. You want to go into business selling guns make sure you have a Federal Firearms License. If not they will shut your store down.
About the number of cases of women getting STDs from abortion clinics... got a figure yet?
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2014, 11:25 AM   #92
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 11,810
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Is it the clinics that are shutting down, or just the abortion services they provide? If they're electing to cut off other services, I'm not sure how the "bigger threat" can be blamed on the law.
That's disingenuous. Doctors know if you cut off women from legal abortion many of the women will get illegal abortions. That's the health threat. That this new law is driving that.

Yes there are other services provided but I think the clinics are totally shut down.

For right-to-lifers that's a twofer. Because not only is the availability of abortions greatly reduced but so is the availability of services like affordable contraception and family planning.
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2014, 11:34 AM   #93
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 14,652
Originally Posted by bynmdsue View Post
But that's not what happened. TX didn't say "You can only have abortion clinics here, here and here but none here, here or here." They said that the clinics must conform to a predetermined standard. The clinics that don't are to be closed. You want to open a clinic then make sure it conforms to the standards. You want to go into business selling guns make sure you have a Federal Firearms License. If not they will shut your store down.
Exactly. If a law was passed that said anyone wishing to own a gun must first complete 100 hours of safety training that they must pay for out of their own pocket, bynmdsue would be totally cool with that, because it's not a law restricting gun ownership.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2014, 11:35 AM   #94
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,823
Originally Posted by bynmdsue View Post
But that's not what happened. TX didn't say "You can only have abortion clinics here, here and here but none here, here or here." They said that the clinics must conform to a predetermined standard. The clinics that don't are to be closed. You want to open a clinic then make sure it conforms to the standards. You want to go into business selling guns make sure you have a Federal Firearms License. If not they will shut your store down.
You aren't tricking anyone. Everyone knows it's about paving a path to ban abortion.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2014, 11:41 AM   #95
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 11,810
What if Diane Feinstein proposed changes in the way firearm dealers are regulated. But it turned out the immediate effect of the new law would be to require about 80% of the dealers to shut down. If posters then wrote, "I support the new law, not because I'm pro gun control but because I want safe gun dealers," would that seem credible?
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2014, 12:25 PM   #96
Minoosh
Penultimate Amazing
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 12,465
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
God I'm about to hate myself for saying this.

I'm not stupid. I know full well this has nothing to do with any actual concern over the medical standards of these clinics. <snip>
The fact that you feel the need for a preamble indicates IMO a regrettable Internet forum reality. You want to ask a simple question, yet feel you can't, even on this forum, without being met with a pugnacious response. You really are just asking a question. From my point of view, anyone who responds, "Oh, you're just asking a question (smirk, wink, nod)," is violating a very basic premise of skepticism. People get to ask questions. If they go on to reveal bad faith, then skepticism of their questions may be warranted. But if forum members react defensively to a question on a first go - IMO, they lack confidence in the process of skeptical inquiry.

Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
That all being said... feet to the fire, truth or dare, warts and all honest I can't get that outraged over an abortion clinic being held to the same outpatient medical clinic standards as a place where you get liposuction or Lasik and by its letter, if not its meaning, I don't see this law doing anymore then that.
It would take more research but I want to point out a distinction: "Medical" abortions are noninvasive. They rely on administering drugs to effect a miscarriage. From past threads I believe this is a point that Texas officials wish to suppress. "Surgical" abortions involve dilating the cervix, reaching into the uterus with some type of instrument and scraping out the lining.

Now: The Texas law may be trying to erase that distinction, and I'm not sure of the medical justification. If a "medical" abortion fails, and health-care providers have to go in and finish the job with instruments, then those standards for invasive procedures could be in play. I don't know how common this scenario is.

I found this link very educational:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_abortion

It interests me that in Canada this is a viable option for 2nd-trimester pregnancies, while U.S. practitioners rely much more heavily on the surgical model. Noteworthy: Providers charge more for induced miscarriage than they do for full-on surgery. This doesn't make sense to me.

I can't complete this post without making a plug for the morning-after pill, which is not RU-486, which does not require a prescription, which may be purchased by minors in many places and which drastically cuts down the potential for complications by being almost real-time contraception. It is very important to me that women are educated on this option. I've used it; its use for preventing unwanted pregnancies cannot, IMO, be overstated. If a woman is a month or two along, it's too late. At that point, to terminate you would seek a "medical" abortion. In the U.S., the default after 9 weeks would be surgery; whereas in Canada, the default at that point would still be medical abortion.

Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
I won't lie my first reaction to a law requesting abortion clinics be held to medical clinic standards is "You mean they weren't already?"
You shouldn't have to lie. IMO, your question on this forum should be met with good faith. If you expect intimidation from skeptics - then they are not skeptics, they are bullies.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2014, 12:34 PM   #97
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Pop quiz time:

Does Ziggurat think abortion should be legal or illegal?
I'm guessing legal.

