Jump to content



Recent headlines from The Baltimore Sun

Photo
- - - - -

Jindal signs law that could shutter abortion clinics


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#1 Norman

Norman

    Underachiever

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 36,773 posts

Posted 13 June 2014 - 08:52 AM

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...-262975271.html



#2 hst2

hst2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 73,544 posts

Posted 13 June 2014 - 09:38 AM

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.


"It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from man. - HL Mencken

#3 Papi

Papi

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,669 posts

Posted 13 June 2014 - 10:39 AM

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.



#4 ms maggie

ms maggie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 19,866 posts

Posted 13 June 2014 - 10:57 AM

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?

#5 Papi

Papi

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,669 posts

Posted 13 June 2014 - 11:12 AM

Are you serious?

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



#6 ms maggie

ms maggie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 19,866 posts

Posted 13 June 2014 - 11:13 AM

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


That this requirement is driven by concern for patient safety. http://rhrealitychec...age-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, 13 June 2014 - 11:44 AM.


#7 cprenegade

cprenegade

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 17,347 posts

Posted 13 June 2014 - 12:00 PM

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.
You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose freewill.

#8 ms maggie

ms maggie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 19,866 posts

Posted 13 June 2014 - 12:17 PM

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.

#9 Papi

Papi

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,669 posts

Posted 13 June 2014 - 12:22 PM

That this requirement is driven by concern for patient safety. http://rhrealitychec...age-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?  



#10 ms maggie

ms maggie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 19,866 posts

Posted 13 June 2014 - 12:28 PM

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.

#11 Papi

Papi

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,669 posts

Posted 13 June 2014 - 12:42 PM

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. 



#12 reg_indy

reg_indy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,211 posts

Posted 13 June 2014 - 12:45 PM

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


Terrell Suggs is doing all that he can fan the flames on the Ravens’ feud with the Pittsburgh Steelers.

Underneath his uniform, the linebacker/defensive end has been wearing a black t-shirt with the letters “YBYSA” on the front and the saying, “You Bet Your Sweet *** I Hate the Steelers” on the back.

"I saw it in a store, and I was like, 'Oh, that’s nice for camp. Get our minds right,'" Suggs said

#13 banner1124

banner1124

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,297 posts

Posted 13 June 2014 - 12:48 PM

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?


*****HAIL TO THE REDSKINS*****

#14 ms maggie

ms maggie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 19,866 posts

Posted 13 June 2014 - 12:55 PM

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.

#15 Calamari

Calamari

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 39,035 posts

Posted 13 June 2014 - 01:05 PM

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

Oh wait, everyone.


"As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality."
~George Washington


Has Obama Taken Away Your Guns Yet?

#16 Papi

Papi

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,669 posts

Posted 13 June 2014 - 01:20 PM

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. 



#17 ms maggie

ms maggie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 19,866 posts

Posted 13 June 2014 - 01:25 PM

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.

#18 Papi

Papi

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,669 posts

Posted 13 June 2014 - 01:34 PM

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. 



#19 jdsample

jdsample

    The Doctor is In

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 25,311 posts
  • LocationColorado

Posted 13 June 2014 - 02:24 PM

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


[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

We are all Keynesians now.
Richard M. Nixon

Cynicism--the intellectual cripple's substitute for intelligence.
Joseph Russell Lynes Jr.

Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength.
Eric Hoffer

#20 regularguy

regularguy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 25,294 posts

Posted 13 June 2014 - 02:57 PM

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.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users