Patterico's Pontifications

2/25/2011

Liberals Suddenly Notice That Regulation Can Strangle Otherwise Legitimate Business

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 9:22 am



[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]

One of the big stories in my state this morning is that the Virginia Assembly just passed a law stating that doctor’s offices where abortions are regularly performed would be considered to be hospitals, and subject to the same regulatory requirements.  You have to think that this was either, prompted by or capitalizing on Kermit Gosnell scandal that rocked Philadelphia not too long ago.  Now a lot of you know I work for a health care provider, but bluntly I don’t work for hospitals and therefore I am not terribly familiar with their regulatory requirements, except to know that Virginia is on the lower end of regulatory control—especially compared to its neighbor, the People’s Republic of Maryland.  Still you can read the regulations that apply to hospitals, here.  I haven’t read every word, but most of it strikes me as non-controversial, requiring hallways to be sufficiently wide for safety purposes, requiring certain protocols for the sterilization of equipment, and so on.  And it is not a given that the regulations will be exactly as harsh as it is for hospitals.  Libertarian types might object to much of it and I myself have gone on record generally preferring a liability approach to regulation—that is, making sure that they pay when something goes wrong, instead of big government dictating every detail of your practices.  But the critical issue is, is whether there is a reason why abortion should not be subject to the same regulation.

For instance, take this regulation on sterilization:

12VAC5-410-250. Sterile supply service.

A. Each hospital shall operate a sterile supply service or provide for the processing, sterilizing, storing, and dispensing of clean and sterile supplies and equipment.

B. Facilities shall be provided for the cleaning, preparation, sterilizing, aeration, storage and dispensing of supplies and equipment for patient care.

C. Areas for the processing of clean and soiled supplies and equipment shall be separated by physical barriers.

D. Written procedures shall be established subject to the approval of the Infection Control Committee for all sterile supply service functions including:

1. Procedures for all sterilizing and for the disposal of wastes and contaminated supplies; and

2. Procedures for the safety of personnel and patients.

So they aren’t really giving them a blow-by-blow on what to do, but instead they are mostly just saying, “come up with procedures.”  And, um, shouldn’t they be doing that anyway? And if you are libertarian enough to find that objectionable, then that objection applies to the entire regulatory scheme, and not just in its application to abortion clinics.

But of course this doesn’t stop the pro-choice forces from crying foul.  In an AP story that is remarkably entitled “Va. OKs bill to likely close most abortion clinics” (yeah, no bias there), the author starts right off by saying:

Virginia took a big step Thursday toward eliminating most of the state’s 21 abortion clinics, approving a bill that would likely make rules so strict the medical centers would be forced to close, Democrats and abortion rights supporters said.

Gov. Bob McDonnell, a Republican and Catholic, supports the measure and when he signs it into law, Virginia will become the first state to require clinics that provide first-trimester abortions to meet the same standards as hospitals. The requirements could include anything from expensive structural changes like widening hallways to increased training and mandatory equipment the clinics currently don’t have.

(emphasis added.)  So did you catch that?  This is the Democrats’ spin on the issue, and that is put in the lede—indeed is reflected in the very title of the piece.  Sure, what media bias?

And what precisely does the fact he is a Catholic have to do with it?  John Kerry and Ted Kennedy are/were Catholics, too.  That is inappropriate in a news story and smacks of the old know-nothing conspiracy theories that American Catholics would simply do whatever the pope told them. That bigotry should have been dead and buried with the Kennedy Presidency, if not sooner.

Anyway, shouldn’t the correct approach to the story be this?

1: Va. is set to approve of a bill designed to regulate abortion clinics as hospitals.

2: The proffered purpose of the statute.

3: The Democrats’ claim this is designed to drive abortion providers out of business.

4: The Republicans’ response.

5: Any evidence, pro- or con.

But to start off the article with the Democratic spin on the facts and a gratuitous mention of the governor’s faith, rather than discussing the facts, is inexcusable.

And there is some evidence supporting the left’s thesis. To quote from the AP:

While abortion providers must be licensed in Virginia, the clinics resemble dentists’ offices and are considered physicians offices, similar to those that provide plastic and corrective eye surgeries, colonoscopies and a host of other medical procedures.

That suggests that you can carry out any cosmetic surgery procedure in a doctor’s office.  But the websites of at least two plastic surgeons don’t consider it to be the case (here and here).  I have attempted to find the actual regulation as to cosmetic surgery that applies using free resources (I never use Lexis or Westlaw for questions related to this blog), and came up empty.  Still, given that most plastic surgery is not usually covered by health insurance, plastic surgeons have a financial incentive to keep the costs low, so that more patients are willing to hire them out of pocket.  I have a hard time believing that they would be wrong on this point and needless to say I invite people to weigh in with any knowledge or expertise on this point (as I do with every issue, truthfully).

Certainly if other examples of invasive surgery are being carried out in mere “doctor’s offices” the state of Virginia will have to explain why it is treating abortion differently or risk being accused of a pro-life agenda.  And certainly comments like this from Lifenews doesn’t help:

Abortion centers in Virginia have not been subject to strict regulations for more than 20 years. The new bill the legislature approved will make sure abortion clinics are regulated as hospitals instead of physician’s offices, a move that will protect women’s health, reduce abortions, and could cause problematic abortion centers to close. The legislation gives the state’s Board of Health 280 days to write new rules for abortion businesses.

(Emphasis added.)  But the really funny part is this.  Over and over again, conservatives have said that if you regulate too much often reduce access to a thing.  Consider for instance, my own post on the subject:

The First Mistake Regulators Make…

…is to forget that those they regulate might either flee the jurisdiction or change their behavior so they are no longer under their regulation.  It’s really amazing that liberals don’t get it, because conservatives tell them all the time.  All those signs asking “Who’s John Galt?” was our hint and yet this still seems to be missed.

John Galt represents the ultimate version of that ideal, a man who organizes a strike to tear down a collectivist system.  Of course in practice it is more likely to be expressed in people not withdrawing entirely but only partially.  Of industries refusing to deal with high risk areas (see, e.g., here and here).  And of course of businesses never coming into a jurisdiction in the first place, rather than business that is already there fleeing.

And normally when making this point to liberals I feel like I am banging my head against the wall.  But in this case suddenly they get it:

Democrats and abortion rights supporters said the change would put an estimated 17 of the state’s 21 clinics out of business. Most of the clinics also provide birth control, cancer screenings and other women’s health services.

Well, first that is a bit of hyperbole.  What it is more likely to mean is that the clinics will stop performing abortion in-house, but will simply have the relevant doctor take the patient to a hospital when the abortion becomes necessary.  That’s what the plastic surgery clinics I linked to do and somehow they surive (and thrive).

And you have to love that bit about birth control, cancer screenings and so on.  Regular doctors and/or Ob/gyns do all of those services all the time.  There is literally no need for them to be done by someone who also carries out abortions on site.

But the depressing thing in all of this, is that this topic is so polarized that people can’t come together and come up with the regulations that are reasonable.  The other day I showed you, for instance, where lawmakers in South Dakota were proposing a law that would allow for the defense of the defense of others to apply to cases involving danger to a fetus.  It is amply clear that the intent of the lawmaker was to do nothing more than to say that if someone, without the consent of the mother, is attempting to harm her fetus that a third person can legally intervene to protect her.  That is not an anti-choice sentiment.  It is pro-choice, because it is respecting her right to choose not to have an abortion.

And yes, that lawmaker wrote a statute that could have been construed to allow people to kill doctors performing a legal abortion.  But it is manifestly clear, now, that this was not his intent in the first place as he has worked to rewrite his proposal to eliminate that possibility.  But rather than working with him constructively and explaining the problems in the bill and suggesting solutions, what I saw was demonization of the man.

