Aa
Wisconsin Abortion Law Signed By Gov. Scott Walker Blocked By Judge
MADISON, Wis. -- A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order Monday evening to block enforcement of a new Wisconsin law that bans doctors who lack admitting privileges at nearby hospitals from performing abortions.
U.S. District Judge William Conley granted the order following a hearing in a lawsuit filed Friday by Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin and Affiliated Medical Services. It alleged the requirement would unconstitutionally restrict the availability of abortions in the state, violates the U.S. Constitution's due process guarantee and unconstitutionally treats doctors who perform abortions differently from those who perform other procedures.
The restraining order will remain in place pending a fuller hearing July 17. In his ruling, Conley said "there is a troubling lack of justification for the hospital admitting privileges requirement." He said the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that states must prove that restrictions on abortion rights must be reasonably aimed at preserving the mother's health.
"Moreover, the record to date strongly supports a finding that no medical purpose is served by this requirement," he said.
The bill was introduced in the Legislature on June 4, passed nine days later and signed into law Friday by Gov. Scott Walker. It took effect Monday. The law also requires women to obtain an ultrasound before getting an abortion, but that provision is not being challenged.
"This ruling is a step in the right direction for the women of Wisconsin who can now continue to make their own personal, private health care decisions," Terry Huyck, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, said in a statement. "We are confident that the Court will ultimately recognize if ACT 37 is not blocked, it would unconstitutionally restrict the ability of Wisconsin women, including victims of rape and incest and women who are in need of an abortion to preserve their health, to access safe and legal abortions. "
Attorneys told Conley that if the law wasn't put on hold, dozens of women with abortions scheduled in the coming week would have had to cancel their appointments. Those appointments are at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Appleton and the Affiliated Medical Services clinic in Milwaukee, where doctors performing abortions do not have admitting privileges to hospitals within 30 miles as the new law requires, attorneys said.
Both of those clinics would close under the law, meaning abortions would not be available in Wisconsin north of Madison. After the 19th week of pregnancy, abortions would not be available anywhere in the state, the lawsuit says.
Doctors performing abortions at two other clinics in Madison and Milwaukee meet the hospital privileges requirement, Planned Parenthood attorney Lester Pines told Conley.
Department of Justice spokeswoman Dana Brueck declined comment following the hearing.
Supporters of the law argue ultrasounds will help the woman bond with the fetus and convince her to save it. The admitting privileges requirement ensures a woman who suffers an abortion-related complication has an advocate who can explain what happened when she reaches a hospital, supporters say.
But opponents contend the true goal was to make it more difficult to obtain abortions in Wisconsin.
Assistant Attorney General Dan Lennington defended the admission requirement, saying doctors who perform abortions at a clinic are the best ones to treat women after they've been admitted to the hospital if a problem arises.
Pines countered that in an emergency, the standard practice would be for a specialist – not the doctor performing the abortion – to treat the patient. Admitting privileges for an outpatient doctor aren't required for a patient to get the highest level care in a hospital, Pines said.
Lennington said it would not be a burden for women in northern Wisconsin who would have gone to Appleton to instead drive farther to have the procedure done in Minneapolis or Milwaukee.
"You haven't driven those roads if you don't think it's a burden," Conley said during the hearing.
In his ruling, Conley wrote that the state is unlikely to meet its burden of proof that admission privileges requirement will improve care for patients who experience problems after an abortion. He said the evidence indicates "the current system already handles efficiently the very low percentage of women seeking abortions with serious complications."
Even if the state can meet that burden, the judge said, the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in proving the law erects impermissible obstacles to women seeking abortions.
___
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/08/wisconsin-abortion-law_n_3563743.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
U.S. District Judge William Conley granted the order following a hearing in a lawsuit filed Friday by Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin and Affiliated Medical Services. It alleged the requirement would unconstitutionally restrict the availability of abortions in the state, violates the U.S. Constitution's due process guarantee and unconstitutionally treats doctors who perform abortions differently from those who perform other procedures.
The restraining order will remain in place pending a fuller hearing July 17. In his ruling, Conley said "there is a troubling lack of justification for the hospital admitting privileges requirement." He said the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that states must prove that restrictions on abortion rights must be reasonably aimed at preserving the mother's health.
