Abortion

Abortion Doctors in Alabama Don't Need Hospital Admitting Privileges

"Thousands of women per year" would be "unduly burdened" by the requirement, says a federal judge.

|

Alabama Reproductive Rights Advocates (ARRA)/Facebook

An Alabama abortion restriction similar to the Texas law currently before the U.S. Supreme Court was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge. U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson permanently blocked the state law, which would have required abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. 

"The staff-privileges requirement would make it impossible for a woman to obtain an abortion in much of [Alabama]," wrote Myron in his decision. "It is certain that thousands of women per year—approximately 40 percent of those seeking abortions in the State—would be unduly burdened."

The doomed law, known as the "Women's Health and Safety Act," passed the Alabama legislature in 2013 and was soon challenged in court. In 2014, Judge Thompson extended an order blocking enforcement of the law, in a decision that drew parallels between abortion and gun ownership. 

"The court poses the hypothetical that … the federal or state government were to implement a new restriction on who may sell firearms and ammunition and on the procedure they must employ in selling such goods," wrote Thompson.

… and that, further, only two vendors in the State of Alabama were capable of complying with the restriction: one in Huntsville and one in Tuscaloosa. The defenders of this law would be called upon to do a heck of a lot of explaining—and rightly so in the face of an effect so severe. Similarly, in this case, so long as the Supreme Court continues to recognize a constitutional right to choose to terminate a pregnancy, any regulation that would, in effect, restrict the exercise of that right to only Huntsville and Tuscaloosa should be subject to the same skepticism. 

A Texas admitting privileges law that would severely curtail the number of abortion clinics in the Lone Star state is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.

NEXT: Heaven Help California's Non-Urban Cities Under a $15 Minimum Wage

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Serious question: How does *any* doctor obtain “hospital admitting privileges”?

    1. They have to bang Episarch’s mom.

      1. *** light goes on ***

        Hey, that’s a masturbation euphemism!

      2. Exactly. After they bang her, they get MEGA-AIDS, and then get the privilege to be admitted to the hospital. Come on, tarran, you know this, you went through it yourself.

        1. And the cure to MEGA-AIDS is hidden somewhere in Epi’s penis!

          1. Guys.

            Come on.

            It’s Easter.

            Is Jesus gonna have to come die for your sins, AGAIN?

          2. It’s a cure… but not for mega-AIDS!

            /sobs

          3. “The call cure is coming from inside the schlong!!!”

    2. They apply to the hospital, providing a CV, references, and history of malpractice cases or peer review actions, and pay a fee (typically around $400).

      Most (many?) hospitals these days require board certification.

      Not sure why the judge concludes that hardly anyone who does abortions get on a hospital medical staff. “Admitting” privileges are the second-lowest category of privileges (above “refer and follow”), and below other categories (“Active”, some others).

      1. See my comments below. There is an explanation for this based on the rules at the relevant hospitals.

    3. When a doctor and hospital love each other very much, they hug and close their eyes and make a special wish….

  2. Using regulations as a weapon: beloved by all statist assholes everywhere.

    1. But sometimes the weapon blows up in our face!

      1. Hey now. Enough jokes about Epi’s mom.

  3. “”Thousands of women per year” would be “unduly burdened” by the requirement, says a federal judge.”

    I agree with this, but can’t help but wonder why this ‘undue burden’ only applies to abortion regulations and not any other regulations in the US economy.

    Strange.

    1. Heightened scrutiny versus rational basis review. Or, how courts don’t give a shit about economic liberty.

    2. Forty years ago the office feminist would at least once a day recite the mantra, “If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament”

      Well, they still can’t, but it is.

      It’s the sacramental nature of the procedure that elevates its importance above all other economic services.

    3. Gosnell’s patients couldn’t be burdened either

  4. Ha! I’ve always wondered if some judge, somewhere, would draw the parallels between the enumerated right to keep and bear arms and the unenumerated right to an abortion.

    Good!

    1. “right” to an abortion?

      I can see the argument that the State lacks the means (or clairvoyance) with which to prevent abortions which from their perspective are often indistinguishable from a miscarriage.

      But I remain baffled as to how a “right to privacy” transmogrifies into a “right to abortion.”

      These are importantly different things.

      Thought experiment: If the state could magically teleport a fetus into an adoptive surrogate, would there still be a “right to abortion”?