Or take the example of Dr. Kermit Gosnell who ran that house of horrors in Philadelphia.  His clinic hadn’t been inspected for 17 years, and the grand jury says that political considerations led to that decision.  My dentist’s office is better monitored than that clinic was and there is absolutely no excuse for that.  One of the main arguments for legalized abortion is that if we don’t make it legal, women will go to the back alley, and so on.  Take for instance, this ad by Moron.org:

Well, in what way did Dr. Gosnell improve upon the back alley?

But too often the pro-choice left (and yes, I put this at their feet), are unwilling to work with the other side to pass laws that everyone can agree on: the reasonable regulation of a serious medical procedure.  They too often seem to think that if pro-lifers want it, it has to be bad.  This hyperpartisanship was so bad that as a state legislator, Obama couldn’t even support a bill outlawing infanticide.

In my mind, abortion is a pretty serious procedure.  The idea of treating it as somehow no more invasive than a teeth cleaning strikes me as wrong.  And if people are getting serious plastic surgery in a doctor’s office, that needs to end, too (I don’t mind a few botox injections, but if you are cutting a person open, it’s time to go to a hospital).  And it would seem to compromise women’s health to let them go on treating this serious procedure this way.

Finally, it is hard to find a more perfect example of the deep contradiction the left has when it comes to privacy (a.k.a. personal autonomy).  You either have a right to make your own medical decisions, or you don’t.  A rational libertarian on the issue could say, “I have the right to make whatever medical decisions I want, so long as I am not hurting another person.”  And that same libertarian might even say, “but I don’t support abortion, because I consider that fetus to be a person and thus I do not have a right to hurt it.”  In other words, abortion is the hard case, not the easy case.  Deciding whether to get an elective heart procedure that carries risks but might improve your health is the easy case under that libertarian principle.  Deciding whether to pay for expensive procedures to extend your life is an easy case.  Deciding whether to have insurance and what kind is an easy case.*  Deciding that a fetus doesn’t count as “another person” is the hard case.  Those who simultaneously support a right to an abortion and Obamacare are not correctly called pro-choice.  They are only pro-choice when abortion is involved, so they are properly characterized as pro-abortion.

And apparently even if it is at the expense of the health and life of the mother.

———————–

* And please don’t claim I hurt other people when I don’t buy insurance, because of the economic effect of that (heh) “mental activity.”  By that logic abortion hurts fully born people, too.  After all by taking those doctors away from the treatment of other maladies to provide for this procedure, they are reducing the availability of doctors.  Thus under Wickard the decision of those doctors to perform abortions and not to spend their time on other areas of medicine has a substantial effect on interstate commerce in the market for medical services.  Indeed it is easier to argue that the commerce power rightfully reaches the practice of medicine than it does sitting on your behind and not buying insurance, given that the first regulates “physical activity” and the second regulates, alas, “mental activity.”

And yes, being forced to buy insurance is a limitation of your liberty.  You could have taken the same money, saved it and when and if you needed medical services, you could have paid for it yourself.  When you hand your money over to an insurance company you hand over to them control over your medical destiny.  Doctors will prescribe a certain drug for a patient and an insurance plan will refuse to pay for it because it prefers that you take a different drug.  Then you find that the drug coverage you paid for will not cover the medicine you want, and you can’t afford it on your own because you spend all of that money purchasing a health insurance plan with drug coverage.  If you enter into this relationship voluntarily, that doesn’t implicate libertarian principles, because both parties are free to either walk away or attempt to negotiate a better deal.  But given that Obamacare forces you to buy insurance, that limitation of your freedom becomes the result of government coercion, and not free choice.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

115 Responses to “Liberals Suddenly Notice That Regulation Can Strangle Otherwise Legitimate Business”

  1. Alternate title: “your friday afternoon comment bait has arrived.”

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  2. Aaron

    Have you guys seen this:

    Wisconsin Assembly Goes Nuts-video

    ***

    madawaskan (fd190b)

  3. Sorry for the double post above-

    here is better video of it from the floor of the chamber

    actually which one is “better”…

    Video Assembly Floor

    ****

    madawaskan (fd190b)

  4. Althouse has more on it. The Assembly voted on “a bill” (not sure what) last night/this am at 1:00 after 60 hours of debate. Apparently the vote was called at short notice and many of the Dems missed the vote.

    The Dems routinely show they have zero moral compass, they just want to do what they want to do, no matter what it is, and criticize others even if they do less. They say shame on the Repubs for having a vote after 60 hours of debate- when they previously passed a tax increase with less than 24, call dirty tricks when they are the ones who left the state, complain Palin incites violence from some map but don’t mind when thir people have a picture of Walker with a bulls-eye over his face. There are no adults standing up for the Dem side.

    Shame on the Republican who acts like a Dem, that’s who deserves shame.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  5. Plastic surgeons who do procedures in their offices are subject to regulations, at least in California, that bring them up to about a surgery center for outpatient surgery. Those who choose not to upgrade their office facilities, will use a surgery center, some of which have been set up to cater to plastic surgeons with lower charges for use of the room. Here, for example, is one in Orange County. Some plastic surgeons let others use their office surgery centers for a fee.

    A busy plastic surgeon or eye surgeon will build a surgery center, often next door to the office, that meets state standards for a surgery center.

    As you can see, not all states regulate office surgery but we in Orange County have seen a number of deaths and major complications in plastic surgeon’s offices, so regulation is pretty strict. I wonder if the Virginia law might include office surgery, as I haven’t read it.

    Mike K (8f3f19)

  6. MD – my 9 year old acts more appropriately than those Dems.

    JD (0d2ffc)

  7. mad

    haven’t seen it yet, but thanks. and double posts happen. so i fixed it.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  8. Wow… that was kind of…. rambling.

    Still, I don’t see how you can say that the media reporting is “biased”. The Democrats spin is that the Virginia legislation will close abortion clinics. But then you quote the pro-life side… which has the same spin!

    So obviously both sides recognize that the bill will have the effect of closing abortion clinics. Why is the media “biased” in noting that as well?

    Anyway, this law certainly smells like an end-run around Roe v Wade if only because the regs don’t apply to other clinics where surgeries are done. So one is left to wonder whether the regulations being imposed on abortion clinics actually will improve women’s health, or if they are being imposed in order to make most clinics close down.

    For example, I’m not convinced that widening hallways impacts the health of a pregnant woman, but I guess that would depend on the amount of width the new regulations require. Frankly, if pregnant woman have to squeeze down 2 foot hallways, then those regulations make sense. On the other hand, if the new regulations require that all abortion clinics have 7 foot wide hallways, then there is a much stronger argument that the VA legislature was just being arbitrary and capricious.

    Kman (5576bf)

  9. Aaron,

    Well, just out of the language you quoted, what exactly is required of the Infection Control Committee? Does it have requirements for numbers of members and qualifications of members beyond what a typical doctor would possess? Is it required to submit meeting reports to the state? Lots of questions along that line.

    I could also see the requirement to have on-site sterilization facilities as being far more than is needed at many places. They just wouldn’t handle enough material to make it worthwhile under normal circumstances. Especially when you then couple it with whatever inspection requirements there are for such sterilization facilities.

    So yes, I could easily see applying even these, what you call non-objectionable, portions of the hospital regs to abortion providers as being unreasonable.

    Soronel Haetir (c12482)

  10. Aaron

    Thanks. FOX finally ran the chamber floor one. And, Althouse has the first one.

    madawaskan (fd190b)

  11. Kman

    > So obviously both sides

    i didn’t realize that life news spoke for everyone sponsoring the bill.

