New Virginia abortion law
- Thread starter Shadow Dragon
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2007
- Messages
- 6,577
- Reaction score
- 740
Those opposed to abortion say the same thing, that abortion clinics shouldn't be given a free pass to perform sugical procedures without having to follow the same rules as other facilities do. An abortion is a much higher risk procedure than performing an adult circumcision, yet the rules for the facilities that do adult circumcisions are held to a much higher standard of care and therefore have a much higher overhead.
I don't think the two procedures are at all comparable. Infant circumcision (and for god's sake don't get me started on that topic) can be performed in homes by a mohel with zero medical training. ETA: It's legal to give birth at home, for crying out loud.
Is an abortion riskier than having four impacted wisdom teeth removed? Is it riskier than having LASIK surgery? Is it riskier than having plantar's warts cut out? Is it riskier than having a vasectomy? Because all of those are office procedures. There is no law requiring they be performed in a hospital setting.
Obviously, this law is just another move to push safe abortion further out of the reach of women.
Last edited:
When I had my wisdom teeth (two impacted, two not) out, I was put under general anesthesia so I'd say the risk was probably as great as any minor surgery done in a hospital. I'm not a doctor, so maybe I'm wrong, but the anesthesia part increased any risk, AFAIK.
That said, unless statistics support the argument that increasing the standards for clinics makes obtaining an abortion safer for women, it's a terrible bill and will make for a terrible law.
That said, unless statistics support the argument that increasing the standards for clinics makes obtaining an abortion safer for women, it's a terrible bill and will make for a terrible law.
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2007
- Messages
- 6,577
- Reaction score
- 740
I said Adult circumcision, not infant, and yes abortion is significantly riskier than all of the above. This may be an attempt to relax safety laws to help the bottom line. I'm not saying that that is a good thing, just another posible motivation.
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2007
- Messages
- 6,577
- Reaction score
- 740
It's not the anaesthesia that makes it the higher risk as compared to other procedures that use the same anaesthesia. It's the risk of complications and the means necessary to control those complications. If there's significant bleeding from a hole in your gum, they can always pack the wound. That's usually the deciding factor in what is minor and what is major, how feasible it is to in a moment's notice get a handle on a complication to avert death. The uterus is an internal organ that if perforated can not be managed without open abdominal surgery. You can't pack the wound because it would bleed internally.
I stand corrected then. 
However, until there are statistics to prove that tightening the clinic standards = safer abortions and not just more-difficult-to-obtain abortions, I still disagree with the bill.
However, until there are statistics to prove that tightening the clinic standards = safer abortions and not just more-difficult-to-obtain abortions, I still disagree with the bill.
Newborn circ is riskier than adult circ for a number of reasons. I will not debate infant circ here: do some research on the subject if you're curious.
Is early abortion (which is what the bill addresses) significantly riskier? I'd love to see the stats on that. Back up your claim with some facts. Here's what the Guttmacher Institute has to say on the safety of abortion:
In case you're not aware, the vast majority of abortions are performed at nine weeks or earlier. There isn't enough "risk" to justify this bill.
Last edited:
The risk of serious complications with all abortion is less than 0.3%, and the risk is significantly lower than that for early abortion, which is what the Virginia law attempts to address.
The death rate with early abortions is less than one per million. The Virginia law is not about improving abortion safety; it doesn't need improving. The law is intended to shut down clinics and push abortion out of women's reach.
Compare the US abortion mortality rate to the US childbirth mortality rate:
Link.
Abortion is a helluva lot safer than childbirth in the US.
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2007
- Messages
- 6,577
- Reaction score
- 740
Although I'm retired, I did receive Board Certification in Urologic Surgery. I think that's a bit more research than reading an article or two. You say you won't debate it, yet you are the one who insists on twice now bringing up Infant Circumcision. I said, "Adult Circumcision." The only reason that satisfactorily explains the problems with infant circumcisions is that people with no formal medical training are often the ones performing them, and it is done mostly for religious reasons rather than medical.
