Norman

Jindal signs law that could shutter abortion clinics

56 posts in this topic

Does this help or hurt his National aspirations?  

 

Gov. Jindal signs law that could shutter abortion clinics

Monica Hernandez / Eyewitness News
Email: mhernandez@wwltv.com | Twitter: @mhernandezwwl

NEW ORLEANS – Most of Louisiana’s abortion clinics could be in danger of closing, said an attorney for the clinics, now that Gov. Bobby Jindal has signed a bill into law that sets stricter standards for abortion clinics.  “Realistically and unfortunately, many of them will not be able to comply, and at that point clinics will be forced to close,” said Ellie Schilling, attorney for the clinics.  “Today because of our hard work, Louisiana has been declared the most pro-life state in the country year after year,” Jindal said at a press conference in West Monroe where he signed the bill into law.

The most controversial component of the law requires doctors at abortion clinics to have admitting privileges at a hospital within a 30-mile radius. In other words, a doctor must be an approved member of the hospital’s medical staff and be allowed to use a hospital’s facility in case of an emergency after the procedure.

 

http://www.wwltv.com/news/Gov-Jindal-signs-law-that-could-shutter-abortion-clinics-262975271.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Image if they did the same thing to gun rights.

 

Considering how many women get abortions, I don't see it being popular with many of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many people on this board would go to an outpatient surgical center for any other kind of procedure if the doctor who was performing the procedure was not validated by being on medical staff of at least one local hospital, with admitting privileges?

 

Would any one of you trust an eye doctor without a hospital affiliation to remove your cataracts? An orthopedist to perform hand surgery? A gastroenterologist to perform a colonoscopy? It is a pretty common standard (and patient expectation) that such physicians have the ability to admit you to a hospital in the event of a complication during or after an outpatient procedure.

 

Why is it any less so for a gyn procedure like an abortion? Does anyone think that complications don't occur?

 

The fact of the matter is that there are physicians out there who are just qualified enough to retain their medical license (whatever the specialty) but haven't the experience or the credentials to qualify for membership on a hospital medical staff with admitting privileges. I don't know about any of you, but I would not select any physician like that to perform a procedure on me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many people on this board would go to an outpatient surgical center for any other kind of procedure if the doctor who was performing the procedure was not validated by being on medical staff of at least one local hospital, with admitting privileges?

 

Would any one of you trust an eye doctor without a hospital affiliation to remove your cataracts? An orthopedist to perform hand surgery? A gastroenterologist to perform a colonoscopy? It is a pretty common standard (and patient expectation) that such physicians have the ability to admit you to a hospital in the event of a complication during or after an outpatient procedure.

 

Why is it any less so for a gyn procedure like an abortion? Does anyone think that complications don't occur?

 

The fact of the matter is that there are physicians out there who are just qualified enough to retain their medical license (whatever the specialty) but haven't the experience or the credentials to qualify for membership on a hospital medical staff with admitting privileges. I don't know about any of you, but I would not select any physician like that to perform a procedure on me.

Are you serious?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you serious?

What part do you not think I am being serious about? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What part do you not think I am being serious about?

That this requirement is driven by concern for patient safety. http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/04/18/dallas-hospital-revokes-privileges-tells-abortion-providers-damage-reputation/

 

The next step will be for anti abortion activists to pressure hospitals to de-certify doctors. Same thing happened in Ohio, look it up.

 

More and more docs are walking away from admitting privileges, they don't care for the quid pro quo requirements--obligations re consults, on-call. They work in doctor owned and run clinics. Funny LA doesn't impose this privileges requirement on them. And yeah, they perform all kinds of outpatient procedures every bit as risky as abortions.

Edited by ms maggie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the left always telling us about how the government is responsible for regulating things? This is simply more regulation. The EPA is set to impose stricter standards on coal. We are always being told that deregulation is a big part of the problem in this country. Now regulation is bad? No doubt it is being driven by politics, but honestly if I were having a procedure of that nature done I would want the protection of knowing that if something were to go wrong, I could be automatically admitted to the hospital and not have to go through the emergency room. As for Jindal's chances, I doubt it does anything either way to them. Those who consider abortion rights a game changing issue wouldn't have voted for Jindal or any republican candidate anyway. Those who are pro-life might be a little more inclined to support him, but quite frankly I don't think it changes many opinions on him one way or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the left always telling us about how the government is responsible for regulating things? This is simply more regulation. The EPA is set to impose stricter standards on coal. We are always being told that deregulation is a big part of the problem in this country. Now regulation is bad? No doubt it is being driven by politics, but honestly if I were having a procedure of that nature done I would want the protection of knowing that if something were to go wrong, I could be automatically admitted to the hospital and not have to go through the emergency room. As for Jindal's chances, I doubt it does anything either way to them. Those who consider abortion rights a game changing issue wouldn't have voted for Jindal or any republican candidate anyway. Those who are pro-life might be a little more inclined to support him, but quite frankly I don't think it changes many opinions on him one way or the other.

