Republicans

[Seabass]

Always with the lists of links without setting out what is actually being talked about....

The laws being talked about are generally limitations on abortion after 20 weeks (about the same as in most other industrialized countries - the civilized world, I've been told - like the UK), and regulations on the safety of abortion clinics (like that the doctor has to have hospital admitting privileges). Another requirement in a few places is the requirement that abortion clinics comply with the same requirements as "ambulatory surgery centers," which are also known as outpatient surgery centers or same day surgery centers, are health care facilities where surgical procedures not requiring an overnight hospital stay are performed. Such surgery is commonly less complicated than that requiring hospitalization. This is not an onerous requirement. It's the same requirement for any other minor procedure, and the requirements involve sanitary rules and other technical aspects.

Outrage ensues when any US state places a regulation on abortion at 20 weeks. France, though, has abortion through 12 weeks after conception. Abortions at later stages of pregnancy are allowed if two physicians certify that the abortion will be done to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; a risk to the life of the pregnant woman; or that the child will suffer from a particularly severe illness recognized as incurable. Would that be acceptable if enacted in Texas? Or, would it be an unfair and ridiculous limitation on abortion?

In the UK, it must be performed by a "registered medical practitioner" and two registered medical practitioners must certify that the pregancy has not gone beyond 24 weeks and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family; or, that termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent physical injury to the mother, or risk to her life greater than the risk associated with the termination, or that the baby would be born seriously handicapped. Lots of restrictions there.

Oh, by the way, according to the UK Abortion law, section 1(3), abortions generally must take place AT a hospital, and not just by a doctor with privileges at a hospital - the only except is where a medical practitioner signs off that the abortion is necessary to save the mother's life or prevent "grave permanent injury". Section 1(4).

Would the UK's laws be ok if adopted in the US, or would that be too much? Too oppressive?

Even in the Netherlands, abortion is legal on demand only through the 21st week. Cases involving urgent medical attention can be done through the 24th week. The Netherlands has a "five day waiting period." After the first trimester, two doctors must consent to treatment. And, abortions must be performed at a hospital, and are rarely done after 22 weeks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_ ... etherlands

Why the fuck are you talking to me about UK and France? I'm not British or French. I live in the United States. My concern is with the stupid American religious wackos in your stupid American political party making it harder to get abortions in America.

[Forty Two]

Well, fair enough. However, the restrictions that are talked about, like abortions after about 20 weeks being restricted, and doctors having to have hospital privileges, are not onerous when compared to other places where they have abortions restricted to hospitals only (no clinics whatsoever) and two physicians having to examine and approve the abortion, etc.

There are many Europeans here, and I just find it interesting that there is hardly ever a comment about the restrictions on abortion in Europe.

I wondered if you feld that the European laws I mentioned were reasonable, or if you would go on record as agreeing that they are beyond the pale, and oppressive and a violation of women's rights to get abortions.

What would your view be if someone proposed to adopt the UK's law on abortion here in the US nationwide? Would that be good enough? Or would you say that was wacko?

[Brian Peacock]

Why does Trump tolerate hatred in his party? Why do his voters tolerate this?

Short version: not taking Christians seriously is a hate crime.

[Seabass]

Well, fair enough. However, the restrictions that are talked about, like abortions after about 20 weeks being restricted, and doctors having to have hospital privileges, are not onerous when compared to other places where they have abortions restricted to hospitals only (no clinics whatsoever) and two physicians having to examine and approve the abortion, etc.

There are many Europeans here, and I just find it interesting that there is hardly ever a comment about the restrictions on abortion in Europe.

I wondered if you feld that the European laws I mentioned were reasonable, or if you would go on record as agreeing that they are beyond the pale, and oppressive and a violation of women's rights to get abortions.

What would your view be if someone proposed to adopt the UK's law on abortion here in the US nationwide? Would that be good enough? Or would you say that was wacko?

[Forty Two]

Indians are great, aren't they? Can't argue with the fact that as immigrants and first generation Americans they have double the average income of the privileged white man. As brown as they are, somehow in racist USA, they are doctors, lawyers, accountants, other professionals, business owners, and tend to excel despite the endless oppression they suffer as people of color. It likely has nothing to do with their culture of family, education, and hard work, and everything to do with sheer luck....

[Forty Two]

Why does Trump tolerate hatred in his party? Why do his voters tolerate this?

Short version: not taking Christians seriously is a hate crime.

And, that, my friends, is precisely why rendering hate speech illegal is so monumentally dangerous, because dipshits like this get right on board, and say "hey, I'm in an identity group, too, so stuff that outrages me needs to be censored too..." Identity politics, like religion, poisons everything.

[Tero]

I hate these ”by 42% points” kinds of numbers the press uses. This is the coal baron candidate in W Virginia:
But the GOP was facing the very real prospect that its standard-bearer in a state President Donald Trump carried by 42 percentage points will be a man who was a resident of a federal halfway house in Phoenix this time last year and is still on supervised release.

Why don’t they just say Trump carried 70% or whatever of the state?

[Forty Two]

Because they pick the figure that minimizes him.

[Tero]

No they routinely do this, even Obama elections.

It makes more sense when the candidate won by 2% or 0.05%.

[Seabass]

Indians are great, aren't they? Can't argue with the fact that as immigrants and first generation Americans they have double the average income of the privileged white man. As brown as they are, somehow in racist USA, they are doctors, lawyers, accountants, other professionals, business owners, and tend to excel despite the endless oppression they suffer as people of color. It likely has nothing to do with their culture of family, education, and hard work, and everything to do with sheer luck....

Yeah, they're much better than those lazy blacks!