"Moreover, the record to date strongly supports a finding that no medical purpose is served by this requirement," he said.
The bill was introduced in the Legislature on June 4, passed nine days later and signed into law Friday by Gov. Scott Walker. It took effect Monday. The law also requires women to obtain an ultrasound before getting an abortion, but that provision is not being challenged.
"This ruling is a step in the right direction for the women of Wisconsin who can now continue to make their own personal, private health care decisions," Terry Huyck, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, said in a statement. "We are confident that the Court will ultimately recognize if ACT 37 is not blocked, it would unconstitutionally restrict the ability of Wisconsin women, including victims of rape and incest and women who are in need of an abortion to preserve their health, to access safe and legal abortions. "
Attorneys told Conley that if the law wasn't put on hold, dozens of women with abortions scheduled in the coming week would have had to cancel their appointments. Those appointments are at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Appleton and the Affiliated Medical Services clinic in Milwaukee, where doctors performing abortions do not have admitting privileges to hospitals within 30 miles as the new law requires, attorneys said.
Both of those clinics would close under the law, meaning abortions would not be available in Wisconsin north of Madison. After the 19th week of pregnancy, abortions would not be available anywhere in the state, the lawsuit says.
Doctors performing abortions at two other clinics in Madison and Milwaukee meet the hospital privileges requirement, Planned Parenthood attorney Lester Pines told Conley.
Department of Justice spokeswoman Dana Brueck declined comment following the hearing.
Supporters of the law argue ultrasounds will help the woman bond with the fetus and convince her to save it. The admitting privileges requirement ensures a woman who suffers an abortion-related complication has an advocate who can explain what happened when she reaches a hospital, supporters say.
But opponents contend the true goal was to make it more difficult to obtain abortions in Wisconsin.
Assistant Attorney General Dan Lennington defended the admission requirement, saying doctors who perform abortions at a clinic are the best ones to treat women after they've been admitted to the hospital if a problem arises.
Pines countered that in an emergency, the standard practice would be for a specialist – not the doctor performing the abortion – to treat the patient. Admitting privileges for an outpatient doctor aren't required for a patient to get the highest level care in a hospital, Pines said.
Lennington said it would not be a burden for women in northern Wisconsin who would have gone to Appleton to instead drive farther to have the procedure done in Minneapolis or Milwaukee.
"You haven't driven those roads if you don't think it's a burden," Conley said during the hearing.
In his ruling, Conley wrote that the state is unlikely to meet its burden of proof that admission privileges requirement will improve care for patients who experience problems after an abortion. He said the evidence indicates "the current system already handles efficiently the very low percentage of women seeking abortions with serious complications."
Even if the state can meet that burden, the judge said, the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in proving the law erects impermissible obstacles to women seeking abortions.
___
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/08/wisconsin-abortion-law_n_3563743.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
The Texas House of Representatives approved a measure today that would place broad new restrictions on abortions in the state, paving the way for the contentious legislation to become law.
House Bill 2 cleared the lower chamber 98-49 after hours of debate over proposed amendments.
A Senate hearing to vote on its version of the bill is scheduled at 10:15 a.m. ET Thursday. There will be no public testimony. It is expected to pass.
The measure seeks to ban abortions past 20 weeks of gestation, mandate that abortion clinics become ambulatory surgical centers, tighten usage guidelines for the drug RU486 and require doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic at which they're providing abortion services.
Critics say the measure would shut down most abortion clinics in Texas, denying access to many in rural communities, and force women to seek dangerous back-alley abortions.
CNN email
House Bill 2 cleared the lower chamber 98-49 after hours of debate over proposed amendments.
A Senate hearing to vote on its version of the bill is scheduled at 10:15 a.m. ET Thursday. There will be no public testimony. It is expected to pass.
The measure seeks to ban abortions past 20 weeks of gestation, mandate that abortion clinics become ambulatory surgical centers, tighten usage guidelines for the drug RU486 and require doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic at which they're providing abortion services.
Critics say the measure would shut down most abortion clinics in Texas, denying access to many in rural communities, and force women to seek dangerous back-alley abortions.