It‘s an end run around Roe v Wade that a child could see thru. Isn't the right always telling us how the gov't is trampling our rights? I love how you equate coal burning companies polluting with a doctor providing care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That this requirement is driven by concern for patient safety. http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/04/18/dallas-hospital-revokes-privileges-tells-abortion-providers-damage-reputation/

 

The next step will be for anti abortion activists to pressure hospitals to de-certify doctors. Same thing happened in Ohio, look it up.

 

More and more docs are walking away from admitting privileges, they don't care for the quid pro quo requirements--obligations re consults, on-call. They work in doctor owned and run clinics. Funny LA doesn't impose this privileges requirement on them. And yeah, they perform all kinds of outpatient procedures every bit as risky as abortions.

Do you think patient safety is unimportant? Perhaps so when you are thinking as an activist, but perhaps not so much when you thinking as the patient.

 

Last December I had surgery on my right hand in an outpatient facility, and I was very happy to know that my physician is a highly recognized hand surgeon who has privileges at multiple hospitals. I was also happy to know that the anesthesiologist was similarly qualified.

 

Why should any woman who is about to have her reproductive organs invaded expect any less?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think patient safety is unimportant? Perhaps so when you are thinking as an activist, but perhaps not so much when you thinking as the patient.

 

Last December I had surgery on my right hand in an outpatient facility, and I was very happy to know that my physician is a highly recognized hand surgeon who has privileges at multiple hospitals. I was also happy to know that the anesthesiologist was similarly qualified.

 

Why should any woman who is about to have her reproductive organs invaded expect any less?

Why does this law only apply to abortion clinics and not other out patient clinics? And of course this cute little plan works because hospitals cave to pressure and revoke privileges. So tell me, who is playing fast and loose with safety?

 

And admitting privileges are no guarantee of a doctor's qualifications. It's strictly a financial arrangement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does this law only apply to abortion clinics and not other out patient clinics? And of course this cute little plan works because hospitals cave to pressure and revoke privileges. So tell me, who is playing fast and loose with safety?

 

And admitting privileges are no guarantee of a doctor's qualifications. It's strictly a financial arrangement.

The rules in Maryland for outpatient centers are pretty tight. I am not aware that they are any more or less so for centers that are gyn only. In my view they should indeed be tight for all specialties. They also need to be reasonable in order to deal with large rural areas that are quite distant from inpatient facilities, by having emergency transport backup plans in place. I am not advocating limiting access to abortions. I am pro choice. I would prefer to see the woman who needs that procedure get support for access to transportation to a facility where it can be performed with the best patient safety protocols, and by the best qualified medical professionals. 

 

Hospital medical staff privileges are a whole lot more than a financial arrangement. Every staff physician undergoes regular quality of care reviews by peer review committees set up by the medical staff leadership. Also, in some cases, privileges are limited unless the physician has (or is actively pursuing) certification by his/her specialty board. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The express purpose of Jindal's action is to limit access to legal abortion.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are folks like Jindal really that stupid that they don't realize that putting an end to access to safe and legal abortions will only cause unsafe illegal abortions to skyrocket?  Or do they just not care?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rules in Maryland for outpatient centers are pretty tight. I am not aware that they are any more or less so for centers that are gyn only. In my view they should indeed be tight for all specialties. They also need to be reasonable in order to deal with large rural areas that are quite distant from inpatient facilities, by having emergency transport backup plans in place. I am not advocating limiting access to abortions. I am pro choice. I would prefer to see the woman who needs that procedure get support for access to transportation to a facility where it can be performed with the best patient safety protocols, and by the best qualified medical professionals. 

 

Hospital medical staff privileges are a whole lot more than a financial arrangement. Every staff physician undergoes regular quality of care reviews by peer review committees set up by the medical staff leadership. Also, in some cases, privileges are limited unless the physician has (or is actively pursuing) certification by his/her specialty board.

your faith in the review process is naïve. When's the last time a doctor had privileges revoked in your neighborhood hospital? For care reasons? The minute a hospital even thinks about this their lawyers go crazy. Admit patients received poor care in their facility? Not likely.

 

This law will prevent safe abortions, period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who knew the right was such a bunch of nanny-staters?

Oh wait, everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

your faith in the review process is naïve. When's the last time a doctor had privileges revoked in your neighborhood hospital? For care reasons? The minute a hospital even thinks about this their lawyers go crazy. Admit patients received poor care in their facility? Not likely.