      1. Which part of “right to do as you wish with your own body” is confusing you?

        1. What is confusing is that I can’t do what I want with my own body. If the courts thought privacy actually meant that, you would have a point. Of course they don’t think that at all and happily affirm all kinds of hideous restrictions on what we can do with or put into our bodies then suddenly “discovers” personal autonomy and privacy when talking about abortion.

          1. Shorter John: “The Law is an ass!”* 😉

            * with apologies to Chas. Dickens!

          2. Then the complaint should be that the courts should view things like drug use like abortion, not a complaint about how abortion seems to get special consideration. Everything should get the same consideration as abortion.

            1. Saying that abortion gets special consideration is saying the courts should view drugs the same way. The courts have it exactly backwards. If abortion deserves special consideration, it is because it involves the life of another and is thus one time that the government does have a right to infringe on your personal autonomy. Instead, the courts view abortion as the one time that the government doesn’t have a right to do so.

              1. it is because it involves the life of another

                Except that that’s the part that people can’t agree on, so it’s irrelevant in this case.

                1. That is my point EPI. If you don’t agree with that, then abortion is like any other medical procedure and shouldn’t be treated any differently. If you do, then abortion is special but only special insofar as it deserves more restriction than the normal medical procedure.

                  Somehow, the courts have decided that abortion is special but that means it gets less restriction and regulation than any other medical procedure or issue of personal autonomy. And that is the problem.

                  1. If you believe that abortion gets a special treatment like this, shouldn’t you want everything–drug use, prostitution, etc–to get the same “bodily autonomy” treatment?

                    1. Yes, Epi you should. But the courts don’t do that. If courts want to make the assumption that abortion is strictly a decision made by a woman about her body and doesn’t involve another life, then fine, treat it like any other decision people make about their bodies. They don’t do that. They allow all sorts of infringements on personal autonomy in other context and then still act like abortion is special and deserving of more protection from the government than any other personal decision. And that is the problem.

                    2. Wait, again, is the problem that abortion gets the “best” treatment, or is the problem that not everything gets the “best” treatment? I’m having trouble understanding which you mean.

                    3. The problem is the inconsistency. The courts should treat every other decision of personal autonomy like it does abortion.

        2. Re: Episiarch,

          Which part of “right to do as you wish with your own body” is confusing you?

          Do you extend that same right to the fetus or would you take the route of the moral coward and simply dismiss the personhood of the fetus in order to argue in favor of its destruction?

          I am reminded many times this subject comes up of the filmed executions of the assassination plotters who tried in 1944 to kill Hitler and take over the government. Only a few Nazi officials had the stomach to witness the executions being showed to them, even when they justified them in principle. Well, people tend to justify the killing of an innocent because they don’t have to witness it. Everybody loves a baby because he or she can be seen and even the thought of killing a baby is repulsive because YOU know what a baby LOOKS LIKE. Instead, you don’t have to see the result of an abortion. Ergo, it is easier to morally justify it.

          1. Everybody loves a baby because he or she can be seen and even the thought of killing a baby is repulsive because YOU know what a baby LOOKS LIKE.

            That definitely suggests it is right and logical to not kill babies.

            1. Re: Just Say Nikki,

              That definitely suggests it is right and logical to not kill babies.

              it actually suggests that people have no qualms about killing fetuses because they’re moral cowards.

              1. Old Mexican Mighty Agressor, you surely are a vegan. Please don’t tell me you eat meat after watching some of those documentaries.

                1. What are you talking about? Animals don’t feel pain!

                2. Re: Chipper Morning Wood,

                  Old Mexican Mighty Agressor, you surely are a vegan. Please don’t tell me you eat meat after watching some of those documentaries.

                  My moral principles are deontological in nature, Chipper. Once I realize a self-evident truth, I do not dismiss it whenever expediency dictates. I cannot simply dismiss the personhood of a fetus if a fetus is a human, for I am a human as well and I am a person. Why would I not concede the personhood of another human being? What possible rational justification would there be not to extend the same courtesy to any human being that I concede for myself, i.e. the status of a person? Instead, I contend some people only apply such deference to those things they like, for instance people like them only (racists, chauvinists) or human babies instead of human fetuses.

                  I do not concede personhood to animals because animals are not humans. I do not ascribe personhood to animals merely because they’re cuddly or cute. Normally, the cuddliest animals happen to be the most delicious.