ETA: I think the best way to deal with these Texas laws on abortion clinics is to donate a bunch of money to outfits like Planned Parenthood so that they can pay for the upgrades now required by the law.
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness

Last edited by MattusMaximus; 4th October 2014 at 12:40 PM.
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2014, 12:38 PM   #98
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
I think the problem is Texas crafted the legislation to make the burden of reaching the new standards impossible for some of the clinics to meet. Was there a health problem the legislation was addressing? I think that's naive. It's about restricting abortion.
The state has a compelling interest to protect the health of women. If there is data that supports the proposition that clinics present a significant health risk then I would support such policies.

Why would that not work in reverse?
Quote:
This report focuses on women's health and, specifically, on the provision of abortion care. However, the growing trend of imposing ideology on medical care has far broader implications. Similar restrictions impair health care providers' ability to counsel patients on gun safety or environmental risk factors, among other health and safety concerns. Major medical organizations from the American Medical Association (AMA), to the American College of Physicians (ACP), to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), have all recognized that this trend of political interference in medical decision-making is detrimental to patient care.

All patients deserve accurate information, high-quality care and the treatment options that best meet their needs. Health care providers should not be forced to choose between adhering to their ethical and professional obligations to provide the highest standard of care and following legal restrictions enacted in pursuit of a political agenda. [National Partnership for Women & Families, Bad Medicine: How a Political Agenda is Undermining Women's Health Care, July 2014]
Originally Posted by bynmdsue View Post
So TX is shutting down clinics that don't meet certain standards. Why don't those clinics just clean up their acts? Is that really too unfair a burden?
Do you have any citations from experts that these clinics posed a significant risk to women?
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2014, 12:41 PM   #99
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,076
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
This may be the catalyst that wins the Governor's race for Wendy Davis.

You ain't from Texas, are ya?

It seems that most Texans are OK with this. Further, abortions have long been hard to obtain in rural areas for a variety of economic and social reasons. This changes absolutely nothing for rural Texans.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2014, 12:46 PM   #100
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
This changes absolutely nothing for rural Texans.
Do you have something other than a bald assertion? Should we take your word for it or the word of experts?

Originally Posted by The Washington Post
“The fact is that these bills will not help protect the health of any woman in Texas. Instead, these bills will harm women’s health in very clear ways,” the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said in an open letter to Texas legislators. “The fact is that abortion is one of the safest medical procedures, with minimal — less than 0.5 percent — risk of major complications that might need hospital care.”
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2014, 01:17 PM   #101
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,076
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
Do you have something other than a bald assertion? Should we take your word for it or the word of experts?

I'm referring to the fact that there have never been abortion clinics in rural Texas. Women have always had to travel to urban areas. There simply isn't enough business to keep such clinics open.

For the record, the Rio Grande Valley (Its where I live and seems to be the subject of many stories about "rural" Texas) is not rural. There are plenty of hospitals nearby and there is no reason that abortion clinics couldn't meet the requirements. If the owners of those clinics choose not to invest in the relatively minor upgrades to meet the law, then there must be good economic reasons for that. Not to mention the social reasons here in a heavily Catholic community. What if most people simply don't want abortions here?
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2014, 02:20 PM   #102
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 11,810
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
<snip> If the owners of those clinics choose not to invest in the relatively minor upgrades to meet the law, then there must be good economic reasons for that.
Great, I've been wondering about this. You said it, you get to define it. What are the upgrades and what's a ballpark figure on what they'd cost?


Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
What if most people simply don't want abortions here?
If most people in your area don't want abortions then they don't have to have abortions. (Btw polling suggests that statewide about 55% of Texans have no problem with abortion.) I don't want to own a handgun but I'm not insisting that therefore no one should have one.

Quote:
What if most people simply don't want other people to have abortions here?
FTFY.
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2014, 02:36 PM   #103
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
I'm referring to the fact that there have never been abortion clinics in rural Texas. Women have always had to travel to urban areas.
Let's back up. You said:

Originally Posted by xjx388
This changes absolutely nothing for rural Texans.
Following your logic then it would follow that all abortion clinics are equidistant to every home in rural Texas? Are you sure about that?

Quote:
What if most people simply don't want abortions here?
I would suggest that they don't have abortions. *What does the majority have to do with the right of a woman to have an abortion?

