|
|
Not giving anyone a pass, but adverse incidents are very rare in clinics. My point is that how does one judge a hospital or clinic based on the report? What is the error rate?Originally Posted by atobulldog
What exactly do you mean by “having a physician/hospital information available in discharge paperwork”?
My bad. I don't know why I was thinking he didn't get a chance to appoint a justice.
Nor should he. As long as the Republicans control the House and the Senate, the good guys get to call the shots.
The laws in certain states that outline that either a physician or hospital's information, location and phone number, must be given to the patients. In numerous cases they were not given as per state inspection reports. Seems like this is an extremely easy thing to do but the clinics fail to do it time and again. If they are lackadaisical in the small things, my confidence is not high on the major things. Then of course you have the examples of Gosnell and the most recent doctor that plead guilty to manslaughter after releasing the patient instead of calling for an ambulance for emergency care. But hey, they are just outliers according to the stats, so no need to worry.
I don’t know that there is any reason that these clinics should be the subject of extra requirements. There are plenty of horror stories from hospitals and clinics staffed with doctors, too. Such is the state of medical care in general in the US. Medical error, nosocomial infections, questionable billing practices, poor service, mistakes in paper work.
The stats do show that these clinics tend to have lower rate of incidents than hospitals in performing abortions, but they probably also treat the lowest risk population (earlier in pregnancy when only local anesthetics are used, plus the stats show the outcomes are better the easrlier the procedure is done).
As far as the requirement to provide a patient with contact information for a doctor or hospital - I don’t really see anything wrong with that.
Only for those that believe that crap. That is not factual- an opinion piece at best.
Are fewer abortions happening because it is legal in so many places or because science is proving more and more each day that life begins at conception?
The article refers to a study.
It is happening because proper contraceptive use has increased over that time.
Check out the graphs in this link:
https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2003/...tion-worldwide
The question of when does life begin is not purely a scientific one in the context of the abortion debate. From a purely scientific perspective, life itself begin several billion years ago on Earth and has kept going through reproduction ever since. The question of “personhood” is the one that is at stake in the abortion debate and that question is really a matter of “what defining features do we believe a form of life should possess before we consider it a person under the law”?
Tucker Carlson just smoked another libtard guest, and made the point that the focus of the left, in being against any nominee for the SC, is the abortion issue. YES, other issues are being mentioned, but the single biggest angst is the concern of the left that Roe v. Wade will be rolled back or done away with, or some such scenario. Even when Tucker tried to redirect the discussion, with the libtard, it was the 'tard that kept going back to the abortion issue. Finally, Tucker, obviously exasperated, lamented, "It's all about abortion, isn't it? Guess that's where the money is."
Anthony Kennedy was nominated by Reagan, and confirmed. And for 30+ years has usually been the "5" in a 5-4 vote. He has been liberal on social issues, and that is why conservatives are glad to see him go. Many people compare Trump to Reagan. There are some similarities in matters of taxes, defense, foreign policy, economics, etc...So! since Reagan nominated Kennedy, a Justice most libs have been okay with, why isn't there at least a pause to see who Trump will nominate? Might turn out, like Kennedy, to be a pleasant surprise to the left.
BTW, I know the answer to my question. It's because the left suffers from TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) and rational, intelligent thought is not allowed.
Heart starts beating as early as 18 days after conception. Are you OK with snuffing that out?
The heart is just an organ that pumps blood. Don’t know why personhood would be determined by it. Is a person no longer a person if they use an artificial means to pump blood?
Can’t say whether I would be okay with it if I were the one making the personal decision. But I am comfortable with the woman carrying the fetus making the decision to terminate at that point, and I am even more comfortable that she has a Constitutional right of privacy such that she should not have to let the government know the status of her pregnancy.
Dumbest argument I have ever heard.
Why would personhood be defined by the heart rather than the brain? And why the brain instead of consciousness? Defining the attribute(s) where we want to define personhood for purposes of protection under the law is the issue. Until a life has a cognizable right to live (a “person” under our Constitution), the women’s right to privacy does and should prevent the state from intervening.
So what about a toddler who can’t feed itself? What about a comatose person? What about the elderly who cannot bathe or feed themselves? Do we want them killed too? They are dependent.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