                  1. You appealed to pathos, so I replied in kind. Now you are switching to deontology. OK, fine.

                    How about tumors? Tumors have human DNA, but are they persons? You fail to acknowledge there is a difference between a human and a person. Personally, I think a person needs a developed brain.

                    1. How developed? Third trimester? Age 25? Something else?

          2. Is it actually this impossible for you to understand that some of us don’t think fetuses are people? Because if it is, you quite simply do not have the intellectual capacity to discuss this issue with someone who fundamentally disagrees with you.

            1. Is it actually this impossible for you to understand that some do think fetuses are people? Because if it is, you quite simply do not have the intellectual capacity to discuss this issue with someone who fundamentally disagrees with you.

              1. Hahahahaha, it’s adorable that you think that actually means something when I wasn’t the one in the first place prefacing my argument with the following:

                would you take the route of the moral coward and simply dismiss the personhood of the fetus

                1. The deal is that logical reasoning starts from postulates or axioms, i.e. assertions accepted without proof. The abortion arguments, pro and con, assume somewhere that a fetus is

                  1. human and has the same human rights as ENB
                  2. not human and has no rights
                  3. a human, or sort of human whose rights are subordinate to those of the mother

                  Without agreement on the axioms, agreement won’t be possible via logic. No point getting heated up and arguing.

                  1. Which was my entire point, which apparently it took you this long to realize? Oh wait, no, you thought you were going to “gotcha” me, so you rushed ahead. Oops.

                    1. I simply made as clear as I could what the core of the arguments is. Natter on as you usually do,

            2. Re: Episiarch,

              Is it actually this impossible for you to understand that some of us don’t think fetuses are people?

              Is the realization of it justification ipso facto?

              Please. Spare me. I could justify the killing of ANYONE by merely dismissing the fact he or she is a person. Countless murders were so justified.

        3. So the NAP does not apply to unborn children?

          1. If it did, how would you show that it meant you should bear them rather than euthanize them before they ever achieve consciousness?

            1. Euthanize = aggression, but delivery does not?

              1. And yet in my world that looks exactly backwards.

            2. Because abortion is an agressive act.

              1. Seems to me like giving birth to someone is an aggressive act. Why do you think it’s okay to force unconsenting babies to live in the world?

                1. Pain isn’t equivalent to aggression.

                  The default for the fetus is to be born.

                  1. Purposely inflicting pain on a being who’s never hurt you seems pretty fucking aggressive to some people. Defaults are irrelevant.

                    1. So a child bitten by a rabid raccoon that received the painful vaccine was a bad thing!

                      And you aren’t inflicting it, you are allowing it to happen.

                      Purposely ending the life of someone that has never hurt you seems a bit worse.

                    2. And you aren’t inflicting it, you are allowing it to happen.

                      I thought everyone agreed that pregnancies were the result of sex, and everyone is responsible for that result? You’ve engaged in behavior that can have terrible consequences. Take responsibility for those consequences.

                      Purposely ending the life of someone that has never hurt you seems a bit worse.

                      Why, if you can do it painlessly before they ever achieve consciousness? In what way is the fetus harmed by never having come into being at all? There’s simply no one to harm in that case.

                    3. Not in the case of rape but otherwise I think we agree on that.

                      Once you have engaged in the behavior (unprotected sex) there are known consequences to that. If you do not want the consequences then don’t engage in the behavior. To not do so means ending a life on multiple lives.

                      When do you think a fetus achieves consciousness? At birth? When does a fetus start feeling pain? Never?

                  2. The default for the fetus is to be born.

                    The default for the fetus is to not exist.

                    1. And yet there are billions of human fetuses that ended up being born currently alive on this planet.

              2. It is? Please explain.

          2. If you, like others here, insist on pretending that there aren’t a lot of people who do not consider fetuses to be “children” or people, then it’s pointless to engage with you. And you wonder why you don’t get taken seriously.

            1. Under what other situation do you get to Dr ode whether the other human is a person?

              Furthermore, the arguments against personhood for the unborn have a tendency to be highly situational and irrational.

              1. Furthermore, the arguments against personhood for the unborn have a tendency to be highly situational and irrational.

                Oh god the projection, I love it. You can’t make this stuff up.

