LA likely to pass TX-like abortion law

[Miles]

Article.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[badgate]

How do you feel about these laws? I know you're pro-life...

I volunteer with an employee at a Dallas/Ft. Worth area surgical center and maybe they are biased but from what I have been told these restrictions are just as difficult as the surgical center regulations and the 20-week ban. The last time we discussed it, the admitting privileges one had put their center to relying solely on one full-time Doctor, who also has another full-time practice at a nearby hospital.

The waiting period is of course more devastating in Texas because of our size, and the 6 remaining clinics staying open this fall are all along the I-35 corridor, putting an appalling burden on women in rural areas, especially the west and panhandle.

[Miles]

Personally, I'd probably support it. There would be no abortion in LA south of Shreveport, which would be good. If this analysis is correct, I'd say the law is justified:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Hifly]

It's always refreshing to see socially conservative laws being sponsored by Democrats in Louisiana

[Indy Texas]

Personally, I'd probably support it. There would be no abortion in LA south of Shreveport, which would be good. If this analysis is correct, I'd say the law is justified:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What if all of the nearby hospitals refuse to give the doctor admitting privileges, because, for example, they are affiliated with the Catholic Church or some other religious institution, or don't want to give abortion doctors admitting privileges because they fear public backlash?

And how does making abortion doctors have admitting privileges prevent a Kermit Gosnell situation? How would things have turned out any differently if Gosnell had privileges at a hospital? Kermit Gosnell didn't happen because abortion laws aren't strict enough already. It happened because the laws already on the books weren't being enforced.

Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, it doesn't make sense to act as if abortions need to be held to some higher standard that other medical procedures don't have to meet. In terms of things like risk of complication and the nature of the procedure, having an abortion isn't all that different from having a colonoscopy. It's a relatively safe, outpatient procedure. If you really think abortion is murder, then you should be pushing to change the criminal law code, not forcing doctors to comply with onerous regulations written by a bunch of lawyers and lobbyists who know nothing about medicine or clinical best practices.

[badgate]

smh

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I don't understand why we need new laws to react to Kermit Gosnell. What he was doing -- committing mass murder -- is pretty much the top thing you can do wrong as a human. If you're OK with killing babies through botched abortions, you're going to probably be OK with fudging paperwork and operating without admitting privileges. I mean, dude was running a prescription drug mill too. He'd do anything for cash.

[DemPGH]

The social right will never let this issue go. It really is one social issue that I don't see retreating or going away, and they will latch onto any reason for justification for restricting women's access to safe abortions and even women regulating their own bodies with regard to pregnancy (see the awful Hobby Lobby case). They must really feel threatened by female sexuality and choice, or else they don't understand that these laws will not STOP abortion. Why?

I don't think the social right understands history's relationship to the present very well. Point being: Abortion procedures existed in ancient Rome, and maybe always, I don't know for sure. Abortions will always be around. If the social right in the South wants a return to those times (some creep in a shack would probably happily perform an abortion), then they can keep this up, but my hope is that they will lose these fights in court.

[Simfan34]

Hurray for black babies!

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The social right will never let this issue go. It really is one social issue that I don't see retreating or going away, and they will latch onto any reason for justification for restricting women's access to safe abortions and even women regulating their own bodies with regard to pregnancy (see the awful Hobby Lobby case). They must really feel threatened by female sexuality and choice, or else they don't understand that these laws will not STOP abortion. Why?

I don't think the social right understands history's relationship to the present very well. Point being: Abortion procedures existed in ancient Rome, and maybe always, I don't know for sure. Abortions will always be around. If the social right in the South wants a return to those times (some creep in a shack would probably happily perform an abortion), then they can keep this up, but my hope is that they will lose these fights in court.

I'm pro-choice, but I perfectly understand why if someone thought a foetus was literally a baby; they'd be pro-life. If I believed that, I would only ever accept abortion in the case of continued pregnancy being dangerous to the mother. I really don't understand being moderately pro-life. If you believe a foetus is a child, why would you ever accept its termination?

I do agree with you on the fact that this is a staying issue, unlike say, gay marriage. And probably one that will kind of hurt the GOP, as it combines an unpleasable base and the increased likelihood of awful faux pas by candidates a la Mourdock Akin

[badgate]

I don't understand why we need new laws to react to Kermit Gosnell. What he was doing -- committing mass murder -- is pretty much the top thing you can do wrong as a human. If you're OK with killing babies through botched abortions, you're going to probably be OK with fudging paperwork and operating without admitting privileges. I mean, dude was running a prescription drug mill too. He'd do anything for cash.