CNN email
I didn't read all of this yet...we are outside getting some Vitamin D the old fashioned way, and I just popped in for a second. I will say that as much as I am staunchly and firmly pro choice, I don't believe that it should be legal past the age of possible viability, which is now considered to be 20 weeks. That is the law here, and I am good with it. Once a fetus is potentially viable, for me that is when it becomes a human life, and should be treated accordingly.
I like you have no problem with the 20 week cutoff. I do have a problem with intentionally trying to close the clinics and cut off access to the people and it is so obvious that it is intentional and why. Unfortunately, people are asleep and not paying attention and this is how it all happens. I predicted this long ago and was told there was no way this could happen. Well, it is happening! Until and unless it starts getting national attention the people will snore right on thru the whole process and if that happens, they have only themselves to blame. It does not pertain to me at this stage of my life.
24 weeks? That number is outdated as kids born at younger gestations now survive. Just ask my son's buddies that were born at 23 weeks. These boys have no problems and play on my boys baseball team, swam swim team with them, and are typical, healthy boys.
This is all news to me. I thought abortion was only permitted up until the first trimester unless medically necessary for mom or issues with the baby. While I could see adding a few more weeks--- up to 24 to 28 is crazy talk. I'd have to say that I would never support that time frame of availability for abortion.
Back to the all or nothing approach which is not a good answer to me on either side.
Oh and yes, before I get chastised---- I do understand that ALL of this is to challenge Roe v Wade and have abortion banned all together (which I don't agree with personally as women deserve a choice. . . . up until maybe 16 weeks. After that, I've got a problem with abortion).
This is all news to me. I thought abortion was only permitted up until the first trimester unless medically necessary for mom or issues with the baby. While I could see adding a few more weeks--- up to 24 to 28 is crazy talk. I'd have to say that I would never support that time frame of availability for abortion.
Back to the all or nothing approach which is not a good answer to me on either side.
Oh and yes, before I get chastised---- I do understand that ALL of this is to challenge Roe v Wade and have abortion banned all together (which I don't agree with personally as women deserve a choice. . . . up until maybe 16 weeks. After that, I've got a problem with abortion).
A federal judge barred Arkansas from implementing one of the nation's most restrictive abortion laws Friday, calling it "more than likely unconstitutional."
The law, which the Legislature enacted over Gov. Mike Beebe's veto in March, makes abortions illegal after only 12 weeks of pregnancy. It's scheduled to take effect in August.
At a hearing Friday in Little Rock, U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright granted a temporary injunction sought by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Reproductive Rights, which argued that doctors who provide abortions would suffer "irreparable harm."
Advertise | AdChoices
Wright said the 12-week standard criminalizes some abortions before the generally accepted medical standard of viability for a fetus, which is 24 weeks.
"The Supreme Court has consistently used viability as a standard with respect to any law that regulates abortion," Wright said. "This act defines viability as something viability is not."
Wright didn't rule on the constitutionality of the new law itself, dubbed the Arkansas Human Heartbeat Protection Act (.pdf).
But in a clear signal of how she was leaning, she said the 12-week standard criminalizes some abortions before the generally accepted medical standard of viability for a fetus, which is 24 to 28 weeks, while "the Supreme Court has consistently used viability as a standard with respect to any law that regulates abortion."
"This act defines viability as something viability is not," she said.
Josh Mesker, a spokesman for the nonprofit Arkansas Family Council, told NBC News the ruling was "disappointing, but it's not unexpected."
Mesker said the ultimate aim is to get the law before the U.S. Supreme Court, where "we expect to prevail" in a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that legalized most abortions across the U.S.
"It's not outside the realm of possibility for the current Supreme Court to readdress Roe v. Wade in a way that leans toward our position," he said.
Talcott Camp, deputy director of the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project, ridiculed the law as "an extreme example of how lawmakers around the country are trying to limit a woman's ability to make the best decision for herself and her family."
"These laws are designed with one purpose — to eliminate all access to abortion care," Camp said in a statement.
That was a reference to similar anti-abortion measures recently approved in North Dakota, Kansas and Mississippi. The North Dakota law, which was also passed in March, is the toughest in the U.S., banning abortions after only six weeks.