                1. So you’ve got nothing, eh?

            2. Just remember that there are people on the other side of the argument who find it just as pointless to engage with your side, which is why the issue is political.

            3. So let’s assume a fetus is not a person. It is a mass of cells. Maybe it becomes a person. Maybe not. But it currently is not a person. I walk down the street and shoot a pregnant woman with my “aborter” ray gun. And the fetus is painlessly abor…euthanized. That mass of cells was inside the woman but was not a part of the woman. And ot definitely is not a person. And if the woman can kill it without violating the NAP what is my punishment? $50 fine? If you cut one of my trees down without permission that is about what you would pay.

      2. You can ignore what I wrote and read into it what you will. That’s your right. But I was plainly riffing on TFA itself, so bzzzzZZZT! not even a nice try.

      3. Yes, Roe/Wade was wrongly decided. There is no “right to privacy” written in the Constitution.

        Abortion rights should be based on the plain, written text of the 13th Amendment.

        If the government forces a woman to grow an unwelcome pregnancy and to endure full-term labor and delivery against her will, the government thereby imposes a condition of temporary involuntary servitude upon her. The 13th Amendment prohibits involuntary servitude, and makes no exception for involuntary gestational servitude nor for involuntary obstetric servitude.

        Properly interpreted, the 13th Amendment would require abortion to be legal at all stages of pregnancy, right up until the fetus emerges from the birth canal.

        1. 13A also then allows parents to abandon a 6-year old kid at the mall. For good. Without recourse. Cos slavery.

          1. A six-year-old kid is not located inside the parent’s body, not helping itself to the contents of a parent’s body or bloodstream, and not preparing to subject the parent to major medical/surgical trauma.

  5. I just came here to say immigration.

    1. Deep dish, Christian bakeries sued by gays, circumcision

      1. Kim Davis Kim Davis Kim Davis

        1. You can keep saying her name into your bathroom mirror all you want but she’s not going to appear

          1. How else to turn a “would” into a “have”? Perhaps we will be treated to a Crusty Does KY show.

    2. Until Reason, I always thought abortion simply meant abandoning a ship or plane or killing a plan.

    3. Pregnancy is a type of immigration, if you think about it. A sperm comes in and gets involved with someone e already there and they start building life together. Abortion is just deportation.

      1. I’ve been trying to explain that to yokels for weeks but they’re still not up for mass sterilization.

        1. The fetus could grow up to vote Democrat, so it’s best to not let them in the country in the first place.

        2. No more anchor babies!

  6. What’s up with the… uh….
    fist going through the hole?

    1. You didn’t hear? The birds were in a standoff.

    2. Even nature engages in politics, it seems.

  7. “The staff-privileges requirement would make it impossible for a woman to obtain an abortion in much of [Alabama],” wrote Myron in his decision.

    Because it so happens it is naturally impossible for an abortion clinic to obtain admitting privileges in a nearby hospital. The judge believes so, in that case it must be true.

    Never mind your feelings about abortion per s?. Just mind the logic employed by this judge. It is not merely difficult or burdensome or complicated for an abortion clinic to obtain admission privileges in a nearby hospital. Oh, no, no, NO! No, the judge concludes it is IMPOSSIBLE, at least in much of Alabama. That much is implied when he asserts that the law would make it impossible for women to obtain abortions in most of Alabama. Well, that must mean it is impossible for abortion clinics to obtain admission privileges in nearby hospitals. Not difficult; not burdensome; not time-consuming or a pain in the arse. NO, it is IMPOSSIBLE.

    I will not celebrate the judge’s decision, based on a logic so egregious.

    1. Goodness, I worry about the residents of Alabama. If hospitals are that hard to come by, it would be terrifying to get ill or require medical attention there….

      1. Hospitals aren’t that hard to come by, but abortion doctors are. The only abortion providers at three of the five clinics in the state live out of state and thus would not be able to secure admitting privileges.

        1. The only abortion providers at three of the five clinics in the state live out of state and thus would not be able to secure admitting privileges.

          I have never seen a hospital that requires that doctors live in the state to have admitting privileges. They have to be state-licensed, but not state residents. I can think of half a dozen, off the top of my head, on our medical staff who aren’t state residents. Its probably a lot higher, because we do a lot of work with out-of-state snowbirds based on orders from their out-of-state doctors.

          Maybe its different in Alabama, but I doubt it.