Gosnell is just a false pretense for these laws. The lawmakers writing and passing them flagrantly ignore the fact that their policies created the vacuum that allowed Gosnell's practice to exist and thrive in the first place.

[Storebought]

I can't think of this as being anything other than frightfully irresponsible on the part of the LA legislature, and medically unjustifiable in every respect.

LA excels at every bad statistic with respect to pregnancy and sexuality: the highest HIV and STI rates in the US; teenage birth rates that have have not budged over the decade while those of nearly every other state decreased during the same time span; infant mortality and underweight births, the latter positively correlated to lifelong learning and developmental problems; appallingly low contraception availability and use (making last-ditch abortion a necessity); etc.

As it is quite plain, LA, or, rather, its legislature, does not give the slightest flying rats turd about increasing positive health outcomes of women, or their children, brought to term or otherwise. This is just an attack on impoverished people, particularly impoverished women, of which Louisiana has many.

Furthermore, off the top of my memory, over 70% of the live births in LA right now are paid for through Medicaid, a program the GOP will abolish at the federal level when it retakes control of Congress, and that the Southern states will abolish likewise at the state level when given the chance.

So, not only will abortions be all but impossible to obtain when this passes (one or two clinics in a state to handle 30,000 abortions, a statistic fit for a third world society), live births will be more difficult to obtain as well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What absolute drivel. When all certified clinics close, we won't see the return of Kermit Gosnell back-alley abortions. We will, however, see best-friend abortions being done in kitchens, bathtubs, and garages. And more Dumpster babies.

*Someone will argue that this only halts elective abortions. But elective abortions have already been effectively abolished in LA. From the Guttmacher institute:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[DrScholl]

They don't call it Lousy-ana for nothing. I don't think the sponsors or people supporting this are bright enough to realize that this will not stop abortion, but only increase illegal, dangerous ones.

[MaxQue]

Personally, I'd probably support it. There would be no abortion in LA south of Shreveport, which would be good. If this analysis is correct, I'd say the law is justified:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I didn't know you supported hanger abortions, which will be the clear result of that law.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It's always refreshing to see socially conservative laws being sponsored by Democrats in Louisiana

I take it you are a big fan of Jim Crow laws?

[AggregateDemand]

I don't think the social right understands history's relationship to the present very well. Point being: Abortion procedures existed in ancient Rome, and maybe always, I don't know for sure. Abortions will always be around. If the social right in the South wants a return to those times (some creep in a shack would probably happily perform an abortion), then they can keep this up, but my hope is that they will lose these fights in court.

I don't think the left understands abortion. Choice for women is not really the crux of the issue. Abortion is left-wing eugenics--the planned extermination of undesirable populations. I'm pro-choice, but only to avoid some ridiculous power grab by the government to regulate human life, even before they give it a serial number and an IRS account.

The social-right is strange because they understand the true nature of abortion, yet they restrict access to birth control.

[badgate]

I don't think the social right understands history's relationship to the present very well. Point being: Abortion procedures existed in ancient Rome, and maybe always, I don't know for sure. Abortions will always be around. If the social right in the South wants a return to those times (some creep in a shack would probably happily perform an abortion), then they can keep this up, but my hope is that they will lose these fights in court.

I don't think the left understands abortion. Choice for women is not really the crux of the issue. Abortion is left-wing eugenics--the planned extermination of undesirable populations. I'm pro-choice, but only to avoid some ridiculous power grab by the government to regulate human life, even before they give it a serial number and an IRS account.

The social-right is strange because they understand the true nature of abortion, yet they restrict access to birth control.

I don't think you understand reality.

[The Free North]

The social right will never let this issue go. It really is one social issue that I don't see retreating or going away, and they will latch onto any reason for justification for restricting women's access to safe abortions and even women regulating their own bodies with regard to pregnancy (see the awful Hobby Lobby case). They must really feel threatened by female sexuality and choice, or else they don't understand that these laws will not STOP abortion. Why?

I don't think the social right understands history's relationship to the present very well. Point being: Abortion procedures existed in ancient Rome, and maybe always, I don't know for sure. Abortions will always be around. If the social right in the South wants a return to those times (some creep in a shack would probably happily perform an abortion), then they can keep this up, but my hope is that they will lose these fights in court.

