Supreme Court to Hear Abortion Case From Louisiana Image

[laylalex 7,284]

The Louisiana law, enacted in 2014, requires doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. In 2017, Judge John W. deGravelles of the Federal District Court in Baton Rouge struck down the law, saying that such doctors were often unable to obtain admitting privileges for reasons unrelated to their competence and that the law created an undue burden on women’s constitutional right to abortion.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/us/politics/supreme-court-abortion-louisiana.html

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

27 minutes ago, laylalex said:

The Louisiana law, enacted in 2014, requires doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. In 2017, Judge John W. deGravelles of the Federal District Court in Baton Rouge struck down the law, saying that such doctors were often unable to obtain admitting privileges for reasons unrelated to their competence and that the law created an undue burden on women’s constitutional right to abortion.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/us/politics/supreme-court-abortion-louisiana.html

while I am generally. reluctantly pro choice with limits,  I dont necessarily think this is a bad law for any doctor that does somewhat risky procedures. 

 

The flip side of that is most doctors use hospitalist now and very rarely make rounds or check on patients when in the hospital. Of course excluding doctors that do procedures in the hospital, surgeons, etc.

[luckytxn 2,264]

SCOTUS has already ruled that it is OK for woman to kill their babies whenever they choose to do so but I see nothing wrong by assuring that the Doctor doing the death is competent to practice medicine as severe complications can happen during the procedure. 

[yuna628 9,676]

25 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

while I am generally. reluctantly pro choice with limits,  I dont necessarily think this is a bad law for any doctor that does somewhat risky procedures. 

 

The flip side of that is most doctors use hospitalist now and very rarely make rounds or check on patients when in the hospital. Of course excluding doctors that do procedures in the hospital, surgeons, etc.

I had to actually demand for my actual surgeon to see me. A whole team of people I didn't even know who they were would check me. My dad was different though - the surgeon was old school and really cared to check on him daily.

 

I don't think in cases of abortion such a thing is necessary, though I could see in some rare cases hospital admitting might be needed (in those cases I suspect the patient is already in a life threatening situation and already admitted). The problem in the original case was that such a law virtually denied all abortions in the state. A lot of facilities these days where you have procedures far riskier and involving sedation even (GI issues, sedation dentistry) all are performed at outpatient clinics.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

2 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

I had to actually demand for my actual surgeon to see me. A whole team of people I didn't even know who they were would check me. My dad was different though - the surgeon was old school and really cared to check on him daily.

 

I don't think in cases of abortion such a thing is necessary, though I could see in some rare cases hospital admitting might be needed (in those cases I suspect the patient is already in a life threatening situation and already admitted). The problem in the original case was that such a law virtually denied all abortions in the state. A lot of facilities these days where you have procedures far riskier and involving sedation even (GI issues, sedation dentistry) all are performed at outpatient clinics.

I think they send a whole squad of strangers in to check on you, because the surgeons fees are already included in your procedure.  They can bill you separate for all the other people, some of which were probably out of network