U.S. judge rules against Louisiana abortion restrictions

[danarhea]

(Reuters) - A federal judge on Tuesday found unconstitutional a 2014 law that imposed tough restrictions on Louisiana abortion providers and threatened to close four of the state's five clinics.

The law requires physicians who perform the procedure to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles (48 km) of the place where the abortion is performed.

Another win for the Constitution of the United States. The purpose in the restrictive law was not to protect womens' health, as the lawmakers claimed, but to make abortion, which is a perfectly legal procedure, impossible in the State of Louisiana.

Article is here.

 

[digsbe]

Here's the thing about these though... States have a right to regulate medical practice. They set up boards of medicine, define legality and standards behind how one can use various healthcare licenses, and set standards of care. I think it's well within a state's right to make abortion providers have admitting privileges under the umbrella of patient safety. Even if it's a proxy behind trying to ban abortion I think it violates the state's rights to regulate healthcare, they set standards all the time for other things. Heck, this is little to nothing compared to how they regulate controlled substance medications haha.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Another win for the Constitution of the United States. The purpose in the restrictive law was not to protect womens' health, as the lawmakers claimed, but to make abortion, which is a perfectly legal procedure, impossible in the State of Louisiana.

Article is here.

This won't do much to the Talibornagains fervent desire to turn the clock back on women's reproductive rights.

Along with the CMP news and this, nice to see the troglodytes getting a bit of an ass kicking.

 

[beefheart]

This won't do much to the Talibornagains fervent desire to turn the clock back on women's reproductive rights.

Along with the CMP news and this, nice to see the troglodytes getting a bit of an ass kicking.

Hey...that's my word! But, you used it well...

 

[calamity]

This won't do much to the Talibornagains fervent desire to turn the clock back on women's reproductive rights.

Along with the CMP news and this, nice to see the troglodytes getting a bit of an ass kicking.

Inevitable results of overreaching.

 

[danarhea]

Here's the thing about these though... States have a right to regulate medical practice. They set up boards of medicine, define legality and standards behind how one can use various healthcare licenses, and set standards of care. I think it's well within a state's right to make abortion providers have admitting privileges under the umbrella of patient safety. Even if it's a proxy behind trying to ban abortion I think it violates the state's rights to regulate healthcare, they set standards all the time for other things. Heck, this is little to nothing compared to how they regulate controlled substance medications haha.

I disagree. The Supremacy clause of the Constitution says that Federal law trumps state law, and Roe v. Wade is settled constitutional law. Therefore, although the states do have the right to regulate medical practice, they cannot violate Federal law in doing so. Louisiana violated Federal law by passing a law that would pretty much end a constitutionally protected procedure for the vast majority of patients.

 

[digsbe]

I disagree. The Supremacy clause of the Constitution says that Federal law trumps state law, and Roe v. Wade is settled constitutional law. Therefore, although the states do have the right to regulate medical practice, they cannot violate Federal law in doing so. Louisiana violated Federal law by passing a law that would pretty much end a constitutionally protected procedure for the vast majority of patients.

This doesn't ban abortion, it sets standards for performing them which is well within a state's rights to regulate medicine and advance patient safety. I support first trimester abortion, but I think that the state's should be allowed to do this type of thing as it should fall legally within their scope to do so.

They already mandate that in most states anyone who gets a controlled substance filled has their name permanently added and tracked on a registry that only physicians and pharmacists can access. In some states they also mandate that before a controlled substance can be prescribed and dispensed both the prescriber and pharmacist must check that person's records. If the government can track you like that and mandate providers to check you on the database before performing a healthcare service why not mandate that abortion providers have to have admitting privileges in the event of an emergency? The alternative means they recommend the patient to go to ER and then have them admitted.

 

[Soho gator]

Here's the thing about these though... States have a right to regulate medical practice. They set up boards of medicine, define legality and standards behind how one can use various healthcare licenses, and set standards of care. I think it's well within a state's right to make abortion providers have admitting privileges under the umbrella of patient safety. Even if it's a proxy behind trying to ban abortion I think it violates the state's rights to regulate healthcare, they set standards all the time for other things. Heck, this is little to nothing compared to how they regulate controlled substance medications haha.