    And yes it is spin and bias. but i don’t expect you to admit that.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  12. mad

    mmmm, so they were all shouting shame. they are right. they should have been ashamed of themselves for making that idiotic display.

    I’ll probably put up something on that in a little bit.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  13. Aaron-

    Gawd I see you have kman on your six-I suggest smoke….

    madawaskan (fd190b)

  14. So yes, I could easily see applying even these, what you call non-objectionable, portions of the hospital regs to abortion providers as being unreasonable.

    Comment by Soronel Haetir

    Of course.

    Excess regulation, even in the name of safety or the environment, can go too far and strangle otherwise legit business. That’s the underlying problem with our business climate today.

    Given what we’ve heard about some abortion clinics lately, I think we should err on the side of caution. Yes, that will mean some abortion clinics close. Idiots like Kman can insist it’s an end run around the law, but it’s clear we need more safety and standards in abortion clinics.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  15. kman – The bias comes in that Dems and the their sycofants in the MBM refuse to believe that regulation harms businesses, until the business being harmed is in the business of killing babies.

    Have Blue (854a6e)

  16. if it weren’t for the republican party I could go whole entire months without thinking of fetuses… they’re very obsessive about the fetuses, and they seem to be getting more so the deeper our little country becomes mired in a sewer of spendy spendy fail

    It’s weird.

    happyfeet (ab5779)

  17. feets-

    Imagine if you had not been a fetus,
    It isn’t hard to do…

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  18. happyfeet, this isn’t really about fetuses at all. This is about abortion clinics, which are medical facilities, not being hellholes.

    And given recent events, some major reforms are probably justified. And those reforms will necessarily be costly and even too costly for some clinics to continue to operate. same as with any regulation scheme. That’s something for the left to be aware of when they throw enormous burdens on business, and it’s also something to accept from time to time.

    I do wonder if this is more than necessary, but medicine is one example where you have to err on the side of caution.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  19. Have Blue:

    kman – The bias comes in that Dems and the their sycofants in the MBM refuse to believe that regulation harms businesses…

    I was only responding to what AW wrote regarding the Associated Press’s supposed bias.

    Kman (5576bf)

  20. And given recent events, some major reforms are probably justified. And those reforms will necessarily be costly and even too costly for some clinics to continue to operate.

    From what I’ve read, the reforms that will kill 17 of 21 abortion clinics in Virginia AREN’T “justified”.

    Can anyone tell me why, for example, the hallways in a VA abortion clinic now have to be wide enough for two hospital gurneys to pass through side-by-side? (Or alternatively, why the two gurney rule is NOT required for dentist’s offices or other places where outpatient surgery is performed)??

    Kman (5576bf)

  21. Kmart the merry poofter spun itself sick last time it went all manic.

    JD (0d2ffc)

  22. Dentists offices are not like abortion clinics at all.

    Pathetic comparison. Sure, it’s very likely that the vast majority of abortion clinics are horrible places run by horrible people. Who chooses to do that for a living? No surprise that asking them to be up to the standards of a real surgical facility will not work out. They picked that profession for the same reason a lawyer defends a drunk driver. They are losers.

    Yeah, the regulation sounds very strong. Perhaps some aspects are unnecessary. That’s how government regulation works. It’s hilarious that now, all of a sudden, liberals see the need to go over regulation with a fine tooth comb and demand absolute proof of a need for every single line.

    Why shouldn’t abortion clinics have wide hallways? What if there’s a complication and you need to move a woman down a hallway on a gurney while something or someone is in that hallway? Of course the halls should be that wide.

    I didn’t hear this kind of crap from lefties when Sarbanes Oxley tried to outlaw practices that were already illegal.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  23. Dustin:

    Why shouldn’t abortion clinics have wide hallways? What if there’s a complication and you need to move a woman down a hallway on a gurney while something or someone is in that hallway?

    Are you willing to apply that reasoning to dentist’s offices, too? How about places where plastic surgery is done?

    Kman (5576bf)

  24. Kmart does not realize that its protestations are proving the point of the post.

    JD (2da347)

  25. Your emphasis added, indeed.
    Well, Aaaron, if you want to create the structure for the news story with your little outline, why not put some possible quotes in there, too. You know, just to get both sides.

    How about:

    “Why, we had no idea that this law could possibly result in any of the clinics closing,” said Sam Solon, R-Podunk. “So of course that was not our intention. That’s laughable.”

    “I don’t believe this law will lead to any clinics shutting down, it will just keep them safer and cleaner,” said Gov. McDonnell. “And for anyone to say that it might have the effect of eliminating a lot of clinics, or any clinics, well, that’s just Democrat spin. We, and this law, have no control over the business decisions of various clinics one way or the other.”

    Yeah-huh.

    One of those “w”s mixed in with the who-what-when-where etc. is WHY, when it can be clearly shown, including when it doesn’t suit your spin.

    And you always look kinda funny when you put on that journalism-professor hat.

    Larry Reilly (0e1b2d)

  26. You always look kind of funny, period, Mawy. Now, scurry on back to JournoList.

    JD (d56362)

  27. Are you willing to apply that reasoning to dentist’s offices, too? How about places where plastic surgery is done?

    Comment by Kman —

    I’ve been to a lot of dentists. Never heard of one doing anything remotely as invasive as cutting something out of a womb. I think this requirement absolutely should apply to anything where there is a serious level of surgical complication. If that’s the case for a plastic surgeon or dentist, by all means, yes.

    there are a few stories of plastic surgery horror stories, I guess. Nothing like the recent stories about horrible abortion clinics. I think the fact is that we need urgent reform of abortion clinics. We need sting operations and undercover workers to reform a wide variety of problems proven to be occurring.

    That Kman thinks this is similar to dentists is yet again pathetic.

    I totally humiliated Kman in a thread recently where he obviously and provably was lying, and he refused to admit it. A few commenters eventually noted his pattern was just to keep blathering and blathering to give the impression there was still some kind of merit left to his argument, but anyone reading his comments and my retorts concluded he is a liar.

    And now he’s worried about dentist hallways. Pathetic.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  28. Getting a filling or a crown is exactly the same as killing a baby. Brilliant, kmart.

    JD (109425)

  29. Yeah, it looks like you can’t speak objectively about abortions.

    You hate abortions; you don’t hate dental surgery or breast surgery — therefore you have no problem with heavy regulation of abortions, and are happy with the lesser regulation of the others. That’s basically what your argument boils down to.

    That’s fine… as long as you can admit that you’re targeting abortions.

    I’m not against reform of abortion clinics, but the VA legislation wasn’t written for abortion clinics. It was written for hospitals and then applied to abortion clinics at the last minute. It mostly has to do with architecture — the width of the halls, for example. Or that the number of parking spaces outside has to equal or exceed the number of beds for patients (which doesn’t make sense when applied to outpatient services).

    If the Virginia legislature was serious about wanting to improve abortion clinics, it would deal with sanitation and sterilization and other things like that. They would also have made the law apply to clinics that give second trimester abortions (but did they? No.)

    Kman (5576bf)

  30. Kmart accusing someone else of not being objective is rich in unintentional irony.

    JD (d4bbf1)

  31. If you’re making fetus foot necklaces, I don’t think sanitation is high on your list of priorities when operating an abortion clinic.

    [Ftfy, –Aaron]

    Brokeback Kmantain (e7577d)

  32. And what precisely does the fact he is a Catholic have to do with it? John Kerry and Ted Kennedy are/were Catholics, too. That is inappropriate in a news story and smacks of the old know-nothing conspiracy theories that American Catholics would simply do whatever the pope told them. That bigotry should have been dead and buried with the Kennedy Presidency, if not sooner.

    Unfortunately, it is not.

    Anti-Jewish conspiracies are alive and well.

    Michael Ejercito (64388b)

  33. Kman

    > You hate abortions;

    Really? Prove that. I mean let’s lower the bar a little for you. Prove that I believe as a policy that abortion should be completely outlawed.

    And proving I think they should be done rarely doesn’t count. After all, Billy Bob Clinton himself said they should be safe, legal and rare.

    But what I am guessing is that because I think that Roe was an idiotic and unjustified decision, that you think that means I want to ban all abortion. Because in your mind there is no separation between what you think is good policy and what you think the constitution means.

    > you don’t hate … breast surgery

    Well, I do hate breast reduction surgery.

    > therefore you have no problem with heavy regulation of abortions

    Proving you didn’t actually read the post, as usual.

    And you frankly didn’t read the law. Nor did you consider even rudimentary research on the subject. For instance you wrote:

    > They would also have made the law apply to clinics that give second trimester abortions (but did they? No.)

    Except the law already does that. in fact what it says is at the second trimester it is a crime to attempt to carry out an abortion, except in a hospital.

    Which of course means this line is lame, too:

    > but the VA legislation wasn’t written for abortion clinics.

    The legislation would have covered anywhere 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions occurred even without the first trimester abortion amendment. So it was written originally to cover abortion clinics that do those kinds abortions, and now it pretty much covers almost all of them.

    > It mostly has to do with architecture

    No, it absolutely does not. It mostly has to do with requiring the state to regulate the hospitals.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  34. Coming out of ignoring mode to make an observation or two:

    1) JD at #24 is absolutely correct. The point of the post is how legislation often has unintended consequences because people ten steps removed from the issue try to make a law so elected officials can vote on it without reading it. Usually this causes trouble for individual citizens or businesses and the elected officials who passed it can’t care less. Here we have a situation where the unintended consequences turn around and bite the libs in the butt.
    The main point of this post is the nonsense that happens when people can’t stop to think what happens when you add 2+2.

    2) Can anyone tell me why, for example, the hallways in a VA abortion clinic now have to be wide enough for two hospital gurneys to pass through side-by-side? (Or alternatively, why the two gurney rule is NOT required for dentist’s offices or other places where outpatient surgery is performed)?? Comment by Kman

    I’ll tell you why these are the regs in a hospital. If you want to find out why the VA legislature voted to make these regs cover abortion facilities, then

    Scream warning

    QUIT WASTING YOUR TIME AND OURS AND CALL THE VA LEGISLATURE MEMBERS AND ASK THEM!! DO WE LOOK LIKE MIND READERS TO YOU!!!

    These are the regs in a hospital because you need to be able to rapidly move people from one place to another before they bleed to death, die from an MI, or bottom out their pressure and die from septic shock.
    ARE THOSE GOOD ENOUGH REASONS FOR YOU?!?!?!

    Why is this requiremnent, for example, not required for a dentist’s office or outpatient surgery suite? Likely one of the following:
    1) BECAUSE THE DENTIST’S LOBBY HAS MORE MONEY AND BRIBED THE VA HOUSE TO NOT INCLUDE THEM!!
    2) BECAUSE NO ONE THOUGHT THROUGH ALL THE IMPLICATIONS, BECAUSE IT WAS, AFTERALL, AN ABORTION PROVIDOR CHARGED WITH 8 CASES OF MURDER IN PA, NOT A DENTIST!!!
    3) TO GIVE PRO-CHOICE PEOPLE SOMETHING TO SCREAM CONSPIRACY ABOUT!!!
    4) BECAUSE THE ARTERIES AND VEINS THAT CAN BE LACERATED IN THE PELVIS ARE BIGGER THAN THOSE IN THE MOUTH
    and most of all
    5) I ALREADY TOLD YOU TO ASK THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR THE LAW, I DIDN’T VOTE FOR IT, I DON’T KNOW ANY OF THE PEOPLE WHO DID VOTE FOR IT, AND, ONCE AGAIN, DO I LOOK LIKE A MIND READER?!?

    Back to ignoring mode, other things to do.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  35. AW:

    Really? Prove that. I mean let’s lower the bar a little for you. Prove that I believe as a policy that abortion should be completely outlawed.

    Uh, I wasn’t responding to you.

    Kman (5576bf)

  36. Very interesting that Larry Reilly, Kman and Solonel want Virginia abortion clinics to operate in unsanitary and unsafe conditions for their patients.

    WHY DO YOU HATE WOMEN?????????

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  37. kman

    > Uh, I wasn’t responding to you.

    well, then you should have indicated whom you were talking to. Because if you don’t, it is natural for me to assume you are directing this to the guy who wrote the post you are commenting on.

    Btw, you didn’t even mention that i proved you didn’t know what you were talking about.

    Funny, that. you can never admit when you are wrong.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  38. I could also see the requirement to have on-site sterilization facilities as being far more than is needed at many places. They just wouldn’t handle enough material to make it worthwhile under normal circumstances.

    What an odd comment ! Using unsterile devices to perform abortions used to be what everybody was against so they legalized abortion. Now, you think it’s OK to perform an abortion with unsterile instruments so why the fuss ?

    I don’t think that 90% of you, and most advocates one way or another, have any idea of what an abortion is like.

    Weird stuff !

    Mike K (8f3f19)

  39. Btw, you didn’t even mention that i proved you didn’t know what you were talking about.

    Actually, I wasn’t aware that second trimester abortions in Virginia had to be performed in hospitals.

    I realize that will be enough for you to do a victory dance and write in your diary (for later reference) about the day Kman was “wrong” because he hadn’t committed the Virginia Penal Code to memory. So take the dance, boyo. You earned it.

    Kman (5576bf)

  40. kman

    well, its not just that you didn’t know it. i didn’t know it either. but i did something you didn’t. I f—ing looked it up.

    it took all of five seconds of a search on Virginia legislative homepage.

    Not knowing is perfectly excusable. its your laziness that is the problem. you don’t read the opinions we are talking about, you don’t even read my posts before criticizing them. you criticized the law for ommitting 2nd and third trimester abortions without once considering the possibility that they didn’t do that because it was already covered.

    In addition to your 9 year stalking behavior, this is the reason why everyone hates you here. Because you are so lazy you contribute nothing to the discussion. Why bother criticizing them if you don’t bother to learn what they were actually doing?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  41. “I realize that will be enough for you to do a victory dance and write in your diary (for later reference) about the day Kman was “wrong””

    Kman – Why is today any different? You are proven wrong here every day. Your track record is safe.

    Richie Valens (ae76ce)

  42. Kman – Cal Ripken has nothing on you.

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  43. Yeah, it’s not like it was the only time Kman lied or was proven dead wrong. Usually it’s clear he simply didn’t read something (that’s clear int his thread), but very recently I bothered to interact with Kman and showed he was obviously aware he was lying, and he decided to filibuster on and on in a lame effort to show he never admits fault.

    He knows it. What a loser.

    Kman’s in favor of back alley abortions. That’s sick. I am in favor of basic medical standards for such things, at a minimum. I grant this will put back alley Kman style abortionists out of business, and I also realize we will err on the side of caution if we do this right. Oh well. I don’t mind if all abortions must take place in hospitals, btw.

    Kman’s ranting and assumptions have nothing to do with me argument, and are just another attempt to change the subject. He argues like a coward.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  44. yeah, seriously… the “day” kman was wrong? as in singular “day?” did you forget about the time you didn’t know which constitution the iowa supreme court was reading? or all the times i busted you for not reading the post? or getting facts wrong? or the law wrong? the day you were wrong? you have to be seriously deluded to think it has only happened once.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  45. GentleBeings – while kman is an eminently suitable target for oppropbrium, KMart is not – so, can we find a safeway to deride kman without impugning worthy pavilions of provender and other merchandise ?

