Oklahoma court tosses abortion law on hospital privileges

`

"OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — The Oklahoma Supreme Court on Tuesday threw out a law requiring abortion clinics to have doctors with admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, saying efforts to portray the measure as protecting women's health are a "guise."The law would require a doctor with admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles be present for any abortion. The court found it violates both the U.S. and Oklahoma Constitutions. The U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year struck down a similar provision in Texas.

"Under the guise of the protection of women's health," Oklahoma Justice Joseph Watt wrote, "(the law) creates an undue burden on a woman's access to abortion, violating protected rights under our federal Constitution," referring specifically to the Texas case" - Source​

`
[HR][/HR]
`
Once again, western jurisprudence prevails. It is my opinion that many legislators enact laws such as this, knowing full well that it will be overturned in court. It's an excellent way to garner the anti-abortion voters, who tend to be single issue. Next cycle, they will enact another similar law, knowing it will fail the constitutional test and the cycle repeats itself.

 

It really is a sad spectacle. I wish this country were beyond this pro-life nonsense by now, seriously. Women need to have and should have control over their bodies, time to move on...

 

The country has been over it for about 45 years. Not even Catholics are pro-Life anymore, except for Bishops. It's a great wedge issue for Republicans, however, who use it so they can run on platforms of "morality" while mainly stealing us blind.

 

`
Here's another example of the same thing; Judge blocks Texas from requiring fetal remains be buried

 

The real "guise" of protecting women's health is on the pro-choice side. Their opposition to this law exposes their hypocrisy. They don't care about women's health. They care about votes. If they cared about women's health, they'd support this COMMON SENSE law.

Sound familiar?

 

`
The main points here are twofold; a) the ongoing practice of states passing unconstitutional laws in regards to abortion and b) the continuance of politicians pandering to single-interest voters.

 

So the state can involve itself in health issues and medical practices and license requirements and clinic requirements EXCEPT when it comes to abortion?

 

`
That's not my issue but hell, this is an open forum. I'm more interested in the the dynamics and logistics behind both sides.

 

That's exactly the issue. Abortion is an envasive medical proceedure that as the pro-abortion side constantly states that of not done properly women will die.

You can't have it both ways

Try again

So the state can involve itself in health issues and medical practices and license requirements and clinic requirements EXCEPT when it comes to abortion?

- - - Updated - - -

That's exactly the issue. Abortion is an envasive medical proceedure that as the pro-abortion side constantly states that of not done properly women will die.

You can't have it both ways

Try again

So the state can involve itself in health issues and medical practices and license requirements and clinic requirements EXCEPT when it comes to abortion?

 

`
I've clearly defined why I launched this thread. If you want to create your own topic on this issue, as I already implied, please do so. However, don't include me in it.

 

A medical doctor with admission priviledges to be present during a Medical procedure, in case something goes wrong.....and somehow the people concerned with "Womens Health" don't want this?


Frauds.

 

There's nothing wrong with special interests, whether pro-life or pro-choice. Each has its place. The system is set up so that no lunatic fringe can enact laws. Don't leave out the judges. Just because one judge says a law passed by a couple hundred legislators and a governor is unconstitutional doesn't necessarily mean the law is unconstitutional. Judges have their biases, too.

 

Tell me how admission privledged save lives.

- - - Updated - - -

They can so long as the law is not a red herring used to stop abortion. Did the state pass laws requiring hospitals to give admitting privlidges or ensure they can even be obtained?

 

Yes a thread about a judge overturning state regulation of the practice of medicine. Again can the state regulate the practice of medicine only if it does not involve an abortion?

Here is a link to my states regulation of the practice of medicine within the state
http://www.albme.org/laws.html

Why should an abortion, a medical procedure, one that your side claims kills women when not properly done, be immune from such regulation?

 

It's not immune from regulation. It's immune from regulation who's only purpose is to stop abortion.

 

I doubt the hospital can discriminate, all the admitting privileges do in insure the doctor is qualified and their clinic meets certain standards. Have any doctors been turned down simply because the perform abortions?

So if that is included in the law then you would be OK with it? You know you side is the side that claims abortions not properly done kill thousands of women, why would you NOT want such an assurance it will be done in a safe and proper manner and if something goes wrong everything need for proper care including a nearby hospital where the doctor can take the women if needed.

 

Yes if they mandated hospitals grant admitting privs to qualified doctors I am fine with it. Do you think hospitals turn away abortion patients based on who their doctor was? No, so this law serves no purpose. You can get an abortion in an alley and no ER in America will turn you away. So tell me the point of this law?

 

That seems to be the goal, remember the laws requiring ultra sound and full disclosure? Nope can't have them when they are required for other proceedures. Does requiring this stop other medical procedures? How does it do that?

Seems you guys don't care about the safety of abortions, Why shouldn't the doctor be associated with a hospital don't you think that might be important in an emergency. My doctor is certainly associated with a hospital, the Mobile Infirmary. Do you REALLY want doctors to be performing abortions with a hospital or emergency care nearby and a doctor who apparent can't meet the hospital standards or at the least not required to meet them?

 

Admit privs are a sham

Admitting privileges" actually means that the doctor is akin to a staff member of that hospital; among other things, she has the privilege to admit a patient for a stay in the hospital without the say-so of any other doctors. The problem is that because hospitals don't want to become embroiled in abortion politics, they regularly refuse admitting privileges to doctors who perform abortions. For example, doctors at the last abortion clinic in Mississippi applied for admitting privileges to seven hospitals in the area, and were refused at every one.

http://theweek.com/articles/559840/admitting-privileges-sham-future-abortion-america

- - - Updated - - -

And what are the standards? If they care they'd regulate the standards.

 

Well for one thing, it means you'll need to have an actual doctor there...not just nurses and anyone else Planned Parenthood wants to use. Imagine that novel idea. A Doctor present for Medical Procedures.

Secondly, not only do you have that Doctor, but he is able to admit his patient to the Hospital he practices in and he has permission to treat him or here there as needed. Why wouldn't anyone want this? It's a serious time saver. The same Doctor who knows what just happened, can render the needed services at the Hospital he or she has priviledge in without someone else having to step in, get up to speed and then proceed.

Why would this not be wanted?


And here is a real world example for you.

http://www.americanthinker.com/arti..._with_physician_admitting_privilege_laws.html

 

That was your bitty there, you tell me have any hospital turned down a abortion doctor for admitting privileges and if so why? The purpose is that in such an emergency the doctor is ALREADY affiliated with the hospital and can quickly get their patient into a room where the doctor can then care or necessary hospital services can be performed and not have to make it an emergency procedure. The emergency room is not always the best option.

Why do you think doctors seek and are granted such privilege in the first place?

Why should abortion be treated differently?

 

Hospitals won't give them to abortion providers. So they passed a law that made a requirement of something they can't get. It's unreasonable and that's why it's been struck down.

- - - Updated - - -

Please refer to my previous post. Hospitals don't give them to abortion providers. It's a catch 22. Why not require hospitals give privileges to all qualified doctors? It's ok to regulate abortion but not hospitals?!?

 

Do you have anything to substantiate this? I'm sure you do or wouldn't have said it, but I haven't seen where Hospitals are saying if a Doctor Performs abortions they cannot have these privileges.

 

They don't have to say it. If this is important why not pass a law that mandates admitting privileges for qualified doctors who do abortions? Why put ALL the burden on abortion providers?

 

So, that's a no?