          1. Read the opinion. The rules and bylaws of the hospitals in question required staff with admitting privileges to both live and practice within a sufficiently circumscribed area that the court found none of those doctors would have been granted privileges.

            1. Alright, I looked at the opinion. It is a weird Alabama thing, I guess.

              The bigger obstacle, I suspect, is that in order to have privileges to perform OB/GYN pocedures at the hospital, you have to be a board-certified OB/GYN. There may also be an issue with whether the hospital requires active status to have those privileges, and if so whether that status requires a minimum number of procedures at the hospital.

              Which, I note, are all legitimate quality-control issues. As admitted by the judge.

    2. We’re really going to miss you at the after-party.

    3. It often is impossible, because abortion obsessed weirdos protest/attack/try to decertify hospitals who extend privileges to abortion clinic doctors. Much the same reason abortions aren’t performed in hospitals, but rather off-site clinics, in the first place.

      It’s like breaking someone’s arm and then passing a law against having a broken arm.

      1. Re: Sugarfree,

        It often is impossible, because abortion obsessed weirdos protest/attack/try to decertify hospitals who extend privileges to abortion clinic doctors.

        No, that would make it difficult. Maybe it is difficult to obtain admission privileges in a nearby hospital but the fact that there are “abortion-obsessed weirdos” is not a LOGICAL justification to conclude that it is impossible to obtain admission privileges. The judge concluded it is impossible for something to happen.

        1. What part of

          Based on trial testimony from the current abortion doctors and from abortion-clinic administrators and representatives of local hospitals, as well as the language in the bylaws of local hospitals,the court finds that none of the current abortion doctors at the plaintiffs’ clinics would be able to obtain the necessary staff privileges, even if they applied.

          is so hard to understand?

          1. Re: Just say Nikki,

            What part of

            Based on trial testimony from the current abortion doctors

            is so hard to understand?

            What part of “they can say anything” don’t you understand? People can say anything.

            1. Yeah, I’m sure their testimony about where they live was false.

              1. Re: Just say Nikki,

                Yeah, I’m sure their testimony about where they live was false.

                Not false. Just exaggerated.

                “Oh, the burdens you impose upon me! What is this world coming to? Woe is me!” – who says that’s a lie?

          2. Based on my son’s testimony, it is impossible to get an A, or even a B+ in Ms Westphal’s class trigonometry class

          3. as well as the language in the bylaws of local hospitals,the court finds that none of the current abortion doctors at the plaintiffs’ clinics would be able to obtain the necessary staff privileges,

            That’s the only place to find language that it is impossible to get on staff. I’d be curious to know just what is in these bylaws. Because I can’t think of anything I’ve seen in hospital/medical staff bylaws that would prohibit a qualified doctor from getting on staff, regardless of where they live.

            1. Because I can’t think of anything I’ve seen in hospital/medical staff bylaws that would prohibit a qualified doctor from getting on staff, regardless of where they live.

              They have rules about where they can live and practice. Parts of those rules are quoted in the opinion. I’m not going to enact more of the labor of actually fucking reading it.

              1. Nikki: the only proggy anarchist known to man.

                The residency requirements do circle back to the same old issue, though:

                If they illegal restrict a woman’s right to get an abortion because no resident doctors perform them, why don’t they illegally restrict the right to get any number of other procedures because no resident doctors perform them?

                1. They do. Rational basis sucks.

                  1. So, you’re saying the government should prohibit hospitals from having residency requirements?

                    That’s an odd stance for an anarchist to take.

                    1. Um, no. I don’t think the state should be involved in medical licensing. Smash the cartel.

                    2. Re: Just say Nikki,

                      Um, no. I don’t think the state should be involved in medical licensing. Smash the cartel.

                      That;s an entirely different argument. I still have to ask why would these requirements be so onerous if abortion is so safe? My skeptical mind requires extraordinary evidence and not mere sob stories of woe.

                    3. I still have to ask why would these requirements be so onerous if abortion is so safe? My skeptical mind requires extraordinary evidence and not mere sob stories of woe.

                      It seems more like your retarded mind ignores all evidence. Your first sentence quoted here alone makes no sense: regulations are more onerous if the procedure in question is safe.

                    4. This isn’t medical licensing imposed by the state. These are hospital’s own internal standards for their medical staff.

