Court file shows confusion over drs hospital admitting privileges required by law

[minnie616]

Court file shows confusion over Wisconsin abortion regulation law

July 26,2013

A doctor who filed an affidavit in support of Wisconsin's new abortion regulations provided a federal court with inaccurate information on how difficult it would be for doctors who perform abortions to obtain the hospital admitting privileges required by the law.

The situation highlights the confusion about whether these doctors will be able to gain the privileges they will need if the suspended law is upheld in court.

Matthew Lee, a member of the credentials committee at Wheaton Franciscan St. Joseph Campus in Milwaukee, said in the court declaration he filed last week that many religiously affiliated hospitals across the state could be open to granting such doctors admitting privileges.

But the hospital he works at is not. The chief medical officer for Wheaton Franciscan Healthcare said this week that as a Catholic institution, it would not grant privileges to doctors who perform abortions.

And a spokeswoman for the Columbia St. Mary's Health System said that organization also would deny privileges to physicians who perform abortions "as a matter of our Catholic identity."

The new law, known as Act 37, requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within a 30-mile radius of their clinics. The law passed the Wisconsin Legislature on June 14 and was signed into law by Gov. Scott Walker on July 5. Abortion clinics promptly sued Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen and a slew of other officials with the authority to enforce the legislation.

U.S. District Judge William Conley has blocked the law from going into effect twice, most recently about a week ago. Conley said July 18 that the state must prove it has a legitimate interest in requiring doctors who provide abortions to have admitting privileges. He will decide by next week whether to issue a preliminary injunction blocking the law for months and has scheduled a trial for Nov. 25 on the act's constitutionality.

Read more:

Court file shows confusion over Wisconsin abortion regulation law

 

[Scrabaholic]

Not very 'prolife' for these hospitals to refuse, IMO. The doctors aren't asking for admitting privilleges to perform abortions there so there's no valid reason for them to be denied.

 

[minnie616]

In The News:
Judge temporarily bars Alabama from enforcing key provision in new abortion law

By CNN Staff
updated 10:42 AM EDT, Thu July 25, 2013

CNN) -- A federal judge has issued a temporary restraining order that blocks Alabama from enforcing a key portion of a new abortion law that requires doctors at an abortion clinic to have admitting privileges at a local hospital.
U.S. District Judge Myron H. Thompson's ruling on Tuesday puts on hold what is considered the lynchpin of Alabama's new abortion law, which is considered one of the toughest in the nation.

Thompson barred the state from enforcing that portion of the law until March 2014, a month after oral arguments are scheduled in a lawsuit brought against the state's attorney general by Planned Parenthood.

In conservative states, abortion pushback with an eye toward Roe v. Wade


The state has argued the measure is designed to protect the health of a patient. The plaintiffs call it medically unnecessary due to the safety of abortion procedures and said enforcement of the section will force them to shut down.


Thompson's order comes just days after federal judges in Wisconsin and North Dakota blocked those states from enforcing new abortion laws.

Read more:

Judge temporarily halts enforcement of Alabama abortion law - CNN.com

 

[kerussll]

This is nothing but red tape. No point to it. So frustrating and sad.

 

[joko104]

The government should cut off all funding to "religious" hospitals that set their medical practices on religious doctrines. That mean NO Medicare, Medicaid nor any federal assistance money. They should not be allowed to declare "we only treat people who follow our religious doctrines" while at the same time saying "gimme! gimme! gimme!" to the government for money. The government should not be allowed to use government money to finance and support exclusive religious doctrines.

Just like there are those that say tax money should not be spent on abortions, tax money also shouldn't be spent on opposition to them - giving money to a religious organization that tells women: "No, we won't do a $500 abortion, we will only do a $10,000 birthing as your ONLY choice because that's God's law - and then we will bill the government for it." That should not be financed by the government.

 

[SassySmartie]

The government should cut off all funding to "religious" hospitals that set their medical practices on religious doctrines. That mean NO Medicare, Medicaid nor any federal assistance money. They should not be allowed to declare "we only treat people who follow our religious doctrines" while at the same time saying "gimme! gimme! gimme!" to the government for money. The government should not be allowed to use government money to finance and support exclusive religious doctrines.

Just like there are those that say tax money should not be spent on abortions, tax money also shouldn't be spent on opposition to them - giving money to a religious organization that tells women: "No, we won't do a $500 abortion, we will only do a $10,000 birthing as your ONLY choice because that's God's law - and then we will bill the government for it." That should not be financed by the government.

Hear, hear. I completely agree.

 

[minnie616]

The government should cut off all funding to "religious" hospitals that set their medical practices on religious doctrines. That mean NO Medicare, Medicaid nor any federal assistance money. They should not be allowed to declare "we only treat people who follow our religious doctrines" while at the same time saying "gimme! gimme! gimme!" to the government for money. The government should not be allowed to use government money to finance and support exclusive religious doctrines.

Just like there are those that say tax money should not be spent on abortions, tax money also shouldn't be spent on opposition to them - giving money to a religious organization that tells women: "No, we won't do a $500 abortion, we will only do a $10,000 birthing as your ONLY choice because that's God's law - and then we will bill the government for it." That should not be financed by the government.

You bring up a very good point.
Hospitals in the USA are run by companies for profit.
I recently read an article that the royal birth cost about $10,000 whereas the average birth in the USA cost about $ 20,000.
Since the hospitasl in the USA are run for profit ...

It is any wonder why most hospitals will not perform abortions nor allow abortion doctors to have admitting privileges ?
$ 400 to $1,000 for an abortion vs $10,000 to $20,000 for childbirth.

It does not take a math genius to figure out which medical procedure has the higher profit range.