"There will almost certainly be irreparable harm to those women who will be foreclosed from having an abortion in the next week either because of the undue burden of travel or the late stage of pregnancy, as well as facing increasing health risks caused by delay," the judge wrote. "Since the state has failed to date to demonstrate any benefit to maternal health of imposing this restriction, there is no meaningful counterweight recognized by the United States Supreme Court to justify the act's immediate enforcement."
८ जुलै, २०१३
Federal judge stays enforcement of the Wisconsin abortion law.
"After a hastily called hearing, a federal judge Monday put a 10-day freeze on a new state law requiring doctors who perform abortions to have hospital admitting privileges."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३ टिप्पण्या:
Sorry comments aren't open during Comments Vacation.
from Michelle Dulak Thomson:
Enh. ""Since the state has failed to date to demonstrate any benefit to maternal health of imposing this restriction[,]"
Can we agree not to call the pregnant woman a mother unless we're willing to call the fetus a child? There isn't anything "maternal" here unless you are treating the fetus as a child.
As for the benefits to the health of the pregnant woman, there are risks to the woman during abortion, especially late-term, and some can be life-threatening. I don't see why it's unreasonable to connect clinics to hospitals, especially as among the other things besides injury to the woman that might happen in a late-term abortion, there is possible birth of a premature infant. I doubt that most abortion clinics have a neonatal set-up. They much prefer dead delivery, and strive for it. But they do nonetheless get live delivery, sometimes, and then they are morally and professionally obligated to get the living human being to competent medical care ASAP.
from Henry:
I was curious about how dramatic a restraint "hospital admitting privileges" actually was. I would suggest to small government conservatives that no matter the politics of abortion, having the state force doctors to kowtow to hospitals, who have their own kowtowing to do, to insurers and the state and the Feds, may not actually generate better health outcomes. However, my Google search turned up irony instead of facts:
Under what circumstances can I sue both the doctor and hospital? And when can I only sue the doctor?
The medical malpractice attorneys are on the job. And they want hospitals on the hook.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा