WI Right To Life Proposed Abortion Restrictions

Please limit discussion in this area to local and state politics.
you must be joking
Forum Addict
Posts: 293
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 8:05 am
Location: Madison
Contact:

Re: WI Right To Life Proposed Abortion Restrictions

Postby you must be joking » Sat Jun 15, 2013 7:48 am

Stebben84 wrote:
you must be joking wrote:Requiring that all doctors providing abortions must have visiting privileges at a local hospital is only common sense.


It's a gimmick and you know it. How many stories have you read in the past, lets say, 10 years about unsafe practices at Planned Parenthood.

Getting local hospital privileges may be difficult for abortion clinic doctors

It's not Wisconsin, but we're on our way to becoming just like them.


Stubben84,

How much time you got? Pull up a chair and sit a spell and I'll give you just a brief look at a number that I am aware of after just a quick Google search.

What about Kermit Gosnell? See the report of the grand jury in Kermit Gosnell case at: http://www.phila.gov/districtattorney/PDFs/GrandJuryWomensMedical.pdf

By the way, both Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation were aware of the grossly incompetent practices of Gosnell but choose to ignore them.

Speaking of Gosnell, here is a series of stories related to his: From Slate Magazine“How the politics of Abortion protect bad clinics" by William Salatan, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_back_alley/2011/02/what_happened_to_the_women.html

From the Los Angeles Times:“Clinic, Doctor Faulted in Abortion Death” The byline states; "A Planned Parenthood facility failed to follow established medical procedures, state says. The woman's family has filed a lawsuit."
http://articles.latimes.com/2003/jun/25/local/me-abortion25

How about this one from Find Law; “Abortion Doctors Charged with Murder”
http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2012/01/abortion-doctors-charged-with-murder.html

Or from The Chicago Personal Injury Law Blog
“Planned Parenthood Sued for Tanya Reaves' Death After Abortion”
http://chicagopersonalinjurylegalblog.com/2012/09/planned-parenthood-sued-for-tanya-reaves-death-after-abortion.html

Or, from Dempsy and Kingsland P.C, Attorneys at Law blog
“PLANNED PARENTHOOD SUED AFTER ABORTION DEATH”
http://www.kansascitypersonalinjuryblog.com/2012/09/planned-parenthood-sued-after-abortion-death.shtml


These are but just a few of the cases I found. I could have listed many, many more but didn't want to use "Pro-Life" web sites to make my case as you would have found it biased on my part for doing so.

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 21648
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: WI Right To Life Proposed Abortion Restrictions

Postby Henry Vilas » Sat Jun 15, 2013 9:39 am

Top docs say 'no,' GOP says 'yes' to trio of abortion bills

While major medical organizations in Wisconsin oppose the GOP abortion bills, the anti-abortion groups say that is just because the doctors don't want to be told what to do.

you must be joking
Forum Addict
Posts: 293
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 8:05 am
Location: Madison
Contact:

Re: WI Right To Life Proposed Abortion Restrictions

Postby you must be joking » Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:25 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:Top docs say 'no,' GOP says 'yes' to trio of abortion bills

While major medical organizations in Wisconsin oppose the GOP abortion bills, the anti-abortion groups say that is just because the doctors don't want to be told what to do.


Henry Vilas,

Telling Doctors what to do is part in parcel with having the state regulate abortion clinics the way they do with other medical providers. Tell me, why in some cases is there more State oversight on hair salons, tattoo parlors and piercing clinics in comparison to abortion clinics?

When it comes to medicine, why are some people so tender with this one topic and no other? Why, if the health of women is the ultimate goal, why do we ignore their health by not regulating abortion clinics like all other medical clinics and providers?

Until all health care providers are regulated in the same manner with State and Federal oversight, and public awareness of an individual institutions deficencies is provided for all to see, the public interest will never be fully served.

Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3459
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: WI Right To Life Proposed Abortion Restrictions

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Sat Jun 15, 2013 8:43 pm

You must be a joke,

please give examples where existing state laws dictate what steps be taken as part of a specific medical procedure. This isn't bringing abortion clinics in line with other medical facili6ties, this in lawmakers willfully interfering with the decision making process of people far more educated in medicine then they are.

penquin
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1098
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:19 pm
Contact:

Re: WI Right To Life Proposed Abortion Restrictions

Postby penquin » Sat Jun 15, 2013 9:42 pm

Francis Di Domizio wrote:please give examples where existing state laws dictate what steps be taken as part of a specific medical procedure.


