Pennsylvania mother who gave daughter abortion pill gets prison

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

No you didn't. You posted two opinion pieces from two activist blogs, one of which was using an opinion piece from ABC news as a reference. Get a consensus statement from the societies themselves and then we might have something to discuss. (You might want to look up what a consensus statement is first.)

No. I presented quotes from representative of the American Medical Association and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist that confirmed their opposition to various pieces of legislation.

The very article you posted states that the 13 clinics in question were still operating under provisional licenses so the narrative of "clinics closed down by meanies" is not true by the very own source you posted above.

The poster asked me to provide proof that clinics were closed. I did. The OP article stated that Harrisburg was the closest clinic available, as my source confirmed. The closest clinic was too far because closer clinics were closed, because of medically unnecessary draconian laws, written for right wing religious nuts that want to block access to abortion, and DON'T care about women' health one iota!

This issue is about the constant push to block access to safe and affordable abortion.

No you didn't. You did not present consensus statements from either of those organizations. You presented opinion pieces from two activist blogs who made unsubstantiated claims as to what the stance of those organizations was.

But what you posted was NOT proof that they were closed. The article stated that they were operating under provisional permits. Did you even read it before you posted it?

originally posted by: GogoVicMorrow
a reply to: NavyDoc

I have no problem with abortions. I've never had a gf that had one because.. i've just been careful, but i have dated two girls that had had them previously.
I am pro choice because I am not a woman and I don't feel it's my place to really even have an opinion. This case is different because it's not about abortion being right and wrong, but the mom giving a dangerous illegal abortion when there was a clinic available to her.

The poster said her "abortion" was spontaneous though. That's not an abortion in the sense we are discussing, but a miscarriage.

She was referring to different instances. One being a spontaneous abortion that did not go properly and required a surgical D&C and the other which was an elective abortion. Hope that clears that up.

Thank you for being pro-choice. I'm actually of the same view even though I'm a woman. I don't know what the situation is for a woman who is considering an abortion and I don't expect her to explain to me why she made that choice. It's not my opinion that matters but hers. She knows her life far better than anyone else and certainly not some random stranger of either gender.

a reply to: NavyDoc

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Medical Association (AMA) filed a joint amicus brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in support of Planned Parenthood’s challenge to Texas House Bill (HB) 2. ACOG and the AMA oppose HB 2 because it imposes government regulation on abortion care that jeopardizes the health of women in Texas and denies them access to the safest and most effective evidence-based protocols for medical abortions.

Abortion is a very safe procedure, and complications requiring hospital admission are extremely rare. There is no medical basis to require abortion providers to have local hospital admitting privileges. Emergency room physicians, hospital-based physicians, and on-call specialists already provide prompt and effective treatment to all patients with urgent medical needs, including women with abortion-related complications.

ACOG also opposes Texas HB 2’s requirement that physicians follow an inferior treatment protocol for medical abortions. Legislators should not block advances in medical care by prohibiting physicians from incorporating the best, and most current, scientific evidence into their patient care. Requiring physicians to follow a protocol that is scientifically proven to be inferior to other regimens is an unwarranted intrusion in the physician-patient relationship.
www.acog.org...

There! That's is NOT an opinion piece.

But what you posted was NOT proof that they were closed.

What are you talking about?

Out of Pennsylvania’s 22 abortion clinics, only one, Hillcrest Women’s Medical Center in Harrisburg, actually met all requirements and received a full license. Thirteen clinics, including all Planned Parenthood abortion facilities in the state, received provisional licenses will continue to supply surgical abortions on a temporary basis for the next 3-6 months. If the clinics do not meet all of the requirements by that time, they will no longer be allowed to do surgical abortions.

In 2011, there were 47 abortion providers in Pennsylvania

13 plus 1 equals 14. What happened to the other clinics? THEY CLOSED!

[

a reply to: WhiteAlice

Thanks for actually reading my reply. I feel like i've been on the defensive and having to use the disclaimer that I am pro choice in every other post.

I don't think some posters have seen that their fight for a woman's right to choose has actually had the negative effect of driving them far left and it has become more about abortion availability and on demand no matter what rather than something that is serious but also completely available in the safest manner possible. If someone I loved needed one it would become priority and I would take the time off, spend the money, and make the trip (an hour away is a little inconvenient but pretty damn available considering). It would be important. These people seem willing to risk a woman's health so they can just get it over with.

I am not a girl and can't really relate, but I imagine to any thinking female, even if they are completely pro choice, that it is still a head trip and they need support. These extreme left wingers seem to think it's nothing and afterward a girl wouldn't need support, i disagree.

a reply to: windword

Pennsylvania you say? Hmm I wonder if Gosnell's clinic is actually included in the ones that closed?