Not if they don't require admitting procedures for boob jobs or rhinoplasty

 

[roguenuke]

This doesn't ban abortion, it sets standards for performing them which is well within a state's rights to regulate medicine and advance patient safety. I support first trimester abortion, but I think that the state's should be allowed to do this type of thing as it should fall legally within their scope to do so.

They already mandate that in most states anyone who gets a controlled substance filled has their name permanently added and tracked on a registry that only physicians and pharmacists can access. In some states they also mandate that before a controlled substance can be prescribed and dispensed both the prescriber and pharmacist must check that person's records. If the government can track you like that and mandate providers to check you on the database before performing a healthcare service why not mandate that abortion providers have to have admitting privileges in the event of an emergency? The alternative means they recommend the patient to go to ER and then have them admitted.

It sets standards for performing abortions that are more stringent than other medical procedures, in an obvious attempt to circumvent RvW so they can restrict abortions.

 

[digsbe]

Not if they don't require admitting procedures for boob jobs or rhinoplasty

Do you support safe abortion for women? So why not support admitting privileges be standard in the event of an emergency? What if the patient bleeds/hemorrhages or has a major complication or there was an error in the procedure? Should the abortion provider have to recommend that they go to the ER or have privileges to get them care at a facility equipped to do so?

I know as well as you do it's a back handed way to restrict abortion, but the basis of it makes sense from a patient safety standpoint and from the standpoint that states may regulate medical practice and enforce safe standards. I think such ruling encroach on state's rights in the name of protecting abortion special interests.

It sets standards for performing abortions that are more stringent than other medical procedures, in an obvious attempt to circumvent RvW so they can restrict abortions.

Not all medical procedures are equal though, it's not the same as a routine pap smear or wart removal. Oftentimes for more intense things the site must be a registered surgical center with higher standards. If RvW says a state can't ban abortion or that women have the right to access one then this isn't in violation of that. They still have access and no one stops them from having one, it just means if a provider is to perform one they need admitting privileges. I think it's a little overarching but not out of the realm for the states to regulate. As I mentioned before, this is nothing compared to the stuff surrounding controlled substances. If states have the authority to do what they do there (and I fully support it) they should be able to do the same here, with this being significantly less "invasive" when it comes to privacy or rights. I can list out several laws or enhanced regulations for different medical practices, some are far more "intense" than needing admitting privileges that any hospital can hand out per their policies/contracts. Doesn't make sense for this to be "protected" due to the fact that it falls under abortion while other things are legal to regulate and even unquestioned (and rightfully so).

 

[danarhea]

This doesn't ban abortion, it sets standards for performing them which is well within a state's rights to regulate medicine and advance patient safety. I support first trimester abortion, but I think that the state's should be allowed to do this type of thing as it should fall legally within their scope to do so.

They already mandate that in most states anyone who gets a controlled substance filled has their name permanently added and tracked on a registry that only physicians and pharmacists can access. In some states they also mandate that before a controlled substance can be prescribed and dispensed both the prescriber and pharmacist must check that person's records. If the government can track you like that and mandate providers to check you on the database before performing a healthcare service why not mandate that abortion providers have to have admitting privileges in the event of an emergency? The alternative means they recommend the patient to go to ER and then have them admitted.

Actually, it does ban abortion for many, as it closes every single clinic in the state, except one.

 

[digsbe]

Actually, it does ban abortion for many, as it closes every single clinic in the state, except one.

And? A right to access abortion doesn't mean it has to be easy to access. If the law says they just need to be 30 miles from a hospital and get admitting privileges I hardly see that as closing all the clinics unless all the clinics are located extremely far away from hospitals or only in far out rural areas (and in that case it's a bit shady).

My argument is from a state's rights to regulate medicine and from a legal standpoint. Not a pro-life or pro-choice standpoint.

 

[danarhea]

And? A right to access abortion doesn't mean it has to be easy to access. If the law says they just need to be 30 miles from a hospital and get admitting privileges I hardly see that as closing all the clinics unless all the clinics are located extremely far away from hospitals or only in far out rural areas (and in that case it's a bit shady).