                      You said that residency restrictions imposed by hospitals illegally restrict the right to get medical procedures, at least, that’s how I read this exchange:

                      RCD:

                      why don’t they [residency requirements] illegally restrict the right to get any number of other procedures because no resident doctors perform them?

                      N:

                      They do. Rational basis sucks.

                      That sounds like you are saying all residency requirements for hospital staff membership should be struck down by the courts for imposing an undue burden. Am I misunderstanding?

        2. Keep in mind, whether its “impossible” or not turns out whether there are qualified doctors living in the hospital’s area.

          If there are, its perfectly possible to get on staff. So its not really impossible, its just not happening today, which can change at any time.

          The judge still over-egged the pudding.

          1. So its not really impossible, its just not happening today, which can change at any time.

            There are five abortion clinics in the state and they can’t pull enough in-state doctors even for that number. It seems perfectly reasonable not to depend on that changing.

            1. So the problem is largely one of abortion doctor shortage.

            2. “Perfectly reasonable not to depend on that changing” means “highly unlikely”, which is a long way from “impossible”.

    4. ust mind the logic employed by this judge. It is not merely difficult or burdensome or complicated for an abortion clinic to obtain admission privileges in a nearby hospital. Oh, no, no, NO! No, the judge concludes it is IMPOSSIBLE, at least in much of Alabama.

      If you had actually read the opinion, you might know the reasoning for that. Of course, it makes far more sense to assume that a short blog post included all of the relevant legal and practical reasoning in the case.

      1. Nikki is the best.

      2. Re: Just say Nikki,

        If you had actually read the opinion, you might know the reasoning for that.

        I don’t think you understand the problem, Nikki. You can justify the decision saying that the burdens imposed on abortion clinics makes it more difficult for women to obtain abortions, albeit that leaves the problem of defining how much burden is too much. But that is NOT what the judge WROTE. That judge concluded that the law would make it impossible for women to obtain abortions in most of Alabama, which implies that it is impossible for abortion clinics to obtain admission privileges in nearby hospitals. Such conclusion would require a level of knowledge that not even God has seen.

        it makes far more sense to assume that a short blog post included all of the relevant legal and practical reasoning in the case.

        Really? Are you saying Elizabeth misquoted the judge?

        1. But that is NOT what the judge WROTE. That judge concluded that the law would make it impossible for women to obtain abortions in most of Alabama, which implies that it is impossible for abortion clinics to obtain admission privileges in nearby hospitals. Such conclusion would require a level of knowledge that not even God has seen.

          Um, not really. It only required the court to look at the bylaws of local hospitals.

          Really? Are you saying Elizabeth misquoted the judge?

          No, I’m saying she didn’t reprint the entire opinion.

          1. Re: Just say Nikki,

            It only required the court to look at the bylaws of local hospitals.

            Again, that in itself is NOT sufficient to conclude that something is impossible. Who can say if hospitals change their ‘bylaws’ tomorrow? Who said they’re immutable? That’s not a reasonable conclusion.

            I’m saying she didn’t reprint the entire opinion.

            I read the opinion. I only quoted what Elizabeth quoted because I did not see how the opinion justified the conclusion, as clearly as she did not need to place the complete opinion because she’s convinced it did justify the conclusion.

  8. So placing restrictions on a business is unconstitutional? Wonderful. I eagerly await the overruling of licensing boards, trade organizations, and various other government supported restrictions on commerce.

    Oh, wait, regulation is only bad if it limits abortion?? Hmmmm.

    1. Churches get out of zoning laws all the time. Rational basis review blows, but don’t pretend abortion is the only thing getting higher scrutiny.

      1. What other medical procedure is getting this level scrutiny from the regulations affecting it?

        1. Circumcision.

          1. Well, that does not help the argument that abortion is not a secularist sacrament

            1. Is that relevant to this subthread?

              1. As far as I am aware most circumcisions not done for religious reasons occur in hospitals. I have my doubts that circumcision are generally unregulated.

                1. It’s a cosmetic procedure doctors will perform without the consent of the patient, and you don’t think that’s a significant exception to normal medical regulations.

                  And “most” is irrelevant. They can be performed by mohels, and are.

                  1. Medical procedures done on children are by defintion without the consent of the patient. Pediatrics as a field would not exist if it required the consent of the patient rather than the patient’s guardians.

                    1. Fortunately for pediatricians, most of their activities aren’t cosmetic. How many kids do you know whose parents get them rhinoplasty without their consent? Boob jobs?