Watch US News videos on NBCNews.com
In the Arkansas case, the ACLU and the Center for Reproductive Rights are representing Tom Tvedten, medical director of Little Rock Family Planning Services, which provides abortions, and Louis J. Edwards, a gynecologist at the clinic.
In the suit, filed last month against the State Medical Board, they argue that the new law "presents physicians in Arkansas with an untenable choice: to face license revocation for continuing to provide abortion care in accordance with their best medical judgment, or to stop providing the critical care their patients seek."
Wright rejected the state's motion to dismiss the case Wednesday, citing Supreme Court rulings that Roe v. Wade drew a line saying abortions generally could be banned only upon a fetus' "attainment of viability."
Anticipating just this sort of legal wrangling, Beebe, a Democrat, vetoed the measure in March, saying that defending a "blatantly unconstitutional" law would
So the national campaign in red states is very clear. It cannot be any clearer than this. imo
Mesker said the ultimate aim is to get the law before the U.S. Supreme Court, where "we expect to prevail" in a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that legalized most abortions across the U.S.
The law, which the Legislature enacted over Gov. Mike Beebe's veto in March, makes abortions illegal after only 12 weeks of pregnancy. It's scheduled to take effect in August.
At a hearing Friday in Little Rock, U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright granted a temporary injunction sought by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Reproductive Rights, which argued that doctors who provide abortions would suffer "irreparable harm."
Advertise | AdChoices
Wright said the 12-week standard criminalizes some abortions before the generally accepted medical standard of viability for a fetus, which is 24 weeks.
"The Supreme Court has consistently used viability as a standard with respect to any law that regulates abortion," Wright said. "This act defines viability as something viability is not."
Wright didn't rule on the constitutionality of the new law itself, dubbed the Arkansas Human Heartbeat Protection Act (.pdf).
But in a clear signal of how she was leaning, she said the 12-week standard criminalizes some abortions before the generally accepted medical standard of viability for a fetus, which is 24 to 28 weeks, while "the Supreme Court has consistently used viability as a standard with respect to any law that regulates abortion."
"This act defines viability as something viability is not," she said.
Josh Mesker, a spokesman for the nonprofit Arkansas Family Council, told NBC News the ruling was "disappointing, but it's not unexpected."
Mesker said the ultimate aim is to get the law before the U.S. Supreme Court, where "we expect to prevail" in a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that legalized most abortions across the U.S.
"It's not outside the realm of possibility for the current Supreme Court to readdress Roe v. Wade in a way that leans toward our position," he said.
Talcott Camp, deputy director of the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project, ridiculed the law as "an extreme example of how lawmakers around the country are trying to limit a woman's ability to make the best decision for herself and her family."
"These laws are designed with one purpose — to eliminate all access to abortion care," Camp said in a statement.
That was a reference to similar anti-abortion measures recently approved in North Dakota, Kansas and Mississippi. The North Dakota law, which was also passed in March, is the toughest in the U.S., banning abortions after only six weeks.
Watch US News videos on NBCNews.com
In the Arkansas case, the ACLU and the Center for Reproductive Rights are representing Tom Tvedten, medical director of Little Rock Family Planning Services, which provides abortions, and Louis J. Edwards, a gynecologist at the clinic.
In the suit, filed last month against the State Medical Board, they argue that the new law "presents physicians in Arkansas with an untenable choice: to face license revocation for continuing to provide abortion care in accordance with their best medical judgment, or to stop providing the critical care their patients seek."
Wright rejected the state's motion to dismiss the case Wednesday, citing Supreme Court rulings that Roe v. Wade drew a line saying abortions generally could be banned only upon a fetus' "attainment of viability."
Anticipating just this sort of legal wrangling, Beebe, a Democrat, vetoed the measure in March, saying that defending a "blatantly unconstitutional" law would
So the national campaign in red states is very clear. It cannot be any clearer than this. imo
Mesker said the ultimate aim is to get the law before the U.S. Supreme Court, where "we expect to prevail" in a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that legalized most abortions across the U.S.
Abortion is one issue I will never see eye to eye with most conservatives. That and injecting religion into everything they try to legislate.
Well, then it is wrong. That isn't good medical practice to disallow doctors privileges when they apply for them to prevent abortions from happening.
