>>Thomas-you have to understand that the goal of the people writing and passing these laws is to eliminate abortion. They can't pass laws to prohibit it, so they're doing everything they can to make it as hard as possible to get one. Sadly, the courts seem to be allowing this crap to stand.
>
>Tamar, I am generally pro-choice (in the first 2 trimesters), but it's important to remember some of the history that has led to what we have today. I agree that some of the proposed legislation in certain states is intended to eliminate abortion. But some of it is an attempt (a rather strident one) to undo some of the social and political damage done by certain politicians, certain doctors, and Planned Parenthood.
>
>The Kermit Gosnell case in Philadelphia is a prime example. This man went unchecked for years in violating state laws on performing abortions after 24 weeks. Grand Jury testimony brought out that the Ridge Administration was afraid to go after Gosnell, for fear of being vilified by vocal feminist/abortion rights groups. Grand Jury testimony also brought out that Planned Parenthood referred women who wanted to have elective late-term abortions to Gosnell (even while knowing what a butcher shop it was) on the condition that the patient would never say that Planned Parenthood sent her. So certainly "some" of what you're seeing now in states like Texas is to protect against this happening again (and yes, some of it is political payback for Planned Parenthood, who quite frankly, could use some humble pie).
>
>I know liberals (even well meaning ones) who refuse to talk about Gosnell - they are afraid to. That's part of what led to the mess to begin with.
>
>Then look at the atrocities in Kansas while Kathleen Sebelius was governor - she and the state attorney general at the time frequently looked the other way while George Tiller performed in his butcher shop. There's a trail of political contributions and blood in that entire story (and yes, Tiller was killed by an anti-abortion psycho). Again, some of the new bills being proposed are to turn the tide from reckless activity left unchecked - though I'll acknowledge that some go too far the other way.
>
Can you cite something on this? I'm not finding anything about a 'butcher shop' and George Tiller.

>One of the things I've always found disturbing about this entire topic is that many (present company might be excluded) do not even understand what's "in" the Supreme Court decisions and can only speak on the topic in highly emotional terms. What is the objection to a doctor having admitting privileges???

1) Statistically, abortion (particularly the new drug based abortions) are far safer than many other out-patient procedures.
2) Most hospitals, because of the stigma attached, will not grant abortion providing doctors admitting priviledges
3) Your personal doctor probably doesn't have admitting privileges, unless he/she is a member of that hospital's staff

Admitting privilege is the right of a doctor, by virtue of membership as a hospital's medical staff, to admit patients to a particular hospital or medical center for providing specific diagnostic or therapeutic services to such patient in that hospital. Each hospital maintains a list of health care providers who have admitting privileges in that hospital. Admitting privileges granted to a non physician is limited to treatment of patient independently, and admission of such a patient to hospital requires a physician’s order. Admitting privileges of some physicians are limited to consultative services only. (http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/admitting-privileges-health-care/)

>
>Also, I saw an interview with Wendy Davis a few months ago, and she just fell apart in trying to define late term and partial birth abortion....and ultimately concluded with, "Well, the Supreme Court says a woman has a right to an abortion at any time". Uhm, no, it never said that.
>
>There's also a good amount of misreporting on the issue. Anytime I hear a news story from MSNBC on abortion, I'll verify it, because I know there's a good chance their story is misleading or even wrong. The other day they tried to get people to believe that Alaska was pushing through a bill that would outlaw all abortions at any stage unless there was a documented medical reason. The actual bill is setting medical reason limits on abortions funded through State Medicaid. BIG difference.

Ummmm....no. It's actually stating that the ONLY way for a low-income woman to get an abortion in Alaska is for there to be something medically wrong. Therefore, no abortion by choice. Also, there was a provision in the bill for providing family planning information and contraceptives (the whole idea of preventing unwanted pregnancies BEFORE an abortion becomes a choice) but that was stripped out. So, you wanna try again?


>
>So again, some of the "crap" you're seeing is partly due to irresponsible behavior and "look the other direction" attitudes.

No again, this is still some of the crap we're seeing.