    Alasdair (e7cb73)

  46. Kman #39 – important proverb – When in hole, STOP digging !

    Alasdair (e7cb73)

  47. you criticized the law for ommitting 2nd and third trimester abortions without once considering the possibility that they didn’t do that because it was already covered.

    C’est vrai…. but wow! Victory dances everywhere because of that!!

    And because I didn’t think to do that…. therefore I am a stalking, lying, lazy, Muslim, back alley abortionist.

    Wheeeeeee!!!! Isn’t overreaching FUN???

    Kman (5576bf)

  48. This is me ordering pizza and doing a victory dance.

    No slice of pizza for you, kman. The government will provide for all your needs.

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  49. It’s friday, the weather is awesome, and I’m out of here. You guys enjoy kman.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  50. Kman

    > And because I didn’t think to do that…. therefore I am a stalking, lying, lazy

    You are lazy because you make comments all the time when you clearly hadn’t read the post.

    you are stalking because, well, if you aren’t going to read the post why are you here?

    and you are lying because it is dishonest to pretend to know what you are talking about when you are so lazy that you don’t do even the minimum work necessary to do it.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  51. No slice of pizza for you, kman. The government will provide for all your needs.

    And as you order, daley, thank the FCC for ensuring that your cell phone call to the pizza place is not interrupted by the local radio station.

    And no doubt the pizza will get to you in one piece, thanks to regulations which ensure that the delivery person’s car is up to standard, and the driver adheres to certain safety standards.

    And as for the pizza itself, I’m sure you’ll be glad knowing that the tomatos used for the sauce were not laced with unhealthy doses of pesticides. Thank you, Department of Agriculture for developing and enforcing uniform standards for pesticide residue on raw foods. Same for the meat.

    (Just messing with you — it’s Friday)

    Kman (5576bf)

  52. fap…fap….fap….fap….fap

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  53. You are lazy because you make comments all the time when you clearly hadn’t read the post.

    You say that I haven’t read the post when I discuss things in your posts that you would rather not discuss.

    In other words, you write long rambling posts which tend to cover a dozen different topics tangentially. I may write a comment in reference to ONE of those topics, and you claim I didn’t read the post because I failed to cover ALL your topics.

    Lame.

    you are stalking because, well, if you aren’t going to read the post why are you here?

    Lameness based on a lame premise (see above)

    and you are lying because it is dishonest to pretend to know what you are talking about when you are so lazy that you don’t do even the minimum work necessary to do it.

    I don’t think that word means what you think it means. You’re like a Mad Lib Ad Hom Generator. Lazy, immoral, stalking, creepy, dishonest — these words actually have meanings.

    Kman (5576bf)

  54. Daley:

    fap…fap….fap….fap….fap

    Indeed.

    Kman (5576bf)

  55. Do you ever get dizzy or light-headed, kmart?

    JD (2da347)

  56. Here we have a situation where the unintended consequences turn around and bite the libs in the butt.

    I think part of the furor is caused by the suspicion that the consequences in this case–closing abortion clinics–were intended.

    As a side note, I can note that here in South Florida there have been a couple of deaths from plastic surgery, and from hyperbaric oxygen treatments (from a fire while it was in use), and more than a few plastic surgeries botched up enough to make the news and sometimes have the surgeon arrested (because he/she wasn’t really a surgeon, usually), but nothing similar I can remember regarding abortion clinics/providers.

    And also, here in Florida, regulation of hospitals is extremely cumbersome and instrusive. Major point–if a hospital wants to expand a facility with more beds, or provide a new service, it has get state permission, which means among other things proving that the expansion or new service is needed, and its competitors get their chance, through administrative hearings and appeals, to have the permission denied. If that were applied to an abortion clinic, it would give anti-abortion groups the opportunity to contest almost anything the clinic would do in the way of upgrading or expanding services. (I haven’t yet looked to see what level of regulation applies to plastic surgical facilities and abortion clinics here in Florida.)

    kishnevi (d6f0fc)

  57. Kmart hearts the overbearing nanny-state, except when it comes to killing babies, when all of a sudden it wants no regulations, unsterile environments, etc … Kmart hates teh womynz.

    JD (2da347)

  58. Kmart hearts the overbearing nanny-state, except when it comes to killing babies, when all of a sudden it wants no regulations, unsterile environments, etc … Kmart hates teh womynz.

    Well, as I stated above, I’m for regulations of abortion clinics PARTICULARLY to avoid those Philadelphia-like situations (although that wasn’t a regulation problem so much as an enforcement problem).

    My concern here is that many of these clinics which will be forced to close provide others services to woman besides abortions — things like breast cancer examinations, or just plain non-abortion-related pregnancy services.

    Kman (5576bf)

  59. kman

    you are lying. we all know you are lying. who do you think you are fooling.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  60. I’m new to commenting here, although I’ve been reading the blog for years. Aaron, you provide great legal explanations.

    Kman:

    Well, as I stated above, I’m for regulations of abortion clinics PARTICULARLY to avoid those Philadelphia-like situations (although that wasn’t a regulation problem so much as an enforcement problem).

    This wasn’t just an enforcement problem; it was a policy problem. You had officials who saw their jobs to inspect clinics like Gosnell’s as impeding access to abortions, something the pro-abortion crowd loves to crow about. As a result, they created the back-alley abortions they claim will come back if Roe v. Wade were overturned. These are officials who probably believed, at one time, that they wanted abortions to be safe, legal, and rare. And look what happened.

    They put their pro-abortion belief regarding access to abortion ahead of their obligations to the public. Remember this also; they didn’t just stop inspecting Gosnell’s clinic, they stopped inspecting ALL Pennsylvania abortion clinics for nearly 20 years. Who knows how many more like Gosnell are out there.

    SteveAR (aff4e4)

  61. Coming out of ignoring mode:

    I don’t care what the law closes or doesn’t close. The VA legislature can figure out the consequences of the law they passed nad decide how they want to fix it. They may even learn to think things through before they pass a bill.

    Were the “unintended” consequences actually intended? Well, stranger things have happened than a legislature getting the results they wanted. I’m not sure what they may be at the moment, but I’m sure it has happened.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  62. If that were applied to an abortion clinic, it would give anti-abortion groups the opportunity to contest almost anything the clinic would do in the way of upgrading or expanding services. (I haven’t yet looked to see what level of regulation applies to plastic surgical facilities and abortion clinics here in Florida.)

    Comment by kishnevi — 2/25/2011 @ 2:08 pm

    That sounds like a reasonable concern. Anti-abortion groups are pretty well funded and could tie them in legal knots. If this law were being applied to other outpatient clinics (as noted plastic and oral surgery), that would seem logical. I’m naturally suspicious of state legislation like this. A lot more heat than light is generated in state legislatures with regards to ‘hot button’ issues (witness the ‘birther’ bills).

    From the main post:

    In my mind, abortion is a pretty serious procedure. The idea of treating it as somehow no more invasive than a teeth cleaning strikes me as wrong. And if people are getting serious plastic surgery in a doctor’s office, that needs to end, too (I don’t mind a few botox injections, but if you are cutting a person open, it’s time to go to a hospital). And it would seem to compromise women’s health to let them go on treating this serious procedure this way.

    Aaron,
    “Teeth Cleaning” is not oral surgery, but you know that. Regarding plastic surgery, do you realize that you just championed stricter regulation of legitimate business in a post titled “Liberals suddenly notice that regulation can strangle otherwise legitimate business”?

