Abortions, after all, are surgery. Why should women be subjected to lesser standards than most surgical centers? Why should anybody be subjected to "Gosnell" clinics?<quoted text>I have two things to say to this:
1) Since our last few conversations, I've read the text of this bill, and other than the items mentioned below, I find little else with which to disagree.
And 2) I stand corrected about my other reservations and assertions about this bill, such as that stillbirth, profound compromise of the fetus, and permanent damage to physical health of the mother are not covered adequately: They are.
Having said all that, I would have the following problems with this bill being law in Oklahoma...
Most, if not all, abortion clinics are funded by private donations, and many do not have the wherewithal to 'upgrade' to all the standards required of 'surgicenters' which must be equipped to offer several different procedures.
I believe that's singular, not plural. Physicians must have operating privileges at least ONE hospital within a 30 mile radius of the clinic... just in case things don't go as expected.The bill would require any physician performing an abortion to have full privileges at local hospitals (which are given at the discretion of the hospital, and can't be mandated). Individual surgeons, with their own surgical practices, but without hospital privileges, would no longer be able to perform the procedure.
Can you say "Affordable Healthcare Act"?The bill would also require medical abortions (involving medication rather than surgery) to be administered and monitored by a physician AT such a surgicenter, the cost of which would be beyond the financial means, and thus could restrict access to a legal abortion, for around 32% of women in Texas.
Just as it should be. "Psychological health" is what leads to women using abortion as birth control, and a 66% termination rate of pregnancies. Late term abortions should only be when a woman's PHYSICAL health is in danger.The bill makes specific exclusion of prospective damage to a woman's psychological health, from the list of circumstances which constitute the ability to have an legal abortion - regardless of the stage of gestation.
With today's technology, at five months, the child is viable, and Texas has chosen to protect that life, as well as the mother's. I believe you think Texas is taking away the woman's right to choice, they're not, they're simply requiring that she make that choice in the first five months, and not after it becomes viable.
I know you're probably going to have a hard time believing this, but I am adamantly pro-choice... but only in the earlier stages of pregnancy.