An abortion clinic isn't the proper source for information on surgical risk
In you opinion there isn't enough risk. I don't know the motivations of the people behind the bill. It would be reasonable to argue it on medical grounds. I think that is a very legitimate point of contention but my guess is it's about the money. The hospital lobbly has been slowly killing the out patient clinics by convincing insurers that this or that procedure must be done in a hospital for safety reasons. An adult circumcision is normally lower risk than an abortion, but (depending upon a variety of variables)can not be done in a facility that only meets the standards of an abortion clinic. Resecting a small bladder tumor is significantly lower risk than an abortion. It is done under direct vision through a scope, not blindly and by feel as is the case for a D&C. Cautery is available and again, under direct vision. The points of attachment to the bladder wall are easily less than 1% that of a placenta which is vascularized in its entirety. Small bladder tumors are normally on stalks. However, a Urologist caring for a patient with a small tumor must utilize a hosptial which is far more expensive than an outpatient clinic which is still more expensive than an abortion clinic with even fewer safety regulations. You say it's about women and probably by inference misogyny. I think it's more likely about the money and merely disguised as pro-life.
QFT.
And when there are no longer safe, licensed clinics performing the procedure, where will these women go? Let's talk about that risk...
Every since this latest batch of Republicans got into power, there's been a massive push to cut around the edges of abortion, limiting access until there's no way a woman can get one.
Taken in the context of the numerous anti-abortion bills going around right now, it's pretty obvious what the bill writers' "concerns" were.
Taken in the context of the numerous anti-abortion bills going around right now, it's pretty obvious what the bill writers' "concerns" were.
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2007
- Messages
- 6,577
- Reaction score
- 740
I don't know. I think greed carries more gravitas than righteous indignation. I don't think most politicians care enough to really hate anyone. There are so many angles to everything and too may lobbies with whispers in the politicians ears and fingers in their pockets that to boil any issue down to a singular motivation is unrealistic.
Unless I misread the article, if the bill passes, it won't make abortion illegal, but it will make it more expensive.
Last edited:
The Guttmacher Institute is not "an abortion clinic." It's a research and policy institute - sort of like a think tank on reproductive health. However, if you don't like my source on abortion safety statistics I strongly suggest you find and share whatever source you're using. I've yet to see you back anything up with evidence, unless a certificate in urological surgery makes you an instant expert on abortion safety.
Please, lets see the stats comparing the risk of adult circumcision in the US vs. the risk of early abortion, and please contrast that with the risk of actual childbirth.
I brought up infant circ only because it is medically riskier than adult circ, yet there are no laws requiring hospital standards for that procedure. By the same token, I bring up the legality of home birth when overall US maternal mortality rates ten times higher than the abortion mortality rate. If Virginia lawmakers want to save womens lives, they're going about it all wrong. (ETA, yes I'm aware of the relative safety of home birth and don't think it should be illegal.)
My point is, there is no need to make early term abortion "safer" when the safety margin is already excellent, while ignoring the much worse safety levels of other procedures.
ETA, I don't disagree with your assertion that this may be in part a money grab by the hospital lobby. Even so, it still pushes abortion further away from reach. According to the (not an abortion clinic) Guttmacher Institute, 60% of patients who had abortions after 15 weeks stated that they wanted to have them sooner but money and logistics delayed the process. (See my previous link exact quote.)
Last edited:
Am I missing something? As long as they aren't closing down for good, why is this an issue? I think having higher, hospital quality standards would be a good thing. Abortion isn't without risk, and there can be complications. If abortion is going to be legal, it should be as safe as possible.
And why did home births even get brought up. Why shouldn't a home birth be legal? I know many women that had wonderful home birth experiences, and wish I could have had one myself. (My husband was not for it). The majority of complications during childbirth are because of the unnecessary medical interventions that are perfomed at a hospital.
And why did home births even get brought up. Why shouldn't a home birth be legal? I know many women that had wonderful home birth experiences, and wish I could have had one myself. (My husband was not for it). The majority of complications during childbirth are because of the unnecessary medical interventions that are perfomed at a hospital.