 

This law will prevent safe abortions, period.

I'm not sure where you got such a jaded view of hospitals and medical staffs. The last time such a revocation was publicized was when St. Joseph's revoked Mark Midei's privileges for his over use of stents, and yes, the long term results of that action by the hospital resulted in sanctions by the government, lawsuits, huge dollar settlements, the firing of a bunch of senior management, and the ultimate sale of the hospital to the U of MD. But they did the right thing for the patients involved, and for future heart patients. A small doctor owned clinic or OP surgery center would be less likely to expose itself to such effects over bad patient care, but would instead be more inclined to try to hide it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure where you got such a jaded view of hospitals and medical staffs. The last time such a revocation was publicized was when St. Joseph's revoked Mark Midei's privileges for his over use of stents, and yes, the long term results of that action by the hospital resulted in sanctions by the government, lawsuits, huge dollar settlements, the firing of a bunch of senior management, and the ultimate sale of the hospital to the U of MD. But they did the right thing for the patients involved, and for future heart patients. A small doctor owned clinic or OP surgery center would be less likely to expose itself to such effects over bad patient care, but would instead be more inclined to try to hide it.

Not of caregivers. But hospitals, call it jaded I call it realistic. Wife of and mother to doctors is how I come to my view, mostly. Doctors, nurses Tec are usually genuinely invested in healing. Hospitals are looking at their bottom line, and yes before all else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not of caregivers. But hospitals, call it jaded I call it realistic. Wife of and mother to doctors is how I come to my view, mostly. Doctors, nurses Tec are usually genuinely invested in healing. Hospitals are looking at their bottom line, and yes before all else.

I'm father of a nurse who manages a large cardiac unit in a hospital, but I tend to see more collaboration between the hospital and the caregivers than you do. But I also know there are some doctors out there who are not good caregivers themselves, and are only looking out for their own bottom lines, and all too often these are some of the folks who set up their own clinics with minimal quality of care oversight (not just in the gyn area, but in any specialty). I am more jaded about those folks than hospitals in general, but I agree that there are some hospitals (generally not here in MD) that have been bad players too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its why they call them "mills" and not medical facilities.  Shocking that the left would advocate taking away the right to choose safely.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its why they call them "mills" and not medical facilities.  Shocking that the left would advocate taking away the right to choose safely.  

 

Who's "they"?

 

BTW; I can't imagine the proponents of this law could keep a straight face when they claimed that the goal is to make abortions safer. They clearly want zero abortions, safe or otherwise, because there will be zero doctors who are willing and legally-qualified to perform abortions. And the ironic consequence will be a return to the incredibly unsafe "back ally" abortions that ceased to exist after the Roe decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there are de facto "illegal abortion" states it should make for a good experiment for testing Donahue and Levitt's theory of the substantial reduction in national crime being an effect of abortion availability after Roe v. Wade.  In 15-20 years after a state does this we could start looking at the data, and then compare it to the other states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ms. Maggie, I agree with your first hand knowledge of hospital administration and how much the "bottom line" is looked at before excellent patient care is looked at.  My better half worked in hospitals for 20+ years and saw how the administration got more and more of the hospital real estate for office space by taking away patient beds and clinics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think patient safety is unimportant? Perhaps so when you are thinking as an activist, but perhaps not so much when you thinking as the patient.

 

Last December I had surgery on my right hand in an outpatient facility, and I was very happy to know that my physician is a highly recognized hand surgeon who has privileges at multiple hospitals. I was also happy to know that the anesthesiologist was similarly qualified.

 

Why should any woman who is about to have her reproductive organs invaded expect any less?  

Most abortion doctors are fly-ins. You really don't need admitting privileges to call an ambulance and have the patient transported to hospital if an emergence occurs. You can consult with a doctor over the phone. Another thing this stupid law requires is that personal information about the doctor be made public. Name, address, phone, home address. Of course, no abortion doctors or their staff have ever been injured or killed by anti-abortion nuts. And yes, the ones who set out to maim and kill these people are nuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most abortion doctors are fly-ins. You really don't need admitting privileges to call an ambulance and have the patient transported to hospital if an emergence occurs. You can consult with a doctor over the phone. Another thing this stupid law requires is that personal information about the doctor be made public. Name, address, phone, home address. Of course, no abortion doctors or their staff have ever been injured or killed by anti-abortion nuts. And yes, the ones who set out to maim and kill these people are nuts.

All false arguments. They are not "fly ins" - they are gynecologists who are OK with doing the procedure. If they are qualified well enough to be part of a hospital staff that's fine. Would you want a female relation of yours having an abortion done by a "fly in" doctor that has no local credentials? If so, you have little regard for your female relations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now