I agree with the principle that they must have privileges, must be board certified doctors, have a license, etc. but if they aren't able to obtain them due to discrimination for the fact that they perform abortions (hopefully among other things at the clinics)--- that makes a difference.
I agree with the principle that they must have privileges, must be board certified doctors, have a license, etc. but if they aren't able to obtain them due to discrimination for the fact that they perform abortions (hopefully among other things at the clinics)--- that makes a difference.
Right from the horse's mouth.
Updates from State Rep. Sam Mims (MS)
Mississippi to be abortion-free state after law requires abortion doctors to have hospital admitting privileges
Bill: HB1390 (PDF)
Sponsored by Rep. Sam Mims and signed into law by Gov. Phil Bryant, HB1390 mandates that all physicians performing in abortion clinics must have admitting privileges at a local hospital. In particular, HB1390 states, “Abortions shall only be performed by physicians licensed to practice in the State of Mississippi. All physicians associated with the abortion facility must have admitting privileges at a local hospital and staff privileges to replace local hospital on-staff physicians. All physicians associated with an abortion facility must be board certified or eligible in obstetrics and gynecology, and a staff member trained in CPR shall always be present at the abortion facility when it is open.”
http://republicanstates.wordpress.com/author/repsammims/
Updates from State Rep. Sam Mims (MS)
Mississippi to be abortion-free state after law requires abortion doctors to have hospital admitting privileges
Bill: HB1390 (PDF)
Sponsored by Rep. Sam Mims and signed into law by Gov. Phil Bryant, HB1390 mandates that all physicians performing in abortion clinics must have admitting privileges at a local hospital. In particular, HB1390 states, “Abortions shall only be performed by physicians licensed to practice in the State of Mississippi. All physicians associated with the abortion facility must have admitting privileges at a local hospital and staff privileges to replace local hospital on-staff physicians. All physicians associated with an abortion facility must be board certified or eligible in obstetrics and gynecology, and a staff member trained in CPR shall always be present at the abortion facility when it is open.”
http://republicanstates.wordpress.com/author/repsammims/
Five of Seven Mississippi Hospitals that Denied Admitting Privileges to JWHO Doctors Now Under Investigation for Misuse of ERs
by Robin Marty, Senior Political Reporter, RH Reality Check
December 10, 2012 - 7:04 am
Of the seven local hospitals that turned down Dr. Willie Parker and his co-worker’s requests for admitting privileges to the hospital’s emergency rooms—a requirement of Mississippi’s new TRAP law—five belonged to Hospital Management Associates Inc., a Florida-based chain of hospitals. Now that company is being investigated for its own emergency room policies.
According to the Jackson Free Press, a 60 Minutes investigation has unveiled a number of whistleblowers in the chain’s hospitals claiming that they were encouraged to route patients into the emergency room when it wasn’t medically necessary as a means of boosting the company’s profits. The chain is being investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice for the practice.
“That really just bolsters that this admitting privilege thing is such a fraud,” JWHO owner Diane Derzis told the Jackson Free Press.
No wonder the HMA hospitals were so intent on not aggravating local government officials by accepting the doctors.
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/12/10/five-seven-hospitals-that-denied-admitting-privileges-in-jackson-now-under-invest/
by Robin Marty, Senior Political Reporter, RH Reality Check
December 10, 2012 - 7:04 am
Of the seven local hospitals that turned down Dr. Willie Parker and his co-worker’s requests for admitting privileges to the hospital’s emergency rooms—a requirement of Mississippi’s new TRAP law—five belonged to Hospital Management Associates Inc., a Florida-based chain of hospitals. Now that company is being investigated for its own emergency room policies.
According to the Jackson Free Press, a 60 Minutes investigation has unveiled a number of whistleblowers in the chain’s hospitals claiming that they were encouraged to route patients into the emergency room when it wasn’t medically necessary as a means of boosting the company’s profits. The chain is being investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice for the practice.
“That really just bolsters that this admitting privilege thing is such a fraud,” JWHO owner Diane Derzis told the Jackson Free Press.
No wonder the HMA hospitals were so intent on not aggravating local government officials by accepting the doctors.