If you read it it says 13 will stay open and performing abortions until they get up to regulation. That means 14, so 8 closed. Unless you are going to list the ones that closed and why they were closed then you really don't have a leg to stand on.


Also considering that article is about Pennsylvania I would almost bet that the legislation and action actually came into play because of Gosnells clinic (which was in Penn) so really you can't even blame it on right wingers. Might want to try again with a different state and also listing the reasons the closed clinics were closed.

You really are shooting yourself in the foot with this argument, but lucky for you very few people are probably actually following.

a reply to: GogoVicMorrow

Pennsylvania you say?

Uh yeah! We've been talking about Pennsylvania's draconian laws for how many pages now?

If you read it it says 13 will stay open and performing abortions until they get up to regulation.

No. That's not what it says.

provisional licenses will continue to supply surgical abortions on a temporary basis for the next 3-6 months. If the clinics do not meet all of the requirements by that time, they will no longer be allowed to do surgical abortions.

Prescribing a pill, that is taken 75 miles away in the privacy of ones home, constitutes a surgical abortion. Clinic are closing all over the country because they can't meet the unnecessary and expensive requirements, that the Medical Community says are medically unnecessary.

That means 14, so 8 closed. Unless you are going to list the ones that closed and why they were closed then you really don't have a leg to stand on.

What "leg to stand on"? Are you denying that these draconian laws are closing clinics? In 2011 there were 47 clinic in Pennsylvania. Today there are 14, 13 of which may or may not stay open.


Gosnell and late term abortions are completely irrelevant to this saga.

ETA:

Also considering that article is about Pennsylvania I would almost bet that the legislation and action actually came into play because of Gosnells clinic (which was in Penn) so really you can't even blame it on right wingers. Might want to try again with a different state and also listing the reasons the closed clinics were closed.

That doesn't change the fact that the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists oppose ALL these restrictions.

a reply to: GogoVicMorrow

I think it's part because many of these women have felt like they have been put on the defensive on the entire subject. I see your points and, as I related, I drove 150 miles to get it done. I agree that the mother should've chose better. However, I don't think that's entirely what all of the women on this thread are necessarily disagreeing with. It's the condition in which it was created that that mother had to drive 74 miles or my 150 miles to get what needed to be done done.

My view is that it was wrong for her to break the law and it was also incredibly wrong that, whatever the situation was, that is what she felt she had to do because of the circumstances in this country. Why did I have to drive 150 miles for an involuntary abortion and why couldn't my own ob/gyn administer the pill that I had to drive 300 miles round trip for himself? You mentioned back alley abortion and I see that, too, albeit in a modernized form with infinitely less risk. What does it say about this country when we still have this kind of thing going on today, 41 years after Roe v. Wade?

Those conditions shouldn't exist. Why they exist though is because of religious and political reasons, because of death threats, bombings, and murders of providers. That's why I had to drive 300 miles to get a pill to terminate my pregnancy that was going to kill me.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Medical Association (AMA) filed a joint amicus brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in support of Planned Parenthood’s challenge to Texas House Bill (HB) 2. ACOG and the AMA oppose HB 2 because it imposes government regulation on abortion care that jeopardizes the health of women in Texas and denies them access to the safest and most effective evidence-based protocols for medical abortions.

Abortion is a very safe procedure, and complications requiring hospital admission are extremely rare. There is no medical basis to require abortion providers to have local hospital admitting privileges. Emergency room physicians, hospital-based physicians, and on-call specialists already provide prompt and effective treatment to all patients with urgent medical needs, including women with abortion-related complications.

ACOG also opposes Texas HB 2’s requirement that physicians follow an inferior treatment protocol for medical abortions. Legislators should not block advances in medical care by prohibiting physicians from incorporating the best, and most current, scientific evidence into their patient care. Requiring physicians to follow a protocol that is scientifically proven to be inferior to other regimens is an unwarranted intrusion in the physician-patient relationship.
www.acog.org...

There! That's is NOT an opinion piece.

But what you posted was NOT proof that they were closed.

What are you talking about?

Out of Pennsylvania’s 22 abortion clinics, only one, Hillcrest Women’s Medical Center in Harrisburg, actually met all requirements and received a full license. Thirteen clinics, including all Planned Parenthood abortion facilities in the state, received provisional licenses will continue to supply surgical abortions on a temporary basis for the next 3-6 months. If the clinics do not meet all of the requirements by that time, they will no longer be allowed to do surgical abortions.

In 2011, there were 47 abortion providers in Pennsylvania

13 plus 1 equals 14. What happened to the other clinics? THEY CLOSED!