                    2. Circumcisions were not done for purely cosmetic reasons.

                  2. The patient’s consent is given by proxy. Parents can consent to ANY medical procedure on behalf of their small children.

            2. Shift those goalposts! Go man go!

          2. And circumcision is exactly as far as lack of regulation of medical procedures goes.

  9. in the future, there will only be genetically-selected test tube babies and all of this nonsense will be forgotten.

  10. HOW DARE anyone regulate the Abortion Industry!

    Can’t get a colonoscopy in a clinic that doesn’t have a hallway that will accomodate an ambulance crew and a gurney by a doctor without admitting privileges, can’t get your ears pierced without parental permission, or your teeth whitened by someone without 6 years postgraduate training. And don’t Even get me started on hair braiding…

    1. I don’t know where you came from, but let me fill you in. We don’t like government regulation around here.

      1. Except that Lizzie and many of her faker colleagues don’t simply believe in unregulated abortion, she thinks that the dumb schmuck taxpayers should have to foot the bill for her abortion and birth control too.

      2. The part where you can’t perform medical procedures without a medical license, or in a ramshackle building that won’t accommodate gurney traffic in the halls, or without a hospital affiliation if something goes wrong – is OK by most people, even Libertarians.

        1. Those sound like shitty people and libertarians.

        2. The part where you can’t perform medical procedures without a medical license, or in a ramshackle building that won’t accommodate gurney traffic in the halls, or without a hospital affiliation if something goes wrong – is OK by most people, even Libertarians.

          Huh? I thought libertarians might argue in favor of allowing individuals to make their own choices without any government interference?

          Funny, the notions I get.

        3. In cases other than abortion, wouldn’t all of those be decisions best left to the consumer?

          Yes, all of that sounds bad. If it’s the difference between a $1,000 procedure and a $15,000 procedure, then it might be a risk someone is willing to take.

          1. My position is that, in all cases, including abortion, those decisions should be left to the private sector.

            What grinds my gears is the double standard favoring abortion, and disfavoring all other medical procedures.

          2. “If it’s the difference between a $1,000 procedure and a $15,000 procedure, then it might be a risk someone is willing to take”

            ^ This.

            I would have a colonoscopy in a cardboard box in an alleyway if it save me $14,000.

            1. “I would have a colonoscopy in a cardboard box in an alleyway if it save me $14,000.”

              I have one of those fiberscopes for working on cars. I’ll do it for $500, but you have to bring your own cardboard.

        4. If both parties are doing it by mutual consent, I am fine with all of it: medicine without a license or getting a medical procedure done in a shack. People should be free to choose price over quality, even if it is a risk to their health. That is why we allow people to eat Twinkies and smoke.

  11. If Roe had really been decided on the basis of a general right to personal autonomy, it would have at least had real positive effects on liberty. Roe, however, was not decided on that basis no matter what the actual opinion claims. Roe v. Wade never to my knowledge ever translated to any generalized recognition of personal autonomy.

    1. Abortion “rights” are nothing but a special handout to women’s groups. That is nice for them I suppose. But it is not really much of an improvement in freedom. It is just a indulgence given by our rulers to a preferred group. It could be taken away at any time and it is in no way will ever translate into other freedoms.

      1. Instead of women’s groups “women’s groups” you should say “modern feminists.”

        Feminism is to women as Islamism is to Muslims.

      2. And banning slavery was just a special handout to blacks? Guess what, John, every freedom is a “special handout” to the group to which that freedom is relevant, if your view is that rights are government handouts.

    2. “If Roe had really been decided on the basis of a general right to personal autonomy, it would have at least had real positive effects on liberty.”

      Government is implacably hostile to personal autonomy, which is why Roe was decided as it was.

  12. So, if as I presume the judge defers to the U.S. Supreme Court in all things:

    If the right to abortion is like the right to keep and bear arms, then I suppose that the states could prohibit anyone who has ever been convicted of a felony, or civilly committed to a mental institution, from having abortions?

    1. And pursuing the analogy further, I suppose we should have a special “Bureau of Dangerous Surgeries” like the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives – that is, a special police force to monitor the abortion business?

      1. Or perhaps the judge used this retarded and illogical talking point because when reported in the media, it can be portrayed as a clever zinger putting those right-wingers in their place?