I've been asking that every since these laws starting sweeping across the nation. Are there any medical procedures that males have to endure with similar "Are you REALLY sure you wanna do that?" type of laws in place or is the GOP only targeting women with this kind of patronizing legislation?

you must be joking wrote: Tell me, why in some cases is there more State oversight on hair salons, tattoo parlors and piercing clinics in comparison to abortion clinics?


I'm interested in learning more. Which states are you referring to?

Mad Howler
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1784
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:36 pm
Location: Wisconsin

Re: WI Right To Life Proposed Abortion Restrictions

Postby Mad Howler » Sat Jun 15, 2013 10:07 pm

you must be joking wrote:... Tell me, why in some cases is there more State oversight on hair salons, tattoo parlors and piercing clinics in comparison to abortion clinics?
...
Until all health care providers are regulated in the same manner with State and Federal oversight, and public awareness of an individual institutions deficencies is provided for all to see, the public interest will never be fully served.


Really? You must be joking.
Maybe you are or maybe you are not.
Either way, I see misguided agitation.

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 21648
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: WI Right To Life Proposed Abortion Restrictions

Postby Henry Vilas » Sun Jun 16, 2013 8:03 am

If this expensive medical procedure is deemed necessary by the GOP, then why don't they require insurance providers to cover it? Or do they just want to prevent the poor from getting abortions?

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 12960
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: WI Right To Life Proposed Abortion Restrictions

Postby snoqueen » Sun Jun 16, 2013 12:04 pm

They want to keep the poor from getting insurance, too.

I know, it's confusing.

Basically, I think they just want the poor to go away but haven't got a clue how to make them go.

I'm not sure making them have more babies helps a lot.

Until all health care providers are regulated in the same manner with State and Federal oversight, and public awareness of an individual institutions deficencies is provided for all to see, the public interest will never be fully served.


This is a good idea. Universal single payer health care with full disclosure, oversight, and documentation of outcomes (for the purposes of greater efficiency, as well as facilitating customer choice) would be a way to start.

you must be joking
Forum Addict
Posts: 293
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 8:05 am
Location: Madison
Contact:

Re: WI Right To Life Proposed Abortion Restrictions

Postby you must be joking » Sun Jun 16, 2013 9:13 pm

penquin wrote:
Francis Di Domizio wrote:please give examples where existing state laws dictate what steps be taken as part of a specific medical procedure.


I've been asking that every since these laws starting sweeping across the nation. Are there any medical procedures that males have to endure with similar "Are you REALLY sure you wanna do that?" type of laws in place or is the GOP only targeting women with this kind of patronizing legislation?

you must be joking wrote: Tell me, why in some cases is there more State oversight on hair salons, tattoo parlors and piercing clinics in comparison to abortion clinics?


I'm interested in learning more. Which states are you referring to?


penquin,

I'm glad you asked. Take for example applying a tattoo right here in Wisconsin as compaired to performing an abortion.

All tattoo parlors are regulated under the DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES DHS, Chapter 173
TATTOOING AND BODY PIERCING
http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/dhs/110/173.pdf

Under this chapter of the Wisconsin State code it covers in part the following:
"DHS 173.06 Enforcement. (1) INSPECTIONS AND ACCESS
TO THE PREMISES. (a) Inspections. Under s. 252.23, 252.24, or
252.245, Stats., an authorized employee or agent of the department,
upon presenting proper identification, may enter any establishment
at any reasonable time, for any of the following purposes:
1. To inspect the establishment.
2. To determine if there has been a violation of this chapter,
s. 252.23 or 252.24, Stats., or an ordinance enacted under s.
252.245, Stats.
3. To determine compliance with previously written violation
orders.
4. To secure samples or specimens.
5. To examine and copy relevant documents and records provided
such information is related to the operation of the establishment.
6. To obtain photographic or other evidence needed to enforce
this chapter."