[

I think you have a bit of a reading comprehension problem. ACOG did not say that there didn't need to be medical supervision, they just said they shouldn't have to meet standards themselves because they could push their complications to ERs and hospitals if they had a problem and let THOSE doctors take care if their problems for them which is not only unethical an attitude but lazy. Seriously? You want a doctor who goes "meh" if I have a problem with a case, I'll put a towel between your legs and send you to the ER so they have to care for you do I don't have to be bothered."

Yeah. Real caring there. That it would hurt their bottom line had NOTHING to do with it at all I'm sure. And, in addition, that was not of the two original societies cited. You had to find a third. That telling as well.

Secondly the article does not state that any were closed. That was YOUR assumption. The article stated that the clinics in question were put on " probation" and yd to clean up their acts.

a reply to: windword

Until you list the reasons the 8 clinics were closed then we can't really say it's the "draconian laws."

a reply to: WhiteAlice

We don't know that it was the circumstances in the country that caused her to do it though. I don't know her personal situation, but from what was described I have my doubts that the clinic an hour away was not an option. That leads me to believe it was done to either keep the abortion a secret or even worse, just inconvenience and lack of consideration.

I agree that a woman's personal doctor should be able to give the pill if they choose. I just think this is a horrible case to use for publicity. Also, it is most likely that private doctors can't give the pill because in special cases where more than a pill is needed they wouldn't be able to perform the procedure so they may figure it's best avoid abortions all together rather than case by case. I don't really know.

I just don't know how it's not obvious that what the woman did was wrong and the contemporary version of a back alley abortion. Sure it's safer, but in the off chance of a complication or mistake or a continued pregnancy it could be very dangerous.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: GogoVicMorrow

Pennsylvania you say?

Uh yeah! We've been talking about Pennsylvania's draconian laws for how many pages now?

If you read it it says 13 will stay open and performing abortions until they get up to regulation.

No. That's not what it says.

provisional licenses will continue to supply surgical abortions on a temporary basis for the next 3-6 months. If the clinics do not meet all of the requirements by that time, they will no longer be allowed to do surgical abortions.

Prescribing a pill, that is taken 75 miles away in the privacy of ones home, constitutes a surgical abortion. Clinic are closing all over the country because they can't meet the unnecessary and expensive requirements, that the Medical Community says are medically unnecessary.

That means 14, so 8 closed. Unless you are going to list the ones that closed and why they were closed then you really don't have a leg to stand on.

What "leg to stand on"? Are you denying that these draconian laws are closing clinics? In 2011 there were 47 clinic in Pennsylvania. Today there are 14, 13 of which may or may not stay open.

Gosnell and late term abortions are completely irrelevant to this saga.



Right. An absolutely disgusting horror show with deaths involved had absolutely nothing to do with a state evaluating other clinics for care practices and standard of care and basic cleanliness.

C'mon. I know that you haven't a clue about medicine or how medical boards do things, but that premise is laughable. Everytime there is an incident, the state board evaluates all similar practices to make sure they are up to standards and cites those who do not. If assume that if a pain clinic used dirty needles and contaminated injectibles and killed patients with meningitis, you'd want an investigation and the shutting down of all practices who failed to meet standards of care, yes? Happened in my state a few years back and it was the right thing to do--unless if you belong to the cult of abortion, I guess. As long as abortions are being performed, screw medical and ethical standards.

a reply to: GogoVicMorrow

The reasons are listed in my source. The clinics are required to have their doctors obtain admitting privileges to a local hospital, which is unnecessary and hospital are refusing these privileges because of political pressure. The clinics need wider hallways, doors, parking lot changes, etc. according to the NEW restrictions, that the AMA and the ACOG say are unnecessary.

It's is also deemed unnecessary that the law states that insurance can NOT cover medical abortions, and your personal doctor can not legally prescribe the pill. It has to be prescribed from a surgical clinic, which the AMA and the ACOG also oppose.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Of the 13 clinics that we're talking about, none of them are under scrutiny for late term abortion horror or uncleanliness. They are being required to meet the NEW legal standards, that the medical community has deemed unnecessary.

originally posted by: WhiteAlice
a reply to: GogoVicMorrow

I think it's part because many of these women have felt like they have been put on the defensive on the entire subject. I see your points and, as I related, I drove 150 miles to get it done. I agree that the mother should've chose better. However, I don't think that's entirely what all of the women on this thread are necessarily disagreeing with. It's the condition in which it was created that that mother had to drive 74 miles or my 150 miles to get what needed to be done done.

My view is that it was wrong for her to break the law and it was also incredibly wrong that, whatever the situation was, that is what she felt she had to do because of the circumstances in this country. Why did I have to drive 150 miles for an involuntary abortion and why couldn't my own ob/gyn administer the pill that I had to drive 300 miles round trip for himself? You mentioned back alley abortion and I see that, too, albeit in a modernized form with infinitely less risk. What does it say about this country when we still have this kind of thing going on today, 41 years after Roe v. Wade?