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2005
- Messages
- 16,339
- Reaction score
- 4,110
- Location
- East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
- Website
- www.jlevitt.com
I think there's been a pretty strong track record that shows conservative and anti abortion lawmakers have adopted the tactic of skirting legal battles, which they've mostly lost, to concentrate on making abortions more difficult to obtain in practice.
Safety issues, zoning laws, whatever.
Is this law an attempt to address an issue that calls for attention? Have studies shown a significant increase in complications with first term abortions in clinics vs hospitals?
Any time you see a law passed to address a problem that does not exist, you can be pretty sure it's ideologically motivated.
It is an issue if the changes are completely unnecessary and thus become nothing but a way to raise costs which, basing on the other points in thread, are a means to bring money to the hospital lobby and deter/prevent more women from obtaining abortions.
Going by the references cited by DL earlier, it seems that clinics are perfectly safe in clinics as they are. To put it more simply, if it isn't broke don't fix it.
You yourself in the same post argue that hospitals use unnecessary, dangerous procedures when simpler methods of childbirth are better. While I'm no expert on this matter and am not sure if this is true or not, how can you argue this and yet state that these perfectly functional abortion clinics should have the more rigorous 'hospital' treatment?
In answer to your question, what Rugcat said:
There isn't a problem with abortion clinic safety. Forcing clinics to either meet difficult to obtain hospital building code standards or close down will not save women's lives. It will make safe, legal abortions even harder and more expensive to obtain.
First of all, you can't compare childbirth to a procedure like abortion. The main problem with childbirth in a hospital setting is that people treat it like a disease, pushing drugs and unnecessary procedures on the mom. Having an abortion in someones house is not safe, and no one could claim it is.
And secondly, I don't know much about abortions in clinics. I have never worked at one, or had an abortion. So I can't claim to know how safe they are. I am just going off what was written in the article, that they want to make it safer, have the people involved more trained, better equipment. Going on that alone, it sounds good to me.
But if they are as safe as they can possibly be, and this would make no difference at all, and it is only a means to get more money, or make it harder for women to have abortions, then no, there is no reason for it.
And secondly, I don't know much about abortions in clinics. I have never worked at one, or had an abortion. So I can't claim to know how safe they are. I am just going off what was written in the article, that they want to make it safer, have the people involved more trained, better equipment. Going on that alone, it sounds good to me.
But if they are as safe as they can possibly be, and this would make no difference at all, and it is only a means to get more money, or make it harder for women to have abortions, then no, there is no reason for it.
This is one of the main reasons I cringe at the idea of a minor (in the 14-15 year-old range being able to go for the procedure without parental involvement. How many kids of that age know to inform a doctor of pre-existing conditions? Especially if they're scared. And how many of them would be able to tell a doctor if they had adverse reactions to specific treatments or anesthesia from when they were younger? They may not be aware that they even had a negative reaction to anesthesia if they don't remember it.
Yes, I know the guidelines are there so the girl in question makes the decision herself without parental override, but I still wish there were a better way to handle it.
I can indeed compare the fact that childbirth, which is much more dangerous than abortion right here in the US, is not getting any new legislative attention under the guise of "patient safety."
It belies the fact that the Virginia law isn't about safety, it's about preventing abortion, period.
Understanding abortion safety is a matter of looking at statistics from a reliable source, which I've already provided in this thread. It doesn't require having an abortion of one's own or working at a clinic. In fact, information gained that way is merely anecdotal and is of far less value than statistics.
Yeah, it sounds great on the surface, especially if you don't look at it any closer than facile glance.
Exactly. Please read the other posts in this thread. I already linked to the statistics. The death rate for ALL abortion is less than one per million, and the rate is far better for early (clinic) abortions which this law addresses exclusively.
There is no "need" for this law to make abortions "safer." They're already safe. This law will just shut down a lot of clinics, making abortion harder to obtain.
Last edited:
Show me a true need (cold, hard silly little facts) for this bill and I might support it. But from where I sit, it strikes me as just another roadblock thrown up between women and their right to choose.