*Roe v. Wade decision held that women have a right to choose to have an abortion during the first two trimesters of a pregnancy.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2014, 02:51 PM   #104
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 11,810
With the forum on short time I'm going to just skip to the chase. This changes absolutely nothing for rural Texans? I'm not sure that is really accurate. Besides the fact the seven clinics still open are supposedly concentrated in a couple of urban areas, I found this published on The Prospect last March:

Quote:
Since November [2013], the last abortion clinics in East Texas and the Rio Grande Valley, some of the poorest and most remote parts of the state, have been hanging on by their fingernails. The two clinics, both outposts of a network of abortion providers called Whole Woman’s Health, stayed open with slimmed-down staffs while their owner, Amy Hagstrom Miller, struggled to comply with the first chunk of HB2—the voluminous anti-choice law passed by the Texas legislature last summer—which requires abortion doctors to obtain admitting privileges at a local hospital. Today, after weeks of failed negotiations with nearby hospitals, Hagstrom Miller announced that both clinics are closing their doors. The clinics in Beaumont, about an hour east of Houston, and McAllen, just north of the Mexico border in the Rio Grande Valley, were the last rural abortion providers left in Texas. Link
I'm suspicious especially that apparently one of the new requirements is obtaining admitting privileges at area hospitals. Providing abortion services are not popular. Many hospitals refuse to do it, not on medical grounds, but on political grounds. Especially in conservative areas where performing abortions may cost the hospital the support of local political leaders. That's a powerful reason for hospitals to say, "Thanks but no thanks," to abortion clinics when they come looking for affiliation.
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2014, 03:00 PM   #105
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
I'm referring to the fact that there have never been abortion clinics in rural Texas.
BTW: The fact that I live in a rural part of California doesn't make me an expert on every rural community in California.

Texas = 268,820 sq miles
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2014, 03:13 PM   #106
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
 
Corsair 115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,519
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
Texas = 268,820 sq miles

Puny! Ontario = 415,598 sq miles.
__________________
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."
Corsair 115 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2014, 03:57 PM   #107
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 6,152
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
I'm suspicious especially that apparently one of the new requirements is obtaining admitting privileges at area hospitals. Providing abortion services are not popular. Many hospitals refuse to do it, not on medical grounds, but on political grounds. Especially in conservative areas where performing abortions may cost the hospital the support of local political leaders. That's a powerful reason for hospitals to say, "Thanks but no thanks," to abortion clinics when they come looking for affiliation.
During the Jim Crow era, admission privilege requirements were used to keep black physicians from opening clinics.
Kestrel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2014, 04:05 PM   #108
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by Corsair 115 View Post
Puny! Ontario = 415,598 sq miles.
Touche.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2014, 04:32 PM   #109
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,823
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
I'm guessing legal.

ETA: I think the best way to deal with these Texas laws on abortion clinics is to donate a bunch of money to outfits like Planned Parenthood so that they can pay for the upgrades now required by the law.
That would only work for a short period of time, as then the legislators would write another law requiring even more. They effectively banned abortion in other states this way.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2014, 04:45 PM   #110
Sherman Bay
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 2,353
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
What if Diane Feinstein proposed changes in the way firearm dealers are regulated. But it turned out the immediate effect of the new law would be to require about 80% of the dealers to shut down. If posters then wrote, "I support the new law, not because I'm pro gun control but because I want safe gun dealers," would that seem credible?
Silly boy. Everyone knows that no gun dealers would be the safest ones.

Then we could buy guns only on the black market, where they are safest of all.

Kinda like a parallel with the former (and future) black market for abortions, eh?
Sherman Bay is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2014, 04:50 PM   #111
Sherman Bay
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 2,353
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
Do you have any citations from experts that these clinics posed a significant risk to women?
Yeah, the way the law was written, you'd think women were dropping like flies and bodies were piling up in the hallways. We must put a stop to this scourge!
Sherman Bay is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2014, 04:54 PM   #112
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,823
The problem with asking for evidence of the conservatives assertions is that.... lies don't usually have supportive evidence.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2014, 09:14 PM   #113
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 11,810
Now where were we... Oh yeah.

There have been some problems with clinics, I'm not aware of whether there are or aren't any documented bad ones in Texas. One of the factors blamed for this is, sad to say, the political extremism and the violence have convinced many doctors and medical providers that it's a good business to stay away from. Thus some pretty sleazy characters have entered the field.

But the answer is not to pass laws that make it hard for clinics to stay open. The answer is to enforce existing standards and do more inspections. But I think realistically this Texas legislation is part of an effort to eventually drive abortion clinics out of the state.
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2014, 02:56 AM   #114
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
The arguments giving vague, handwaving support to the law in this thread are almost as disingenuous as the arguments the state's lawyers are putting forth.
150 miles is a very long way for anyone without a solid car and/or without the ability to take time off work (assuming they have a job in the first place). Hell, it's been years since I went more than 100 miles away from my home.