Doesn't mean it has to be easy access, but it cannot be impossible to access. All clinics there have pretty much full schedules. And if the only one available cannot take in more patients, then access is effectively denied, hence it's unconstitutional.

 

[sangha]

Here's the thing about these though... States have a right to regulate medical practice. They set up boards of medicine, define legality and standards behind how one can use various healthcare licenses, and set standards of care. I think it's well within a state's right to make abortion providers have admitting privileges under the umbrella of patient safety.

Here's the thing about these though...the states power to regulate medical practice is contingent on the regulations actually promoting patient safety

 

[roguenuke]

Do you support safe abortion for women? So why not support admitting privileges be standard in the event of an emergency? What if the patient bleeds/hemorrhages or has a major complication or there was an error in the procedure? Should the abortion provider have to recommend that they go to the ER or have privileges to get them care at a facility equipped to do so?

I know as well as you do it's a back handed way to restrict abortion, but the basis of it makes sense from a patient safety standpoint and from the standpoint that states may regulate medical practice and enforce safe standards. I think such ruling encroach on state's rights in the name of protecting abortion special interests.

Not all medical procedures are equal though, it's not the same as a routine pap smear or wart removal. Oftentimes for more intense things the site must be a registered surgical center with higher standards. If RvW says a state can't ban abortion or that women have the right to access one then this isn't in violation of that. They still have access and no one stops them from having one, it just means if a provider is to perform one they need admitting privileges. I think it's a little overarching but not out of the realm for the states to regulate. As I mentioned before, this is nothing compared to the stuff surrounding controlled substances. If states have the authority to do what they do there (and I fully support it) they should be able to do the same here, with this being significantly less "invasive" when it comes to privacy or rights. I can list out several laws or enhanced regulations for different medical practices, some are far more "intense" than needing admitting privileges that any hospital can hand out per their policies/contracts. Doesn't make sense for this to be "protected" due to the fact that it falls under abortion while other things are legal to regulate and even unquestioned (and rightfully so).

As I've said, if they are not requiring the same regulations do not apply to similar procedures. There are likely other similar risk procedures that do not have nearly those same restrictions placed on them. Do all orthopedic surgeons, plastic surgeons, out patient surgeons have to do this or just abortion providers? Obviously the court found the restriction to be putting a burden on abortion doctors that isn't put on other doctors.

 

[sangha]

Do you support safe abortion for women? So why not support admitting privileges be standard in the event of an emergency?

Because in a medical emergency, the care a patient receives in the ER is not affected by the doctor and whether or not they have admitting priviliges.

IOW, this rule has nothing to do with patient safety or the quality of care.

 

[danarhea]

Here's the thing about these though...the states power to regulate medical practice is contingent on the regulations actually promoting patient safety

then let's apply the law to boob jobs too, which cause more shock and trauma to the body than abortions do....... Wait, they don't apply the law to that. You can get boob jobs anywhere you want.

 

[Paleocon]

Another win for the Constitution of the United States. The purpose in the restrictive law was not to protect womens' health, as the lawmakers claimed, but to make abortion, which is a perfectly legal procedure, impossible in the State of Louisiana.

Article is here.

Just ignore the judge. Simple.

Too bad the obvious answer eludes so many state governors.

 

[digsbe]

Doesn't mean it has to be easy access, but it cannot be impossible to access. All clinics there have pretty much full schedules. And if the only one available cannot take in more patients, then access is effectively denied, hence it's unconstitutional.

It's still not "impossible" nor does it prohibit new clinics from opening to meet demand that conform to the legal standards. How do you feel about controlled substance registry databases, forcing physicians to get X DEA numbers to prescribe certain meds to treat addiction or enhanced oversight in those regards? Things are regulated in other areas that do serve public safety interest but certainly do impose burden on patients and practitioners with enhanced laws and regulations.