"DHS 173.10 Patrons. (1) LIMITATIONS. (a) Consent. A
tattooist or body piercer may not tattoo or body pierce a patron
without first obtaining the signed, informed consent of the person
on a form approved by the department.
Note: To obtain a copy of an approved consent form, which may be reproduced,
write: Bureau of Public Health, P. O. Box 309, Madison, Wisconsin 53701.
(b) Minors. 1. No person under 16 years of age may be body
pierced.
2. No person age 16 or 17 may be body pierced unless an informed
consent form has been signed by his or her parent or legal
guardian in the presence of the operator.
3. No person under 18 years of age may be tattooed except by
a physician in the course of the physician’s professional practice,
as permitted under s. 948.70 (3), Stats.
4. A body−piercing establishment shall post a notice in a conspicuous
place in the establishment stating that it is illegal to body
pierce a person under the age of 18 without the signed, informed
consent of that person’s parent or legal guardian.
5. A tattoo establishment shall post a sign in a conspicuous
place in the establishment stating that no person under the age of
18 may be tattooed.
(c) Barriers to procedure. A tattooist or body piercer may not
tattoo or body pierce any of the following:
1. A person who appears to be under the influence of alcohol
or a mind−altering drug.
2. A person who has evident skin lesions or skin infections in
the area of the procedure.
(2) RECORD. Every tattooist and body piercer shall keep a record
of each patron. A patron’s record shall include the patron’s
name, address, age and consent form, the name of the practitioner
doing the procedure and any adverse effects arising from the procedure."

And on and on it goes.

While here in the same administrative code is the following for abortions:
WISCONSIN STATUTES
AND
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
RELATING TO THE PRACTICE OF
MEDICINE
http://dsps.wi.gov/Documents/Board%20Services/Codebooks/498D%20POD%20Medicine%20(Book)%20OCTOBER%202012.pdf

Chapter Med 11
ABORTIONS
Med 11.01 Authority and purpose.
Med 11.02 Abortion defined.
Med 11.03 Practice of medicine and surgery.
Med 11.04 First 12 weeks of gestation.
Med 11.05 After 12 weeks gestation.
Note: Chapter Med 11 as it existed on October 31, 1976 was repealed and a new
chapter Med 11 was created effective November 1, 1976.
Med 11.01 Authority and purpose. The rules in this
chapter are adopted by the medical examining board pursuant to
the authority delegated by ss. 15.08 (5), 227.11, and 448.40,
Stats., and are for the professional and ethical guidance of the
medical profession.
History: Cr. Register, October, 1976, No. 250, eff. 11−1−76; correction made
under s. 13.93 (2m) (b) 7., Stats., Register, May, 1989, No. 401.
Med 11.02 Abortion defined. For the purposes of this
chapter, abortion means the artificial, intentional disruption or
removal of the implanted blastocyst, embryo, or fetus from the
uterus of a pregnant woman by whatever means.
History: Cr. Register, October, 1976, No. 250, eff. 11−1−76.
Med 11.03 Practice of medicine and surgery. The
performance of abortions involves medical and surgical procedures
which are governed by ch. 448, Stats., and may be performed
only by physicians duly licensed by the medical examining
board. No physician shall be required to perform an abortion.
History: Cr. Register, October, 1976, No. 250, eff. 11−1−76.
Med 11.04 First 12 weeks of gestation. (1) If an
abortion is to be performed by a physician during the first 12
weeks of gestation in a facility other than a hospital approved
under subch. II of ch. 50, Stats., in which general surgical procedures
are customarily performed, the physician shall:
(a) Provide preoperative instructions and counseling of the
patient by appropriately trained individuals.
(b) Provide a receiving facility where the patient may be prepared
and may receive necessary preoperative medication and
observation.
(c) Perform and record preoperative history and physical
examination; verify the existence and duration of pregnancy,
and perform appropriate laboratory procedures including, as a
minimum, blood typing, Rh factor determination, hemoglobin
determination, white blood count, and urinalysis.
(d) Provide for prevention of Rh sensitization.
(e) Provide a physical place where the abortion procedure is
carried out, and use techniques and procedures which assure
proper sterility, asepsis, and antisepsis.
(f) Provide for appropriate equipment and appropriately
trained personnel for operative procedures, anesthesia, and
resuscitation.
(g) Have arrangements with a hospital approved under
subch. II of ch. 50, Stats., for admission of patients needing hospital
care. Such hospital shall be located sufficiently near the
facility used so that the patient could be transferred to and arrive
at the hospital within 30 minutes of the time when hospitalization
appears necessary.
(h) Provide a recovery facility where the patient can be
observed until she has sufficiently recovered from the procedure
and the anesthesia and can be safely discharged by the physician.
(i) Provide for postoperative instructions and arrangements
for follow−up.
(j) Maintain at the facility adequate permanent records relating
to all such patients covering the above matters.
History: Cr. Register, October, 1976, No. 250, eff. 11−1−76; correction in (1)
(intro.) and (g) made under s. 13.93 (2m) (b) 7., Stats., Register, December,
1999, No. 528.
Med 11.05 After 12 weeks gestation. If an abortion is
to be performed after the twelfth week of gestation, except in an
emergency, it must be performed in a hospital approved by the
state under subch. II of ch. 50, Stats., in which general surgical
procedures are customarily performed.
History: Cr. Register, October, 1976, No. 250, eff. 11−1−76; correction made
under s. 13.93 (2m) (b) 7., Stats., Register, December, 1999, No. 528.

