Discussion for article #223432
This is just the sort of insidious, vicious nonsense that outfits like ALEC and the rest of the Koch-brother funded right-wing think tanks love to put out.
Anti-democratic? Check. Anti-Liberal? Check. Hits a rabid demographic on the Right? Check. Anti-Progressive? Check. Written so that mouth-breather local and State Legislatures don’t need to do anything except sign their name and pas it? Check.
We need a Progressive ALEC to fight these battles, all we have is figures like Wendy Davis and Media Matters and Planned Parenthood to try and put out facts to counteract right-wing deliberate disingenuous fictions.
6 Likes
I find it interesting that the “must have privileges” argument doesn’t apply to Medi-Cal doctors - that’s CA’s version of Medicaid. I know this because my brother, who is covered by Medi-Cal, recently had a major medical episode requiring emergency surgery, a 2-1/2 week hospital stay, and a 2 week stay at a skilled nursing facility. His GP never came to the hospital because it turns out he doesn’t have privileges there or at any hospital. The surgeon said that this is common with doctors who accept Medi-Cal, something to do with the cost of maintaining hospital privileges. My brother was cared for by staff doctors during his stay and was no worse it.
So an ob-gyn who administers a pill for a first trimester abortion must be ready at a moment’s notice to rush to the ER with his/her patient, except that that never actually happens. The doctor accepting Medi-Cal payments whose caseload is comprised of people with multiple major health issues is not required to have admitting privileges. Should such an emergency happen while the patient was actually in the doctor’s office, an ambulance would be called and off the patient would go, sans his GP.
Somehow the logic of requiring the doctor of a healthy young woman undergoing a routine abortion to be prepared to dash to the hospital and personally see to his patient in the extraordinarily rare event she had a problem, while the GP with a chronically ill, often critically ill patient is not required to do the same escapes me. Top this off with the fact that those pursuing this insane policy make no secret that their agenda isn’t health safety, it’s to prevent women from accessing their legal health care. Why would any court buy this?
5 Likes
The situation before Roe was even worse than you said it was. Abortion was not available in “epicenters across the country.” It was available only in New York State (and even there only after 1970), and because of relatively generous exceptions in its abortion statute, in California. In the Midwest (I was there, and I remember vividly) the only reasonable option was flying to New York City, where clinics made provisions for overnight stays.
Now, if Wisconsin gets shut down, at least most people there are within a reasonable distance of Chicago or Minneapolis. I’m not arguing that we’ll be all right with no abortion services in Wisconsin, and in, say, Texas or North Dakota the situation would be disastrous. I just don’t want people to forget that pre-Roe, abortion prohibition was not just a red state/blue state thing. It was a national thing, and a catastrophe.
4 Likes
The GOP outreach program to women continues unabated!
Do the Kochs get involved with social issues?
Excellent article—Cornell College graduates are soooo smart.
Here’s a quick answer: The court mandates that a hospital issue admitting priveleges. Don’t care about freedom of religion because they don’t care about my right to privacy.
Sure, abortion conflict is used to rile up the single-issue voter and keep them true to the Republican party. The Kochs don’t care if you or someone you care about can get the medical care that they need.