I remember it as though it were yesterday. I developed a fever and stomach cramps. Assuming it was the flu, I went to bed to sleep it off. When my husband came home and found me with a temperature of over 103 degrees, he insisted on taking me to the doctor despite my objections.
Upon examination, my doctor determined I had a dangerous infection and left a waiting room full of patients to accompany us to the hospital while his staff called ahead. Once there, I was immediately placed in a room, where my own doctor ran tests and administered emergency treatment himself without waiting for the hospital staff to determine my condition or be brought up to speed. I later learned that these measures likely saved my life.
It seems, this doctor had encountered another patient with similar symptoms a few months earlier. He immediately sent her to that same well-respected hospital. However, this woman died due to the delay in admittance and treatment. If you have recently visited the local ER, you know what I mean. Even patients brought in by ambulance often are not diagnosed and treated immediately when precious minutes can make the difference between life or death.
The portion of the Texas law struck down Monday by the Supreme Court required abortion facilities to meet the same standards as other outpatient surgery centers and the doctors doing those procedures have admitting privileges in a hospital within a 30-mile radius. It was reasonable. In fact, it was the very least a woman seeking an abortion should expect!
I suspect, that most women undergoing an abortion at one of these facilities believe that to be the case. After all, abortion advocates are quite vocal about making these procedures safe, legal and rare. Those who follow this issue have long recognized that the “rare” part is a farce. However, it is unconscionable that radical feminists’ organizations and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who shill for the National Abortion Federation, are willing to turn main street into a back alley in order to protect the profits of this despicable money-grubbing ally.
It also calls into question the ethics of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the trade organization that applauded this decision. It seems it is simply reluctant to kill, or even slightly wound, the Santa Clause of the abortion industry.
In contrast, the 17,000 member Christian Medical Assoication filed an amicus brief http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/15-274-bsac-American-Association-of-Pro-Life-Obstetricians-and-Gynecolog….pdf in support of the Texas law along with other respected medical groups. This brief made the point that all comparable outpatient procedures are done in ambulatory surgery centers properly equipped to deal with emergencies that do occur and where doctors are required to have hospital admitting privileges for the very reason I illustrated from my own personal experience. It can mean the difference between life or death.
These comparable procedures include dilatation and curettage “D&C” (which for all practical purposes is no different than an abortion) liposuction and gastrointestinal endoscopy such as colonoscopy and upper endoscopy. In fact, the overall hospitalization rate following elective abortion (one in three hundred patients) is similar to rates for these other invasive outpatient procedures.
The only difference is that when emergencies occur in a fully-equipment outpatient surgery center, these patients receive more immediate, often life-saving care.
The amicus brief filed by the American Center for Law and Justice documented 38 cases of women being rushed to hospitals just last year from complications that occurred inside those unregulated abortion chop shops that dot our landscape.
In addition, the ACLJ brief, http://media.aclj.org/pdf/Whole-Woman’s-Health-v.-Hellerstedt,-No.-15-274-American-Center-for-Law-and-Justice-et-al.-amicus-brief-as-filed_Redacted.pdf in 24 single-spaced pages, detailed instance after instance of botched abortions, leaving women injured, permanently scared, or dead.
It is unfathomable that the Supreme Court based its decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt on whether requiring abortion facilities to meet the same standards as other out-patient surgery centers is reasonable or burdensome largely on the word of those who are making a killing from these procedures. Abortion is a billion dollar a year largely unregulated industry. Those five justices who struck down the Texas law simply bought the arguments provided by the NAF and its partners in this dirty business that these minimal facilities pose “no threat to women’s health.”
Would these same justices buy a claim from tobacco growers that smoking poses no series health risk? Of course not!
Central to the majority argument is that an undue burden occurs when these facilities aren’t as conveniently located as Starbucks. How ridiculous is that!
If doctors can be sued for malpractice, the five justices who issued this decision should be impeached for judicial malpractice.