The Administrative code for tattoo parlors is 7 pages long. The administrative code for those performing abortions is a couple of paragraphs.

My whole point being that we as a society should demand the same level of scrutiny by the federal and state government of every facility that performs medical procedures. That way we will have a much better chance of keeping the abortionist Kermit Gosnell and the Dentist, Scott Harrington away from the whole of society.

For those of you who think this is excessive, think for a moment if the lack of scrutiny was applied to every aspect and area of medicine. Suppose there was a heart and vascular clinic that had an area for men that was regulated and an area for women that was not. Would you not think that was discrimination? How about if Black people could only go to clinics that were unregulated by the state and federal governments but white people got to go to the clinics that were?

It is easy to see what the proper way to go is once this topic is stripped of emotion: Regulate all facilities that provide medical or invasive procedures; medical and invasive procedures themselves that we all are exposed to, and those facilities and providers that do not meet the grade will be forced out of business. Otherwise you will always have Kermitt Gosnell and Scott Harrington to contend with.

Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3459
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: WI Right To Life Proposed Abortion Restrictions

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Sun Jun 16, 2013 10:27 pm

Since you seem so fixated on Tattoo parlors, I'll point out the the amount of schooling required to become a doctor or even a nurse, dwarfs the amount of schooling required to become a tattoo artist.

Furthermore, while the state regulates tattoo artists, the medical field is already regulated by a body that has far more training and knowledge of medicine than any elected body not derived solely of medical professionals could.

Furthermore, while the tattoo artist may have 7 pages of regulations he must adhere to, I'll bet none of them relates to the procedure needed to put a tattoo in a specified direction. This law is akin to insisting that Tattoo artists make sure their clients can see what their back looks like before the giving them the tattoo.


How about another comparison for you. Why don't we require the CEO and President of any company that is about to shut down a part of their business be required to meet and talk with every single employee they are about to put out of work?

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 12960
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: WI Right To Life Proposed Abortion Restrictions

Postby snoqueen » Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:10 am

Suppose there was a heart and vascular clinic that had an area for men that was regulated and an area for women that was not. Would you not think that was discrimination? How about if Black people could only go to clinics that were unregulated by the state and federal governments but white people got to go to the clinics that were?


Are you sure you want to try this line of reasoning?

Because the obvious response is to point out you're trying to get the state to set up a clinic for women that is regulated far beyond the regulations on any clinic that is for both sexes. The regulations for both-sex clinics are a baseline. (No clinic of any type is completely unregulated so for you to throw that in is irrelevant.)

I thought as a general rule the sexes were supposed to get equal legal treatment. Now, obviously there are places where this falls apart, because we haven't ratified an equal rights amendment. But that's no excuse to single out this one type of clinic for for extremely unequal treatment.

You can keep arguing about this, but try a different line of reasoning.

Also, Kermit Gosnell is not representative of anything at all. He was a criminal and has been convicted. Occasionally this happens in the medical profession, though more often it has to do with illegal or inappropriate drug distribution. The best way to prevent more Kermit Gosnells is to have better availability (and even competition) among abortion clinics, not drive the procedure even further into the shadows. You want some pre-Roe v Wade stories? I can tell 'em. I was right there, along with all the other women my age. You don't want that to happen again.

bleurose
Forum Addict
Posts: 495
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2003 12:46 pm

Re: WI Right To Life Proposed Abortion Restrictions

Postby bleurose » Mon Jun 17, 2013 7:29 am

The Kermit Gosnells of the world exist and are able to do what they do precisely because of all of the restrictive laws and regulations being passed by conservative legislators who ultimately want total control over women's reproductive abilities. Those legislators need look no farther than a mirror to find the responsibility for THAT disgraceful situation. Thankfully, he has been convicted.

Do you honestly think that any of those women would have gone to him if they had had unfettered access to a safe, LEGAL medical procedure? Of course not. The whole purpose of these regulations is to make a SAFE, LEGAL medical procedure - which is none of any of their business - difficult to impossible to access. It's not about "women's health" or ensuring "fully informed" patients - it's about wing-nut control of others' private medical decisions.