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/12/10/five-seven-hospitals-that-denied-admitting-privileges-in-jackson-now-under-invest/
Really, do you have any doubt that these laws are for only one purpose - to restrict or deny a woman's access to an abortion?
I can't believe that is not crystal clear. I really and truly can't.
I can't believe that is not crystal clear. I really and truly can't.
Doctors at clinics that perform abortions but also provide gynecological care for patients can't admit ANY patient for any reason? That's odd. Sorry, but it is just odd for a doctor to be limited in this capacity and would impede full care.
Hm. Just surprising to me. We have Catholic hospitals as well as other non religious affiliated hospitals.
Docs that perform abortions do other things-- are ob/gyns, right? They aren't performing the abortion at the hospital. So don't get why they can't have privileges. That is a problem within that system.
Abortions are invasive and while the risk of a life threatening complication is rare, it happens.
Honestly, if it is all just a way to hamper abortion, then it is unfair and not right. But I do ultimately think it is in the best interest of any woman seeking abortion to have a doctor that can follow through with hospitalization in the event of a complication.
Docs that perform abortions do other things-- are ob/gyns, right? They aren't performing the abortion at the hospital. So don't get why they can't have privileges. That is a problem within that system.
Abortions are invasive and while the risk of a life threatening complication is rare, it happens.
Honestly, if it is all just a way to hamper abortion, then it is unfair and not right. But I do ultimately think it is in the best interest of any woman seeking abortion to have a doctor that can follow through with hospitalization in the event of a complication.
"Admitting privileges" ? They apparently aren't as easily obtained or as important as might appear at first blush.
"Atkinson and Nash reiterated that abortions are safe, with .3 percent performed nationally resulting in hospitalization.".
Admitting privileges provision a successful pro-life tool
{....“Now the trend is to eliminate abortion clinics through state regulations,” said Elizabeth Nash, states issues manager with the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit that seeks to advance sexual and reproductive health through research, policy and education. “Instead of making it harder to get an abortion, the goal now is to close clinic doors.”
It's problematic in Wisconsin for two reasons: the large number of Catholic hospitals that don’t condone abortions and would not grant admitting privileges to physicians who perform the procedure; and the varying, often time-intensive policies in place from hospital to hospital that dictate who is granted admitting privileges.
Roughly one-third, about 35, of the hospitals in the state are Catholic hospitals, according to John Huebscher, a lobbyist and spokesman with the Wisconsin Catholic Conference.
These hospitals are guided by what is known as the Ethical and Religious Directives for Religious Health Care Services. Catholic hospitals nationwide follow the guidelines set forth in the document.
Page 26 of the directives reads:
“Abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never permitted. Every procedure whose sole immediate effect is the termination of pregnancy before viability is an abortion, which, in its moral context, includes the interval between conception and implantation of the embryo.”
Steve Sparks, a spokesman with St. Mary’s Hospital, said a physician is given three documents when applying for admitting privileges. One is the bylaws of the medical staff, which includes mention of the Ethical and Religious Directives.
Sparks said the form must be signed, an indication the physician has reviewed and will abide by the bylaws.
“It really shrinks the pool of hospitals (abortion) clinics can work with when you start thinking about the pool of hospitals that are Catholic and opposed to abortion and unlikely to grant privileges,” Nash said. “With one-third of Wisconsin hospitals being Catholic hospitals … that’s huge.”
Obtaining admitting privileges at the remaining two-thirds of the state’s hospitals is no easy roadmap to navigate, either.
For example, to obtain admitting privileges at Meriter Hospital, the physician must be considered a member of the hospital's medical staff.
A physician can be a member of the Meriter medical staff without being a Meriter employee.
For example, a licensed physician can apply and meet guidelines to become a Meriter medical staff member, which has admitting privileges for active members, but not be an employee of Meriter.
Once granted privileges, the physician is reviewed by the Medical Staff Credentials Committee, the Medical Executive Committee and the Meriter Health System Board after one year and biennially thereafter, and they must be able to demonstrate current competence under the Joint Commission accreditation standards.
Additionally, a physician has to demonstrate “current competence” based on the volume of work they perform at Meriter Hospital or other offices where they may work.
If they are unable to document enough activity at Meriter and another office, they lose their admitting privileges.
Obtaining privileges at UW Hospital is different.