    2. If the right to abortion is like the right to keep and bear arms,

      Its not completely settled yet, but I believe the right to an abortion gets a higher level of protection than the right to keep and bear arms, at least if you are talking about the level of judicial scrutiny applied.

      1. In many parts of the country, a woman can get a legal, taxpayer-funded abortion more easily than a guy can buy a legal gun on his own dime.

        Which is exactly how the Elizabeth Nolan Browns of the world like and want it. Nothing would make her shit her little panties faster than if Cletus the white Christian redneck Trump supporter from rural Texas could want into some government store named “Planned Defense” and buy a gun on her dime with no background check or waiting period or anything.

        1. In many parts of the country, a woman can get a legal, taxpayer-funded abortion more easily than a guy can buy a legal gun on his own dime.

          Citation needed. If “money is fungible” is part of this, then I paid for Cletus’s gun via his refundable child tax credit and he can go get fucked.

        2. Not only is Mike a retarded conspiracy theorist, he is apparently also a retarded mind reader and KULTUR WAR enthusiast. Well, obviously, since “KULTUR WAR enthusiast” and “retard” are synonyms.

          1. Episiarch doesn’t even have to worry about abortions, given his preference for mens’ anuses over vaginas.

            1. Well Mike, I *am* the gayest monster since gay came to Gaytown.

              Oh wait, you thought calling me a homo is some sort of an insult? Ahahahahahaha, you really are the best, Mike. The best at being retarded.

              1. We can all take some comfort though, knowing that you will never produce another human being, and that your DNA line dies along with you. That makes the world just a bit of a better place.

                1. You’re right. The fact that Episiarch isn’t interested in creating another suffering being in the world does make it a better place.

                  1. In Nikkitopia, would we hold murder trials in order to determine who to punish for killing someone, or in order to determine who to reward for killing someone?

  13. Dead.

    Babies.

  14. I did like the way the judge opened his opinion with page after page describing the hostile social environment in Alabama for abortions. Nice PR. Bad jurisprudence.

    1. It seems that the courts are easing into the argument that abortion is a positive right given it seems to be intolerable that there not be someone providing abortions in a given jurisdiction.

      1. Yeah, making sure the government doesn’t prohibit you from exercising your rights is the same as turning them into positive rights.

        1. It seems to be easy leap from the argument this judge is making to require that an abortion provider exist within a given area regardless of whether anyone is willing to provide such a service by choice.

          1. I guess it might seem that way if you didn’t read the argument, or didn’t understand argumentation.

            1. Re: Just say Nikki,

              I guess it might seem that way if you didn’t read the argument, or didn’t understand argumentation.

              Don’t just assume he didn’t. What the judge is saying is that without abortion clinics, women have NO access to abortion at all. That’s the conclusion, and it is stupid. Of course women can have abortions, any time they want.

              The judge could’ve perfectly decided against the law by simply stating that there’s no compelling evidence the requirement to have admission privileges increases the welfare of the patient and, instead, imposes an extra burden on the clinic that us unnecessary. That would not be the same as saying it makes it “impossible” for women to get abortions. That is obviously loaded language, not founded on reason.

      2. Mickey, I think that court is saying that a government requirement that means someone won’t be providing abortions in a given jurisdiction is an undue burden on the woman’s right to abort. So far, that’s not a positive right.

        It would be interesting if this was coming up as an undue burden on a physician’s right to perform abortions, but its not.

        But by focussing on rights as a function of availability, as in, your right to an abortion is violated if its not sufficiently available/convenient, its starting to look like a positive right.

        Imagine, if you will, that hospitals (as a public accommodation, which they are not, as of today) are deemed to be violating the civil rights of women (as a protected class, which they are ) if they don’t offer abortions. That’s about a half-step away from where we are today. Which is way too close.

        1. I was not saying it was there yet, just that the argument seems to be leading toward that conclusion.

          1. I tend to agree. By adding an element, via “undue burden” analysis, that looks at how easy/hard it is to get what you have a right to, its definitely looking at something that is relevant to positive rights, but not to negative rights.

            1. Indeed.

  15. Time to go after all the leftyvilles that have driven gun stores out of business with their regulations. Bring the pain to ’em.

  16. RE: Abortion Doctors in Alabama Don’t Need Hospital Admitting Privileges

    Neither do the babies they’re aborting.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.