Besides, one would think Republicans would line up against this law. It's unnecessary government regulation and it's anti-business.
The right not to sell a cake is ever so much more important than the right not to have a baby so you can understand Republican priorities.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2014, 03:20 AM   #115
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
You ain't from Texas, are ya?

It seems that most Texans are OK with this. Further, abortions have long been hard to obtain in rural areas for a variety of economic and social reasons. This changes absolutely nothing for rural Texans.
I see, the rural poor always have had it rough so a little bit rougher won't hurt?

Argumentum ad Screwum.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2014, 05:03 AM   #116
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 26,225
Seems like Roe v. Wade is dying the death of a thousand cuts. While abortion is still legal, it's getting harder and harder to actually get one.

There's also this new law in Alabama:

New Alabama Law Puts Teens Who Need Abortions on Trial. That's Dangerous and Cruel.

Quote:
Picture this: You are 17 years old, in your senior year of high school, and you've just learned you're pregnant. You'd like to be able to turn to your parents for support but you know you can't. After all, they kicked your older sister out of the house when she got pregnant. But you have discussed your options with your aunt and a trusted counselor and decided to have an abortion.

You call a women's health center to make an appointment and are told that unless you get your parent's consent, you will have to go to court and essentially be put on trial in order to get the care you need.

That's right. Instead of a doctor, you get a trial.

Thanks to a new Alabama law, a teen who can't get a parent's consent has to undergo a gauntlet of questioning to get the abortion she needs. Because of this law, a prosecutor and a representative for the fetus, both of whom are charged with protecting the "state's interest in fetal life," (a.k.a. making sure the teen doesn't get an abortion), will cross-examine her.

That isn't even the half of it. In their quest to ensure that the teen can't get an abortion, the new law allows the prosecutor and fetus's representative to tell other people in the young woman's life -- including her teachers, pastor, employer, relatives, and friends – that she is pregnant. And to haul them in to court to testify against her.

No, I am not kidding.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2014, 07:26 AM   #117
Unabogie
Philosopher
 
Unabogie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 9,692
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
Seems like Roe v. Wade is dying the death of a thousand cuts. While abortion is still legal, it's getting harder and harder to actually get one.

There's also this new law in Alabama:

New Alabama Law Puts Teens Who Need Abortions on Trial. That's Dangerous and Cruel.
Sounds like a government takeover of healthcare.
__________________
Cleek's Law: Today’s conservatism is the opposite of what liberals want today, updated daily.

"Palin must now be considered the future of the Republican Party." ~ Brainster
Unabogie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2014, 07:42 AM   #118
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
 
Darth Rotor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 38,527
Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
Sounds like a government takeover of healthcare.
Sounds more like government interference in health care, for non health reasons.
__________________
Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission.
"Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis
Darth Rotor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2014, 07:56 AM   #119
Unabogie
Philosopher
 
Unabogie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 9,692
Originally Posted by Darth Rotor View Post
Sounds more like government interference in health care, for non health reasons.
But irresponsible hyperbole seemed to work so well in demonizing the ACA. 😁
__________________
Cleek's Law: Today’s conservatism is the opposite of what liberals want today, updated daily.

"Palin must now be considered the future of the Republican Party." ~ Brainster
Unabogie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2014, 09:57 AM   #120
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 11,810
The reality is, the part of the Texas law that's closing down abortion clinics is the requirement they affiliate with a local hospital and gain admitting privileges. That is a tough hurdle. This is from the Washington Post:
Quote:
A doctor at the sole clinic in Mississippi, for instance, said his staff reached out to 13 hospitals to try to comply with their law [requiring affiliation]. Six did not respond to their inquiries, and the rest informed them he would not qualify, he said. Link
In some cases hospitals have refused to grant admitting privileges because the doctor lived too far from the hospital. Or because the clinic doctor would not agree to provisions guaranteeing the hospital that a minimum number of patients would be referred for admitting.


Antiabortion advocates say that if clinics are shutting down it's because they cannot meet basic safety standards.
Quote:
Requiring admitting privileges ensures that abortion doctors are vetted by their peers and prevents abortion doctors from simply abandoning their patients in trouble at the emergency room. “The need for admitting privileges requirements is clear,” Denise Burke, vice president of legal affairs at Americans United for Life, said in an e-mail.
But it's not clear. Anyone can be admitted to an emergency room. A procedure to "ensure abortion doctors are qualified" should not depend on the clinics being able to gain admitting privileges at a local hospital. It should be a separate procedure.

How do doctors explain the difficulty abortion clinics encounter in acquiring admitting privileges at a hospital?
Quote:
Doctors say the hospitals have been hesitant to extend privileges because of a reluctance to involve themselves in the abortion debate, advocates argue. For example, one Dallas hospital revoked the admitting privileges of two abortion doctors after it became a target of antiabortion protests.
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:47 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.