Those conditions shouldn't exist. Why they exist though is because of religious and political reasons, because of death threats, bombings, and murders of providers. That's why I had to drive 300 miles to get a pill to terminate my pregnancy that was going to kill me.

As I posted above, those same conditions exist in Europe and Australia, without evil Republicans, because they have higher standard if care than we do (again, without evil republicans) and that it is not feasible to have such qualified clinics and physicians in ever single Podunk town. I have to drive 59 miles each way to take my kid to a pediatric neurologist.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Seriously? You want a doctor who goes "meh" if I have a problem with a case, I'll put a towel between your legs and send you to the ER so they have to care for you do I don't have to be bothered."

But that IS exactly what these draconian laws require. The woman would have driven her daughter 75 miles to get the pill, to be taken later, 75 miles away, in the privacy of her home. If complications should occur, do you expect the mother to drive her daughter back to the clinic, 75 miles away, so that the same doctor can look at her? And what? Even if the doctor had admitting privileges it would be anywhere near where the emergency was taking place, 75 miles away. Wouldn't it just be better to allow more local clinics and stop this religious political control freak nonsense? Nope, these laws place all responsibility back on the ER doctors.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Yep the pill made it look so easy that people now downplay abortions and their effects.

I know probably a dozen girls that have had abortions, some multiple. They all had to drive at least an hour away. None i've heard had any problems and we are talking about mostly students without insurance and not great jobs.

a reply to: windword

You are killing me saying draconian. They are not draconian.

They aren't incredible different from the laws in most liberal states. The amount of people thinking and caring enough to do something about babies that don't exist isn't that extreme. I have never met anyone that had a baby because they were unable to get an abortion.

Clinics are available and always will be. Big pharma, in the end will have more of a say than religious fanatics (who are forever dwindling).

And that's fine, abortions should be available, but don't downplay it to the point where practices become lax and procedures are unsafe. What this woman did, the whole reason we are talking, was unsafe.

a reply to: GogoVicMorrow

You're right. There are draconian abortion laws all over the country.

Ohio Lawmakers Slide Stealth Draconian Abortion Laws Into Budget

Ohio lawmakers have redefined the terms "pregnancy" and "fetus" to mean something other than the scientific definitions so they can impose a de facto abortion ban on women.

This is whole 'nother issue. Right wing religious nuts redefining medical terms to suit their draconian world views. This is what the Hobby Lobby case was about. They believed in abortion before pregnancy, and therefore, because of non-scientific, non-medical religious bull froggery, got a pass on contraception, as did anyone claiming religious superiority when it comes to a woman's choice.

They're Coming For Your Birth Control!

Dissecting the Texas Abortion Bill

New Mexico Bill Would Criminalize Abortions After Rape

Clinics are available and always will be. Big pharma, in the end will have more of a say than religious fanatics (who are forever dwindling).

From your fingertips to God's ears.

Making Abortion Obsolete

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

Seriously? You want a doctor who goes "meh" if I have a problem with a case, I'll put a towel between your legs and send you to the ER so they have to care for you do I don't have to be bothered."

But that IS exactly what these draconian laws require. The woman would have driven her daughter 75 miles to get the pill, to be taken later, 75 miles away, in the privacy of her home. If complications should occur, do you expect the mother to drive her daughter back to the clinic, 75 miles away, so that the same doctor can look at her? And what? Even if the doctor had admitting privileges it would be anywhere near where the emergency was taking place, 75 miles away. Wouldn't it just be better to allow more local clinics and stop this religious political control freak nonsense? Nope, these laws place all responsibility back on the ER doctors.

Because it is, as I have demonstrated in this thread, that even enlightened counties in Europe and Anzac--places without evil tepublicans--have even fewer abortion clinics and even less in rural areas and it is not logistically pddiblento give on to your fanatical and unrealistic demands of a free abortion clinic around every corner. Even in enlIghtenef Austria there are no rural clincs anf patients must drive to get there.

You want zero effort on the part of the patient. Well that's unrealistic and about to get much worse with the national health system.

a reply to: windword

Yeah I see all the sensationalism and talk, but I don't actually see anyone having any problems in the real world. Never had an ex that didn't take birth control, never met a girl that had trouble getting an abortion if she needed it. Never heard one story of anyone in the US being forced to have a baby the intended to abort.

Do you not understand that this is one of those issues that is always at stalemate for a reason? That reason is to keep you in party lines. Abortion should be a state, or even local issue. It being a national issue means people getting into office simply saying for choice, or against choice and never having to have a real platform. It also means people afraid to vote for a real candidate because they think this is a fight they have to actively participate in. There is a precedent set by the entire western world and it's not going to change. Abortions and birth control will always be available.

This conversation is off topic and boring.