Supremes Move Back Alley to Main Street

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.

9 thoughts on “Supremes Move Back Alley to Main Street

  1. The TX law’s obvious sole purpose was to restrict abortion access. As Beyer stated, “There was no significant health-related problem that the new law helped to cure.”

    It is similar to the amendment Republicans pushed for here in MN requiring people to show IDs to vote. They got real shrill about it. Problem was, there was no problem to address. It was just a transparent attempt to scare people and restrict something — in this case voting. The attempt failed (along with the stupid attempt at an anti-gay marriage amendment, even though it was already illegal. BAD year for MN Republicans, which they fully deserved).

    Good for the supreme court for seeing through this deceitful attempt at restricting abortion access.

    Like

    1. It’s impossible to see problems when one’s head is buried in the sand. Try following the links in my column to those amicus briefs and read the documented cases of women suffering complications, injury and death in those unregulated clinics.

      Like

  2. And I’m glad the court can continue its good work even though the Republicans have SHAMEFULLY refused to consider Obama’s judicial nominee. And Republicans wonder why people blame them for governmental paralysis.

    Like

    1. No justice has been nominated and confirmed in a presidential election year for nearly a century unless it was as the conclusion of a process that began the year before.

      During the Administration of George W. Bush, Joe Biden, then Judiciary Committee Chairman and now inconveniently vice-president of the United States, asserted his right not to take of the matter of the president’s judicial nominations over and over again. Many of these nominees eminently qualified and held in high esteem by their colleagues in the legal community.

      Get over it!

      Like

  3. Great article Jane. Your research and brief but very thorough description of what this was all about was a major help for me in understanding the whole mess. Clearly, additional medical backups for emergencies will cause abortion clinics more administrative and contractual hoops to jump through, but they should be held to the same standards as all other outpatient clinics. Exempting them from these safety procedures is dangerous and in some circles, unconscionable in its disregard for their customers/patients safety. Thanks, Warren

    Like

    1. More importantly, it hits their bottom line. It cost money to have a real outpatient surgery clinic, fully equipped to handle the most likely emergencies to occur there. Most abortionists have divorced themselves from the medical profession because doctors work to save life. They don’t go back and forth because they can’t handle it emotionally. That’s why they don’t have admitting privileges. Even if they did, would they forgo a few “sales” that day to go with a patient to the hospital in order to save her life? For them, it’s all about making a killing. They could never make that much as a real doctor or if those places were regulated like they should be.

      Like

  4. Nah, you’re wrong: the consideration and confirmation of SC justices in election years is quite common. And anyway, if it wasn’t, it’d be the type of stalling/squabbling/non-action you usually PROTEST and want fixed. But in this case there’s precedence for a do-nothing congress so you’re okay with the stalling … as long as it happens to serve the interests of Republicans. But reverse the party and you’d reverse your stance. Guaranteed.

    http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/

    Like

  5. This is a perfect example of this medical service activity getting its own rule book to follow…unbelievable and there will come a day when the people stand against this type of entitlement…no one group of people or type of medical activity are above the standard…America it’s time to wake up, turn off the TV reality shows and go to your local government meetings. America is trillions in debt because the CEOs of America (the people) were sleeping and vacationing while on the job. Time to wake up and get involved until we the people see results.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s