I have no idea why some clowns keep calling this issue as a 'choice' issue when its really not. Last time I checked murdering your fetus should not be paraded around as a great demonstration of freedom and sexuality, thats just morbid. The choice part of the debate came when the woman decided to have sex with her partner (I think abortion should be legal for cases of rape, so that becomes a non-issue). Regretting what you did and murdering another human because of it has nothing to do with choice as it does with selfishness and cruelty. Now people on your side of the debate know that your are on the wrong side of morality so you decide to dress it up as a women's rights issue which it clearly is not.

Lastly using the Roman Empire as an example of equality and morality is just naive, so I have no idea where that came from but please do some research first.

[AggregateDemand]

I don't think you understand reality.

I think you need to look at the data for a change. Virtually all abortions are performed on women in the lower two income quintiles. Abortion patients are disproportionately minority, particularly African-American. Over 80% of all abortion patients are 20 or older.

Abortion = eugenics. That's why Democrats want to migrate to a universal birth control system so Planned Parenthood can do something besides encouraging poor minorities to get abortions.

[DemPGH]

Lastly using the Roman Empire as an example of equality and morality is just naive, so I have no idea where that came from but please do some research first.

Do you actually think that THAT is what I was doing? Uuuuuugh.

I was saying that abortion was around prior to technology, and if it is too heavily restricted or banned, we'll see a return to less safe methods. How could you miss that?

And the first part of your post is ridiculous, but whatever.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I don't think the social right understands history's relationship to the present very well. Point being: Abortion procedures existed in ancient Rome, and maybe always, I don't know for sure. Abortions will always be around. If the social right in the South wants a return to those times (some creep in a shack would probably happily perform an abortion), then they can keep this up, but my hope is that they will lose these fights in court.

I don't think the left understands abortion. Choice for women is not really the crux of the issue. Abortion is left-wing eugenics--the planned extermination of undesirable populations. I'm pro-choice, but only to avoid some ridiculous power grab by the government to regulate human life, even before they give it a serial number and an IRS account.

The social-right is strange because they understand the true nature of abortion, yet they restrict access to birth control.

Whose sock might you be?  I don't see JCL as the sock making type, honestly you're probably a left-winger like the socks made by that guy from Indiana (not JCL, the JSoSjourner guy).

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

You lost me at "murdering your fetus."

Not just you, but most of America.

Abortion = eugenics. That's why Democrats want to migrate to a universal birth control system so Planned Parenthood can do something besides encouraging poor minorities to get abortions.

Only three percent of all Planned Parenthood services are related to abortion. Meanwhile, 71% of services aim to prevent unwanted pregnancy (thus also preventing abortions).

[AggregateDemand]

Only three percent of all Planned Parenthood services are related to abortion. Meanwhile, 71% of services aim to prevent unwanted pregnancy (thus also preventing abortions).

Planned Parenthood performs 25% of all abortions in the US, and who knows how many they sanction by referring patients.

PPFA's biggest impact is on the abortion industry, regardless of what they publish on their website.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Only three percent of all Planned Parenthood services are related to abortion. Meanwhile, 71% of services aim to prevent unwanted pregnancy (thus also preventing abortions).

Planned Parenthood performs 25% of all abortions in the US, and who knows how many they sanction by referring patients.

PPFA's biggest impact is on the abortion industry, regardless of what they publish on their website.

Serious question, AggregateDemand, let's say that hypothetically you and you alone got to decide abortion law in the U.S.  What would you make the penalty for an abortion for the mother who gets it and/or the doctor who preforms it?

[AggregateDemand]

Serious question, AggregateDemand, let's say that hypothetically you and you alone got to decide abortion law in the U.S.  What would you make the penalty for an abortion for the mother who gets it and/or the doctor who preforms it?

None. But I'm not foolish enough to advocate for a medical procedure that costs 1.2M American lives, nor am I ridiculous enough to push for abortion deregulation.

The true left glorify abortion and use women's rights to deflect criticism and shut down dissent. But a majority of Americans believe abortion is morally-wrong and a super-majority generally support stronger regulations, particularly for late-term procedures.

Abortion is another example of liberals celebrating their own failure because failure gives them political leverage. As long as abortions occur in the millions, conservatives will always be angry. As long as poor people stay poor, conservatives will be angry. These problems could be solved easily, but why would Democrats want to solve them? Who cares if every woman of child-bearing age could be put on contraceptives for $3B-$4B? Way more fun to make private religious institutions and conservative organizations fund contraceptives for their employees, then shame them if they object.