    And if you are libertarian enough to find that objectionable, then that objection applies to the entire regulatory scheme, and not just in its application to abortion clinics.

    I’m just about libertarian enough to be suspicious of this regulation altogether, yes. I’d like my oral surgery and plastic surgery cheap and widely available. 🙂

    carlitos (01d172)

  63. “Anti-abortion groups are pretty well funded and could tie them in legal knots.”

    carlitos – Heh! And pro-choice fetus slaughtering groups are not?

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  64. daley, I certainly didn’t mean to hint that the abortion lobby isn’t strong. However, there won’t be an “anti-plastic surgery” or “anti pull my wisdom teeth” lobby litigating to death every office that wants to add 24 square feet for those services.

    carlitos (01d172)

  65. Comment by Mike K — 2/25/2011 @ 12:57 pm,

    I don’t see how operating an on-site facility has anything to do with whether sterile equipment is used. There are lots of medical providers that individually go through material that needs to be sterilized, but don’t handle enough such material to make it cost effective to do so themselves. It would not even surprise me if using outside specialty services would be safer for this work because there you don’t have someone responsible for both maintaining sterilization equipment as well as whatever else is around the office. Also, the bulk sterilizer is more likely to get regular inspections by the state, simply by virtue of how much more material would be handled and is thus likelier to maintain that equipment in proper working order.

    Soronel Haetir (c12482)

  66. Wait just a minute!

    Kman hates women? He wants women to die in unsterile abortion clinics ?

    I didn’t know this.

    Actual (460e19)

  67. I like how Kmoron supports abortion but yet belongs to a party which calls our military men and women baby killers.

    STFU with your hypocrisy please thanks.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  68. “There are lots of medical providers that individually go through material that needs to be sterilized, but don’t handle enough such material to make it cost effective to do so themselves.”

    Soronel – Certainly, they use disposables. Are you suggesting that your doctor or dentist uses non-sterile supplies? Seriously? Why would an abortion clinic object to following the same rules? I cannot believe people are questioning a requirement for abortion clinic to use sterile equipment and supplies. Do you want to encourage infections and endanger the lives of patients instead? This should be a no brainer.

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  69. Growing up my doctor used an autoclave for sterilization, but I have not seen one of those for years and years.

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  70. The Americans With Disabilities Act also imposed significant financial burdens on building owners for compliance, although there were certain escape clauses depending on the age of the building and difficulty of compliance. I would be interested in the phase in schedule of the Virginia law and whether it fell under a force majeure type clause of leased property, allowing clinics to terminate leases and relocate if landlords could not help with compliance costs.

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  71. I like how Kmoron supports abortion but yet belongs to a party which calls our military men and women baby killers.

    As near as I can figure it, liberals believe killing babies is one of the most noble actions which one can perform. So calling military “baby killers” is really just how they “support our troops”.

    malclave (1db6c5)

  72. Kman

    Let me ask a simple question. You once told me your real name. i still know it. i believe you asked me not to share it.

    Do you still feel like you don’t want the world to know what “Kman’s” real name is? Do you feel i am under any moral obligation, in your opinion, to continue keeping that information to myself?

    Yes or no, please.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  73. I do not like the idea of outing the disingenuous stalker.

    JD (d48c3b)

  74. Aaron,

    The high road would clearly be to refute Kman’s arguments with facts and effective debate, or to ignore that poster completely.

    Revealing Kman’s info would go against everything I have ever read on this blog.

    carlitos (01d172)

  75. carlitos, JD

    i am only asking if he feels i am held to that obligation. Because i happen to know he blogs under his real name and what he says on his blog is pretty much the same left of center crap he spews here. so i am really asking if he is scared of the world knowing who kman really is? Because if he is just about the exact same guy under his real name as he is under the moniker kman, it calls whether he is even really in the closet anymore about his beliefs.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  76. So he blogs under his name, and hides behind kmart here?

    JD (d4bbf1)

  77. carlitos, he’s not threatening to out Kman. He’s asking Kman a straight question. You’re right that outing people against their wishes would be out of line.

    Personally, I’d like to read his bog. I’m not sure why someone would blog under their name if they didn’t want people to associate their posts with them.

    But you’re right that people’s anonymity should be respected if they want it to.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  78. dustin

    > I’d like to read his bog.

    Emphasis added to highlight the Freudian slip.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  79. I would be shocked to find out that kmart attributes positions and quotes to people that they have not held or said.

    JD (d4bbf1)

  80. Nobody must read Kman’s bog if he’s over here being a dishonest troll all the time.

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  81. daley, he is prolific.

    Kman, let’s see your blog. If you’re posting the same general political views there as you are here, I don’t see the problem.

    I mean… let’s face it. You have said many times that the reason you scrutinize Aaron Worthing’s posts is to keep him honest or to expose his dishonesty as you see it. Are you willing to live up to that same scrutiny from conservatives?

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  82. object to following the same rules? I cannot believe people are questioning a requirement for abortion clinic to use sterile equipment and supplies. Do
    you want to encourage infections and endanger the lives of patients instead? This should be a no brainer.

    That is my entire point, I am not questioning the need to use sterile supplies at all. I am questioning the need to have these particular people perform the sterilizations.

    I am referring specifically to this language:
    A. Each hospital shall operate a sterile supply service or provide for the processing, sterilizing, storing, and dispensing of clean and sterile supplies

    To me that language requires that any covered entity would need to have the sterilization performed on-site, rather than being able to, for instance, open prepackaged supplies that have already been treated. And if you are going to require abortion providers to do this on site I don’t see any rational way to distinguish less politically charged area of treatment.treated.

    I fail to see how you get any endorsement for the use of non-sterile materials out of my earlier comments.

    Soronel Haetir (c12482)

  83. Soronel, I think you’re made a good point. I also think it would make a lot of sense for abortions to be limited to hospitals because a boutique operation for abortions will often be run by immoral people. After all… they are murderers.

    It’s for the patient’s good that we put this particular nasty business in the most controlled environment possible. By keeping the requirements hospital grade, the only places that conduct abortions will be very well run and have too much at stake to flout the law as we’ve seen many abortion clinics do recently.

    In the micro, it makes less sense.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  84. soronel

    i don’t believe that anyone who does surgery does it entirely with throw away items.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  85. “I fail to see how you get any endorsement for the use of non-sterile materials out of my earlier comments.”

    Soronel – The regs cited in Aaron’s post are for hospitals. Check the link. Are they the same as those contained in the new law for abortion clinics? Who knows, but probably not. Why object to something and work yourself into a lather over something that is not the actual law? That is how other commenters get to you supporting unsanitary conditions, when your knee jerk reaction is to object to something that is not even the actual law itself.

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  86. more than a few plastic surgeries botched up enough to make the news and sometimes have the surgeon arrested (because he/she wasn’t really a surgeon, usually), but nothing similar I can remember regarding abortion clinics/providers.

    Can you not imagine why that is ? Come on. Why was the Philadelphia clinic not inspected for 17 years ?

    You know better than this !

    That is my entire point, I am not questioning the need to use sterile supplies at all. I am questioning the need to have these particular people perform the sterilizations.

    I am referring specifically to this language:
    A. Each hospital shall operate a sterile supply service or provide for the processing, sterilizing, storing, and dispensing of clean and sterile supplies

    I had an autoclave in my office for 25 years. It was about the size of a beer barrel and weighed about as much. We sterilized our packs for minor surgery which were about a foot square. The suction evacuators used in early ( first term) abortions are disposable but they connect to non-disposable equipment that must be cleaned and sterilized. A pregnant uterus is to infection what a gasoline drenched hayrick is to a barn fire. Once contaminated, the pregnant uterus must be removed for the patient to survive. I have seen illegal abortion patients back in the days before abortion was legal and it is devastating. They would talk to me normally and be dead three hours later.