It boggles the mind why these conservative busy bodies are doing everything they can to literally ensure even more of the poor who have nothing whom they so obviously despise. And couldn't care less about. As Sno says, they just haven't figured out the best way yet to make them all disappear. And it is amazing - not in a good way - how vigorously they are interfering in private decisions when they loudly profess to be "small government".

As if all of that wasn't the height of hypocrisy, they are doing it from a position of pretty much total ignorance and willful dismissal of facts. It is a medical fact that abortion during the first trimester is much safer, for the woman's health mind you, than carrying to term and delivering. Where the hell do they get off deciding that they know better than medical professionals what constitutes "good for a woman's health?"

This is all about imposing religious views on the population at large. We are in deep trouble with Republicans in charge and the best thing that could start happening to these restrictive laws is for doctors, clinics, hospitals and women to start ignoring them.

Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6073
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm
Contact:

Re: WI Right To Life Proposed Abortion Restrictions

Postby Stebben84 » Mon Jun 17, 2013 8:55 am

you must be joking wrote:t is easy to see what the proper way to go is once this topic is stripped of emotion: Regulate all facilities that provide medical or invasive procedures; medical and invasive procedures themselves that we all are exposed to, and those facilities and providers that do not meet the grade will be forced out of business. Otherwise you will always have Kermitt Gosnell and Scott Harrington to contend with.


What does this have to do with requiring doctors to have admitting privileges? Here is an article that sheds some light on my assertion that these "privileges" are a gimmick. I'm not against regulation. I'm against gimmicks.

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/ ... rtion-ban/

John Coats, executive director of Ohio Right to Life, is upset with the terms of the agreement. In his mind, because the hospital is associated with a university, any sign of working with an abortion provider is tantamount to taxpayer funding of abortion. “Our problem was, and is, that the transfer agreement was signed by the University of Toledo, a publicly funded university, and is totally tax payer funded,” Coats told the Independent Collegian. “We know if the transfer agreement did not exist then this abortion mill would not be able to legally operate …. Ohio law prohibits state tax dollars from paying for abortion and it is against the law for publicly funded state hospitals to perform non-therapeutic abortions.”

However, the hospital does not provide abortions. It merely allows a transfer to its facility in the rare case of a complication. In such cases, the resulting procedure wouldn’t be a “non-therapeutic abortion” or likely any sort of abortion, but rather follow-up treatment for a person who had an abortion.


The legislation may still be on the horizon, but the pressure from the state’s anti-choice activists has already gotten to the University of Toledo Medical Center, which has announced that it not only will not be renewing its agreement with Capital Care, but will cease negotiations with the only other local clinic to allow it to transfer patients. As a result, without another hospital willing to step in, both clinics could close.


Read the whole article and more out there. Admitting privileges mean jack shit when it comes to performing abortions.

And it's not as though doctors with these privileges have never been sued for the death of a patient in any procedure.

HawkHead
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1253
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:29 pm

Re: WI Right To Life Proposed Abortion Restrictions

Postby HawkHead » Mon Jun 17, 2013 9:05 am

snoqueen wrote:
Suppose there was a heart and vascular clinic that had an area for men that was regulated and an area for women that was not. Would you not think that was discrimination? How about if Black people could only go to clinics that were unregulated by the state and federal governments but white people got to go to the clinics that were?


Are you sure you want to try this line of reasoning?

Because the obvious response is to point out you're trying to get the state to set up a clinic for women that is regulated far beyond the regulations on any clinic that is for both sexes. The regulations for both-sex clinics are a baseline. (No clinic of any type is completely unregulated so for you to throw that in is irrelevant.)


Why even bite on this line of reasoning?

Last time I checked I can never get pregnant and can never have an abortion. It is impossible to have the same regulation on a clinic that only can provide services to one gender.

Talking about vascular clinics has absolutely nothing to do with this subject but to deflect from the real issue.

DCB
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3260
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: WI Right To Life Proposed Abortion Restrictions

Postby DCB » Mon Jun 17, 2013 9:42 am

Stebben84 wrote:What does this have to do with requiring doctors to have admitting privileges? Here is an article that sheds some light on my assertion that these "privileges" are a gimmick. I'm not against regulation. I'm against gimmicks.

Its a gimmick called Catch-22:

Step 1 (today). Require admitting privileges at hospitals.

Step 2 (tomorrow). Make it impossible for hospitals to offer admitting privileges to abortion clinics.


Return to “Local Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests