SCOTUS strikes down Texas law that treats abortion clinics like other medical facilities

posted by
June 28, 2016
CNN    
Posted in News, PND News

"In a dramatic ruling, the Supreme Court on Monday threw out a Texas abortion access law in a victory to supporters of abortion rights who argued it would have shuttered all but a handful of clinics in the state. The 5-3 ruling is the most significant decision from the Supreme Court on abortion in two decades and could serve to deter other states from passing so-called 'clinic shutdown' laws. ... There were two provisions of the law at issue. The first said that doctors have to have local admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, the second says that the clinics have to upgrade their facilities to hospital-like standards." [editor's note: Texas Administrative Code Rule §135.4 requires regular ambulatory surgical centers to "have a written transfer agreement with a hospital or all physicians performing surgery at the ASC shall have admitting privileges at a local hospital." Apparently pregnant women aren't as important to SCOTUS as other patients - TLK] (06/27/16)

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/27/politics/supreme-court-abortion-texas/index.html  

Tags: , ,

  • JdL

    Apparently pregnant women aren’t as important to SCOTUS as other patients

    It almost sounds as if you’re saying that, if SCOTUS felt pregnant women were important, they’d uphold the Texas law that would shutter most clinics in the state. Rather than, say, making it the responsibility of women considering a particular service to inquire about admitting privileges of its doctors if they felt that was useful in weighing their options. It’s hard for me to see how reducing someone’s available options improves their lives.

    • What I am saying is this:

      1) Apparently the state of Texas considers it important that surgical centers of all kinds have doctors with admitting privileges at local hospitals, and/or patient transfer agreements with local hospitals. While I don’t favor ANY government regulation of medicine, to the extent that there is going to be such regulation, that one isn’t facially nonsensical. The logic behind it is that if a surgery goes south, they need to be able to get the patient into a higher level care facility ASAP instead of having to dick around all day finding such a facility to accept said patient. BUT:

      2) Until 2013, one and only one kind of surgical center — abortion clinics — were exempt from that requirement. Apparently pregnant women aren’t important; it’s OK if THEY bleed out and die, we just care about the people getting nose jobs and having polyps removed from their colons; then

      3) In 2013, Texas got rid of the exemption for abortion clinics, and proponents of women dying on operating tables went all the way to the Supreme Court to ensure that nothing gets in the way of women dying on operating tables. Or, rather, that nothing gets in the way of a multi-billion dollar industry getting special exceptions to the rules to buttress its bottom line at the expense of those women, anyway. Of course, the proponents of getting rid of the exemption supported it because they don’t like abortion. That was never at issue. But alleged supporters of abortion rights AT BEST don’t give a shit about their patients unless they can knock down half a billion dollars a year in corporate welfare and be exempt from any rules that might cost them money to comply with.

      • JdL

        How many women “bleed out and die” as a result of abortions in America? According to https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/facts-induced-abortion-worldwide ,

        Evidence from the United States has shown that the death rate for women obtaining legally induced abortions is 0.7 per 100,000 procedures overall and 0.1 per 100,000 procedures at or before eight weeks of pregnancy.

        That last figure works out to one in a million. So we’re not exactly talking about blood running down the streets here. But perhaps the numbers for Texas look different?

        But alleged supporters of abortion rights AT BEST don’t give a shit about their patients unless they can knock down half a billion dollars a year in corporate welfare and be exempt from any rules that might cost them money to comply with.

        Most supporters of abortions rights don’t benefit from showers, or even trickles, of corporate welfare, but any business, whether it receives government handouts or doesn’t, is in the business of making money. Engaging in practices that kill your customers is bad for business. Advertising something as safe when the seller knows it to be dangerous is fraud. Beyond those things, chastising a business for “not giving a shit” about its customers seems kind of silly to me. Let the buyer beware.

        I don’t favor ANY government regulation of medicine

        Excellent! Then please join me in celebrating this ruling as a good start, hopefully to be applied swiftly to all aspects of medicine.

        • I don’t consider it my job to celebrate it, or to condemn it. All I did was describe it as what it is — a corporate welfare set-aside for Whole Women’s Health, a business that wants special treatment so it can make more money.

      • dL

        corporate welfare exemption is one way to look at it

        another way to look at it is the rule itself is corporate protectionism w/ no surface justification. A patient OFF the street is taken as an emergency w/ “no dicking around all day trying to find a facility to accept said patient.” The same thing would apply to a patient taken from DOWN the street.

        Yes, abortion rights advocates tend to be hypocritical when it comes to “liberty for this burt not for that. However, “alleged supporters of abortion rights AT BEST don’t give a shit about their patients…” doesn’t follow from that. If I make a laissez-faire critique against the rule as corporate protectionism, that’s exactly how the proggies would respond to my argument: at best I don’t care about patients unless I can swing an avoidance of corporate regulations. I try not to stoop to their level.

        • “A patient OFF the street is taken as an emergency w/ ‘no dicking around all day trying to find a facility to accept said patient.'”

          In some alternate universe, perhaps. Not in this one.

          • dL

            Tom:

            In your universe, what is the time lag for EMS/emergency room service: say, a car accident victim? heart attack? animal bite? hypovolemic shock?

          • Haven’t been in an emergency room when any of those came in.

            One time I was in an ER when two people were brought in at the same time: Multiple gunshot wound guy, unconscious from drinking 21 shots of tequila for her 21st birthday woman. Waiting time for each seemed to have been about an hour. Anyone not in quite such bad shape? Well, the friend I was waiting with, I don’t remember the problem, 13 hours.

            I took my son to the ER once with a neck injury — when I had called the doctor, they told me to call 911 and get an ambulance ASAP, but we drove him ourselves. Six hour wait.

            When I thought I had had a stroke and went to the VA ER, between 8 and 9 hours.

            A doctor with admitting privileges at a hospital gets his patients into the hospital when they get to the hospital.

          • dL

            anecdotal accounts are not an argument…mine is not the same as yours. i’ve been maybe 2-3 times in my life, very painful but non-threatening, in and out pretty quickly. I looked up the stats for waiting times for hospitals in my area…3 mins for life threatening up to 3 hours for non-threatening.

            Below is a page that has the worst states w/ a chart giving avg visit time for all states. Not a single state over 3 hours. That is: the time from when you walk in to the time you walk out.

            http://myfox8.com/2016/06/15/the-10-states-with-the-worst-emergency-department-response-time/

          • “anecdotal accounts are not an argument”

            Nobody claimed they are. You asked a question. You got an answer. You don’t have to like the answer. It’s the answer you get whether you like it or not.

          • dL

            i have no reason to doubt your accounts…but this back and forth over waiting times is a red herring. The regulation of requiring inpatient admission privileges is bogus protectionism, and there is no argument for regulatory prior restraint on a procedure that’s safer than child birth.

          • Well, see, that’s the thing: You see everything in terms of argument.

            As I’ve been quite clear on, I agree that there is no argument for regulatory prior restraint on medical care, period, end of story.

            As I’ve also been quite clear on, this litigation had nothing whatsoever to do with the “rights” of women or anyone else. That was just the propaganda campaign. The litigation was about judicial regulatory capture — using the courts to secure the bottom line of Whole Women’s Health in particular and the abortion industry in general.

Our Sponsors