Here's the thing about these though...the states power to regulate medical practice is contingent on the regulations actually promoting patient safety

I can see the argument behind safety though, and that's my standpoint. Yeah I won't disagree it's a backdoor way to try and ban it, but it also makes sense. Say a woman has an abortion and there is an error or something goes wrong and she hemorrhages or is losing mass amounts of blood. Is that clinic going to keep blood to transfuse in an emergency? Are they equipped to stop the bleed or do surgical intervention if needed? Are they so far from a facility that does to the point that this may be dangerous for patients in that event? Those are valid safety concerns. However, I'd concede they need to do a proper risk assessment to determine prevalence and weigh if it's an acceptable risk or not.

 

[danarhea]

Just ignore the judge. Simple.

Too bad the obvious answer eludes so many state governors.

The district judge made this decision. So you want to ignore the judge? LOL.

 

[sangha]

then let's apply the law to boob jobs too, which cause more shock and trauma to the body than abortions do....... Wait, they don't apply the law to that. You can get boob jobs anywhere you want.

Doesn't matter. A state can decide which procedures they have a legitimate interest in regulating. The relevant point here is that those regulations must actually promote patient safety.

Whether or not a doctor has admitting priviliges in a hospital has absolutely no effect on the quality of care a hospital provides to its' emergency patients. The law requires hospitals to provide the same level of care to all patients with a medical emergency. Therefore, the defense that this law somehow promotes patient safety is revealed to be a farce

 

[danarhea]

It's still not "impossible" nor does it prohibit new clinics from opening to meet demand that conform to the legal standards. How do you feel about controlled substance registry databases, forcing physicians to get X DEA numbers to prescribe certain meds to treat addiction or enhanced oversight in those regards? Things are regulated in other areas that do serve public safety interest but certainly do impose burden on patients and practitioners with enhanced laws and regulations.



I can see the argument behind safety though, and that's my standpoint. Yeah I won't disagree it's a backdoor way to try and ban it, but it also makes sense. Say a woman has an abortion and there is an error or something goes wrong and she hemorrhages or is losing mass amounts of blood. Is that clinic going to keep blood to transfuse in an emergency? Are they equipped to stop the bleed or do surgical intervention if needed? Are they so far from a facility that does to the point that this may be dangerous for patients in that event? Those are valid safety concerns. However, I'd concede they need to do a proper risk assessment to determine prevalence and weigh if it's an acceptable risk or not.

Same risk with boob jobs and face lifts, which cause even more trauma than a simple abortion. They didn't seek to restrict those, did they?

 

[digsbe]

Because in a medical emergency, the care a patient receives in the ER is not affected by the doctor and whether or not they have admitting priviliges.

IOW, this rule has nothing to do with patient safety or the quality of care.

But if an ER say is 75 miles away and it's going to take 2-3 hours to receive care is that not dangerous? If anything the proximity requirement to a hospital makes the most sense to me.

Same risk with boob jobs and face lifts, which cause even more trauma than a simple abortion. They didn't seek to restrict those, did they?

I'd be shocked if to do a boob job or any kind of procedure like that that the site doesn't need to be registered as a surgical center with specific oversight. Do abortion clinics in Louisiana need to be registered as surgical centers?

Look, I'm not saying that the law isn't a backdoor way to try and ban abortion or make it harder to get one. But the requirements in the law aren't unreasonable from a legal standpoint and I think it's rejection largely lies with the fact that it deals with abortion with abortion being considered falsely "special" compared to other procedures and medical practices. It's about enforcing special interests, not following the established laws or rights of the state.

 

[danarhea]

Doesn't matter. A state can decide which procedures they have a legitimate interest in regulating. The relevant point here is that those regulations must actually promote patient safety.

Whether or not a doctor has admitting priviliges in a hospital has absolutely no effect on the quality of care a hospital provides to its' emergency patients. The law requires hospitals to provide the same level of care to all patients with a medical emergency

Not if they unconstitutionally end a lawful procedure in the process.

 

[danarhea]

But if an ER say is 75 miles away and it's going to take 2-3 hours to receive care is that not dangerous? If anything the proximity requirement to a hospital makes the most sense to me.



I'd be shocked if to do a boob job or any kind of procedure like that that the site doesn't need to be registered as a surgical center with specific oversight.

They have specific oversight. However, no admitting privileges whatsoever are required.