[Forty Two]

....and those lazy whites?

[pErvinalia]

You seem to have missed his point.

Actually, on second thoughts, you may have got it. You've claimed before that blacks have some sort of cultural problem in regards to families.

[Tero]

Our prairie senator is a rancher lady so she supports all the guns and fetuses. But she supports ethanol fuel so not 100% coal.
Senate mostly a do-nothing race for Republicans:
While Democrats simply need to net a measly two seats to win back the majority, they must do it by running a gantlet through Appalachia and some of the whitest, most rural, least Democratic and pro-gun terrain in the nation.
(Politico)

[Tero]

Our incumbent republican congressman has 1.5 million budget. Challenger (lawyer! Big government! Obamacare!) has 15000 and slight feminist woman 1400.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Do you believe that instances of targeted regulation of abortion providers are genuinely motivated by concerns for safety, and have genuine basis in the actual requirements of medical necessity?

I'm sure people have different motivations. But, do you believe the targeted regulation of abortion in European countries is motivated by concerns for safety, and have a genuine basis in the actual requirements of medical necessity? In the UK, France etc. they need two doctors to certify the need for an abortion in many instances, and the cutoff in European countries range from 20 to 24 weeks - the netherlands rarely "allows" abortion after 22 weeks. What about the requirements that abortion be done at a hospital? If those requirements are warranted there, why would they not also be warranted in the US? Are the medical necessities different?

Ah, the trusty go-to tactic of lame whataboutism is what you're going with here. If you had a cogent point to make disputing the clear evidence that certain states have targeted abortion providers with the intent of closing down as many of them as possible, you'd have made it. You barely addressed the sources I provided which stated that the regulations those states have put in place do not serve to improve patient safety by any significant margin. Their intent and effect is to restrict access to services by closing clinics. If the regulations were not onerous, as per your absurd assertion, clinics affected by the regulations would not be closing.

You blithely state that these regulations are not onerous, but (for instance) who do you expect to pay for remodelling or completely rebuilding clinics or doctors' offices that don't comply with the regulations?

Remodeling and rebuilding? To abide by the rule that applies to all ambulatory surgical sites? These are not tough guidelines.

I don't wish to speculate on where you got this idea, and you've provided no evidence or source. From the article linked above:

Most providers [in Texas] closed after the state became the largest and most populous in the U.S. to require that they become hospital-like outpatient surgical centers, which can cost millions to buy or build.

But, what if they just said that abortions would only be done in hospitals, and shut all those sites down? That's o.k. in Europe, isn't it? Surely abortion is a medical procedure that warrants some regulation for safety and standard medical procedural safeguards? Or, is abortion something that warrants less regulation than other invasive procedures?

Even if you provide evidence that Europe-wide only hospitals are allowed to perform abortions, this would still be nothing more than whataboutism. In any event, comparing Europe (where almost every country provides medical care free at point of service, or for a very low cost to the patient) to the US is disingenuous at best.

You seem to find government regulations undesirable on principle, but here you dismiss what are acknowledged attempts to restrict access to abortions through superfluous regulation as "not onerous." Why is that?

Because they are not onerous and they are actually less onerous than most or many first world, "civilized" countries who are not being hounded and criticized as if they're making abortion illegal.

TRAP FAQ FactSheet

What TRAP laws mean for women

Abortion restrictions known as TRAP laws can have a devastating impact on women and force clinics to
close completely, with the end goal of making abortion access not just difficult, but impossible.

What you need to know:

What are TRAP laws?

TRAP stands for Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers. TRAP bills single out abortion providers for
medically unnecessary, politically motivated state regulations. They can be divided into three general
categories:

• a measure that singles out abortion providers for medically unnecessary regulations, standards,
personnel qualifications, building and/or structural requirements;

• a politically motivated provision that needlessly addresses the licensing of abortion clinics and/or
charges an exorbitant fee to register a clinic in the state; or

• a measure that unnecessarily regulates where abortions may be provided or designates abortion
clinics as ambulatory surgical centers, outpatient care centers, or hospitals without medical
justification.

What is the impact of these regulations?

These laws take a variety of forms, but one of the most detrimental requires that abortion providers
obtain admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. This is the type of law at the crux of federal court cases
concerning Alabama, Wisconsin and Mississippi. Other types of TRAP laws force clinics to make medically
unnecessary – and incredibly costly – renovations by setting requirements about the width of hallways,
the size of closets and even the color of paint on the walls.

The end result of these regulations is the same: Clinics are forced to close down and women are denied
access to safe and legal abortion.

Second, I am not against all regulations - I've never said that government regulations are always undesirable on principle.

Third, I am pro choice. I actually oppose many of regulations that would require a doctor to have hospital privilges, for example. I am, however, not an a pure anarchist or libertarian, either.

It just seems to me that if the laws are not as onerous as the UK or France, the hysteria here might be a bit overblown for political purposes.

You haven't shown that the "laws are not as onerous," nor have you shown that the effect of the US laws in regard to access to abortion is the same as the European laws you've alluded to (without providing any sources regarding those laws). Given that European women in general successfully avail themselves of the service at greater rates than women in the US, I don't think your position has any basis in fact.

Between 2011 and August 2015, nine states enacted “hospital admitting privilege” laws that require clinicians offering abortion services to obtain the right to admit patients to a local hospital in order to legally provide abortions in their private practice or clinic setting; seven states have similar, facility-level “hospital transfer agreement” laws. These stringent, medically unnecessary laws,

Is it medically unnecessary to require abortions to be done in a hospital and is such a regulation "stringent" and overly oppressive?

My source says that. If you wish to dispute the points, it falls to you to provide sources that support your position.