    I am not anti-abortion; I have done them. Most of the rhetoric from the abortion industry, however, is bullshit.

    Mike K (8f3f19)

  87. Are they the same as those contained in the new law for abortion clinics? Who knows, but probably not.

    Oh. I was confused about this too.

    however, I stick to what I said earlier. Abortion boutiques are a bad idea. If abortion is to be legal, keep it in very major establishments. I’d say only hospitals.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  88. daley

    that’s the point. what it says is that any place where more than 5 abortions are performed in a year is a hospital and has to abide by those regulations.

    so… yes.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  89. A.W. – Fine. So you need something like an autoclave for sterilizing equipment you reuse and a closet or cupboard to keep sterile supplies in. The horror, the horror.

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  90. I’m pretty sure my internist does not reuse the same gloves after giving my prostate a finger wave during my annual physical. I would hope abortion clinics follow similar sanitary procedures.

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  91. daley

    yeah, i’m not upset about these regs.

    or at least not more upset than i am about the normal hospitals having to do them. if you accept that our medical industry is going to be heavily regulated this is all pretty mild on the scale of things.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  92. never hurts to spritz a little bleach about the place

    happyfeet (ab5779)

  93. A.W. – The link you provided at the beginning of your post is not as specific as you make it seem in #87.

    “The requirements could include anything from expensive structural changes like widening hallways to increased training and mandatory equipment the clinics currently don’t have.”

    The Lifenews link says: “In a historic vote, the state Senate today approved legislation that requires the Board of Health to create regulation for abortion centers in Virginia,” and that the BOH has 280 days to promulgate the regs. They say the regs. would be similar to ambulatory surgery centers.

    If you’ve got something more specific which makes your point, great, otherwise both links say they are waiting for guidelines and there IS no guarantee they will be the same as the ones you included in your post.

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  94. Can I just say that Kman is running many of the comment threads these days on this site and it makes this site less and less worth reading. He is the perfect troll – hijacking every thread and all the comments suddenly become about him personally – his comments don’t even matter in the long run.

    You can’t be served in a restaurant unless you’re wearing a shirt and shoes – it is unsanitary and unpleasant for the other patrons if you aren’t. How about just refusing service to trolls who make the reader’s experience unpleasant on this site? In the case of Kman we would not be losing any substantive comments or unique perspective.

    in_awe (44fed5)

  95. in_awe

    if it was my decision i would ban him entirely for being my stalker and for a complete failure to be any contribution to any discussion.

    But it is patterico’s decision not mine.

    Let me gently suggest that if you email patterico and tell him how you feel, who knows? he might ban him.

    just a thought.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  96. Welcome back to KBBL.
    K-babble; all spew, all the time:

    8. Wow… that was kind of…. rambling.
    — High praise from the master.
    I don’t see how you can say that the media reporting is “biased”. The Democrats spin is that the Virginia legislation will close abortion clinics. But then you quote the pro-life side… which has the same spin!
    — Remember RIF, K-Pax? Reading Is Fundamental. The title of the piece states a conclusion that was pulled out of thin air. There is no supporting evidence whatsoever that ANY regulations enacted will result in the closure of ANY clinics. Then the lede implies, without proof, that this measure is intended (there’s that liberal obsession with “intent” again) to cause the closure of “most” of the state’s clinics. THEN, in reporting that the governor supports the measure, the story mentions his Catholic faith, clearly implying that by virtue of his faith there can be no question that BOTH his intent AND the certain result of this regulation, if passed, is & will be to “eliminate” most of the state’s clinics. THAT is what was “reported”. Yeah, no spin there!
    So obviously both sides recognize that the bill will have the effect of closing abortion clinics. Why is the media “biased” in noting that as well?
    — Well, first of all, how about because one of those “sides” that YOU cite IS the media? Also, in the case of the pro-life side, it is wishful thinking, and NOT the result of conducting ANY type of cost analysis study.
    Anyway, this law certainly smells like an end-run around Roe v Wade if only because the regs don’t apply to other clinics where surgeries are done. So one is left to wonder whether the regulations being imposed on abortion clinics actually will improve women’s health, or if they are being imposed in order to make most clinics close down.
    — Yeah, because Roe v Wade should have specified a loose set of regulations in regard to how abortions can be performed; right? BTW, how predictible of you to head straight for the apples-to-oranges comparison in a pathetic attempt to make your case. If you actually read Aaron’s “rambling” you will see that he already addressed this issue quite sufficiently. So, forget about ‘wondering’ how the regs will affect the operation of clinics (the press certainly isn’t “wondering”) and wait until you see the specifics. Until then, you have no proof that ANY regs are too restrictive, unreasonable, or will lead to ANY clinic closings. All you have is a paranoid distrust of the Republican Catholic governor . . . just like the ‘unbiased’ press.
    For example, I’m not convinced that widening hallways impacts the health of a pregnant woman, but I guess that would depend on the amount of width the new regulations require.
    — It could have a tremendous impact if, for instance, a pregnant & bleeding woman has to be wheeled out of the clinic on a gurney for a trip to the hospital.
    Frankly, if pregnant woman have to squeeze down 2 foot hallways, then those regulations make sense. On the other hand, if the new regulations require that all abortion clinics have 7 foot wide hallways, then there is a much stronger argument that the VA legislature was just being arbitrary and capricious.
    — Frankly, you can feel free to WAIT until you actually have something to react to, rather than prematurely assuming the ‘worst’.
    29. Yeah, it looks like you can’t speak objectively about abortions.
    — By definition, anyone that is partisan on a particular issue cannot speak objectively about it. This includes you.
    You hate abortions; you don’t hate dental surgery or breast surgery — therefore you have no problem with heavy regulation of abortions, and are happy with the lesser regulation of the others. That’s basically what your argument boils down to.
    — Again, apples-to-oranges. Different procedures = different types and levels of regulation. The liberal obsession to equate ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING doesn’t necessarily jibe with reality, no matter how much you might wish for it to be so.
    That’s fine… as long as you can admit that you’re targeting abortions.
    — Like YOU said, it’s fine.
    I’m not against reform of abortion clinics, but the VA legislation wasn’t written for abortion clinics. It was written for hospitals and then applied to abortion clinics at the last minute.
    — What an absolutely bizarre way to phrase your sentiment: “at the last minute”. Maybe you need to flip some pages in that phrase book.
    It mostly has to do with architecture — the width of the halls, for example. Or that the number of parking spaces outside has to equal or exceed the number of beds for patients (which doesn’t make sense when applied to outpatient services).
    — Again, you DO NOT know what specific regs will be imposed. But don’t let that stop you. It certainly didn’t stop that “objective” ‘reporter’.
    If the Virginia legislature was serious about wanting to improve abortion clinics, it would deal with sanitation and sterilization and other things like that.
    — I’m a-thinkin’ that, 1) there already are sanitation regs that apply to clinics; and, 2) there probably WILL be mention of sanitation procedures in the new regs as well.
    They would also have made the law apply to clinics that give second trimester abortions (but did they? No.)
    — Somebody already beat me to beating you down on this one, so . . . idjit.
    I realize that will be enough for you to do a victory dance and write in your diary (for later reference) about the day Kman was “wrong”
    — Otherwise known as “Groundhog Day”, starring Kman as Bill Murray.
    therefore I am a stalking, lying, lazy, Muslim, back alley abortionist.
    — Also, you smell, and have no friends.
    Wheeeeeee!!!! Isn’t overreaching FUN???
    — It does appear to keep YOU endlessly entertained.
    thank the FCC for ensuring that your cell phone call to the pizza place is not interrupted by the local radio station.
    — Now if they could just regulate the transmissions entering your tin-foil hat!
    You’re like a Mad Lib Ad Hom Generator.
    — And YOU seem to be confusing Aaron Worthing with Larry Reilly.
    My concern here is that many of these clinics which will be forced to close provide others services to woman besides abortions — things like breast cancer examinations, or just plain non-abortion-related pregnancy services.
    — As do gp’s and ob/gyn’s. Are ANY of them being “forced to close”?

    Icy Texan (6b8bbb)

  97. AW

    I would gently suggest that you just dont acknowledge Kmans comments at all, the tree in the forrest thing

    HE will get more strident to evoke a response and the end will be the usuall

    Just dont out him nor call him names – he’s entitled to his mistakes, lax, lazy rebuttal style

    just….ignore…..it

    EricPWJohnson (f0c5da)

  98. Yeah Kman just hates america.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  99. Kman

    Here’s a perfect example of how you literally provide no contribution to the debate.

    You wrote:

    My concern here is that many of these clinics which will be forced to close provide others services to woman besides abortions — things like breast cancer examinations, or just plain non-abortion-related pregnancy services.

    And Icy Texan wrote in response:

    As do gp’s and ob/gyn’s. Are ANY of them being “forced to close”?

    But why did he have to write that? After all, I wrote in the post itself:

    And you have to love that bit about birth control, cancer screenings and so on. Regular doctors and/or Ob/gyns do all of those services all the time. There is literally no need for them to be done by someone who also carries out abortions on site.

    So you made an argument that I already refuted. So at the very least, doesn’t basic good argumentation require you to say something more like this?

    Sure, regular doctors and Ob/Gyns perform many of the same services, but it will still be a problem because…

    And then finish the sentence with whatever your argument is. But instead you wrote as if you had no idea I wrote that in the main post, and thus Icy Texan feels it is necessary to waste his time pointing out something to you that was already pointed out in the post.

    And you do this sort of thing all the time.

    And really this is almost common knowledge. You have to be singularly uninterested and uninformed regarding the opposite sex not to know that GP’s and Ob/Gyns provide these services without providing abortion services. So I suppose I would excuse Andrew Sullivan from knowing… but since you insist you like women (cough), what is your damn excuse?

    So, stupid and lazy, or just intentionally playing dumb to irritate us? Care to pick which one it is, kman?

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  100. Aaron

    So, stupid and lazy, or just intentionally playing dumb to irritate us? Care to pick which one it is, kman?

    Unfortunately abortion is a large part of the financial package for many practitioners

    We can argue against the morality of it but – I see you are still angry about his comments – just leave it – very few people that far to the left – are not going to be swayed by anything you say or do or prove – they will just keep on keepin on.

    Why give any life to it

    EricPWJohnson (f0c5da)

  101. eric

    i suspect increasingly that is what is going on. abortion is really profitable. i mean why else go through the hassle?

    But there are plenty of doctors who don’t engage in the practice at all. i know. my wife would have nothing to do with them.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  102. aw

    was shocked at how many do, almost every obgyn has done abortions, just not thousands of them

    EricPWJohnson (f0c5da)

  103. Heck I remember when artificial insemination was controversal for doctors but abortion wasn’t – done in the same clinics…

    amazing, just freakin amazing, thats when our law firm got out of the practice management business

    EricPWJohnson (f0c5da)

  104. Mawry and Kmart:
    The nearest they ever get to the truth is one of their lies by ommission, which pale in comparison to the overt lies they spew constantly.

    Their disconnect from reality must truly be extremely painful, and requiring extensive self-medication.

    AD-RtR/OS! (5fd0fb)

  105. Any procedure that is as invasive as abortion should be done at the highest standard of care under the highest standard of conditions.
    This shouldn’t be political.
    I’m skeptical about the claim that 17 out of 21 clinics would need to close their doors… the number seems to have been inflated in order to raise alarm.
    Clinics that do not meet the new standards could just use surgery centers… sure it’d cost more, but the patient would be safer.
    In other words, most of the 17 clinics will adapt and adjust and within a short time be back to work performing abortions; but this time at a higher standard of care for the patient.
    The only question I have is who is going to pay for the higher standard?
    I think those who profit from abortion are upset because this will raise the cost to them… any “free” services still need to be performed cheaply, and for those who can pay, the cost just went up.

    I’m also not understanding why a procedure like abortion can be done in a setting that has lower standards than I’d have to have to get arthroscopic surgery on my knee cartilage

    SteveG (cc5dc9)

  106. SteveG, you can get arthroscopic surgery done in your doctor’s office, if it’s fitted properly. I didn’t notice seven foot wide hallways in my doctor’s office when I had the surgery done a few weeks ago (my understanding is that VA state law will now require this for all abortion clinics in that state).

    jim (ad29d8)

  107. Kman’s interest comes from being informed by the usual suspects (Kos, Media Matters, or — especially in this case — pro-choice groups) about the latest spin. The renewed focus on abortion since the new congress began its session has generated a plethora of claims along the lines of, “if these clinics close down, women will be deprived of other essential [read: non-controversial] health services”.

    In their typical condescending “the general public is stupid, therefore elites like us need to explain what is best for them,” manner, the left is employing a scare tactic in order to achieve their aims.

    They don’t care that it is bogus and easily disproved. Remember, they’re trying to manipulate the sheeple.

    Here in West Texas our local Planned Parenthood office advertises on cable tv everyday. The ads feature pleasant music and photos of smiling people, both families and couples without children. They mention “family planning” and women’s health services — and never EVER do they refer to abortion. It’s all about the ‘freedom’ to enjoy your life, dontcha know?

    Icy Texan (53dae7)

  108. SteveG,

    I’m skeptical about the claim that 17 out of 21 clinics would need to close their doors… the number seems to have been inflated in order to raise alarm.

    Their statement doesn’t pass the smell test. Much like the claims of “back alley” abortion deaths prior to Roe v Wade or the number of deadbeat dads not paying child support. Both of which have since been disproven. If they are correct that 17 of the 21 abortion clinics would have to close down, doesn’t that say something about the facility?

    Tanny O'Haley (12193c)

  109. Tanny

    No, no, it is really important that women be allowed to receive abortions in unregulated clinics, because otherwise they will go to the back alley where the doctors won’t adhere to health and safety regulations.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  110. Aaron and Tanny, doesn’t this whole thing depend on the regulations and whether they make sense in the context of first trimester abortions? Without knowing what those are, it’s impossible to know the answer.

    And Aaron, my understanding is that these abortion clinics are now regulated in VA, but that they’re regulated as doctors’ offices rather than outpatient surgery centers. So it’s not that they are “unregulated” now.

    jim (ad29d8)

  111. Oops. The abortion clinics will now be regulated as hospitals, not out-patient facilities.

    And Aaron, you might want to explain why abortion facilities need, for instance, full time dietary services, disclosure of the names of the owners, autopsy services, and pharmacy and radiology services. Those seem to be requirements for hospitals and don’t seem to make sense for abortion clinics.

    jim (ad29d8)

  112. Comment by Aaron Worthing — 2/27/2011 @ 10:16 am

    Riiiiiight!

    AD-RtR/OS! (7c5a79)

  113. That’s right. “Jim” can’t fathom why an abortion clinic would have the need to provide autopsy services.

    Icy Texan (53dae7)

  114. dietary services are when they bring you pudding

    happyfeet (ab5779)

  115. “disclosure of the names of the owners”

    This is an important detail to know after patients die from unsanitary conditions or botched procedures I am thinking to myself.

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1237 secs.