For starters, a physician does not have to be a hospital employee, but they have to be a faculty member of UW-Madison’s School of Medicine and Public Health.
Once a faculty member, the physician then applies for admitting privileges, a process that can take 60-90 days, according to Lisa Brunette, a spokeswoman with UW Health, the health care system that includes UW Hospital. She said the process can take longer, depending on the number of previous employers the hospital needs to contact to verify employment and other necessary prior work experience.
“It is a rigorous, lengthy process,” Brunette said.
“It is a tactic to overturn Roe v. Wade without actually overturning Roe v. Wade,” said Tanya Atkinson, Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin’s vice president of public affairs. “This is another legal barrier being put in place to make abortions as inaccessible as possible for women.”
Atkinson and Nash reiterated that abortions are safe, with .3 percent performed nationally resulting in hospitalization.
“This is just not necessary,” Nash said. “The admitting privileges provision is giving a hospital veto power over whether abortions are provided in an area.”}
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/writers/jessica_vanegeren/admitting-privileges-provision-a-successful-pro-life-tool/article_51e88346-e82f-11e2-8d13-0019bb2963f4.html
"Atkinson and Nash reiterated that abortions are safe, with .3 percent performed nationally resulting in hospitalization.".
Admitting privileges provision a successful pro-life tool
{....“Now the trend is to eliminate abortion clinics through state regulations,” said Elizabeth Nash, states issues manager with the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit that seeks to advance sexual and reproductive health through research, policy and education. “Instead of making it harder to get an abortion, the goal now is to close clinic doors.”
It's problematic in Wisconsin for two reasons: the large number of Catholic hospitals that don’t condone abortions and would not grant admitting privileges to physicians who perform the procedure; and the varying, often time-intensive policies in place from hospital to hospital that dictate who is granted admitting privileges.
Roughly one-third, about 35, of the hospitals in the state are Catholic hospitals, according to John Huebscher, a lobbyist and spokesman with the Wisconsin Catholic Conference.
These hospitals are guided by what is known as the Ethical and Religious Directives for Religious Health Care Services. Catholic hospitals nationwide follow the guidelines set forth in the document.
Page 26 of the directives reads:
“Abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never permitted. Every procedure whose sole immediate effect is the termination of pregnancy before viability is an abortion, which, in its moral context, includes the interval between conception and implantation of the embryo.”
Steve Sparks, a spokesman with St. Mary’s Hospital, said a physician is given three documents when applying for admitting privileges. One is the bylaws of the medical staff, which includes mention of the Ethical and Religious Directives.
Sparks said the form must be signed, an indication the physician has reviewed and will abide by the bylaws.
“It really shrinks the pool of hospitals (abortion) clinics can work with when you start thinking about the pool of hospitals that are Catholic and opposed to abortion and unlikely to grant privileges,” Nash said. “With one-third of Wisconsin hospitals being Catholic hospitals … that’s huge.”
Obtaining admitting privileges at the remaining two-thirds of the state’s hospitals is no easy roadmap to navigate, either.
For example, to obtain admitting privileges at Meriter Hospital, the physician must be considered a member of the hospital's medical staff.
A physician can be a member of the Meriter medical staff without being a Meriter employee.
For example, a licensed physician can apply and meet guidelines to become a Meriter medical staff member, which has admitting privileges for active members, but not be an employee of Meriter.
Once granted privileges, the physician is reviewed by the Medical Staff Credentials Committee, the Medical Executive Committee and the Meriter Health System Board after one year and biennially thereafter, and they must be able to demonstrate current competence under the Joint Commission accreditation standards.
Additionally, a physician has to demonstrate “current competence” based on the volume of work they perform at Meriter Hospital or other offices where they may work.
If they are unable to document enough activity at Meriter and another office, they lose their admitting privileges.
Obtaining privileges at UW Hospital is different.
For starters, a physician does not have to be a hospital employee, but they have to be a faculty member of UW-Madison’s School of Medicine and Public Health.
Once a faculty member, the physician then applies for admitting privileges, a process that can take 60-90 days, according to Lisa Brunette, a spokeswoman with UW Health, the health care system that includes UW Hospital. She said the process can take longer, depending on the number of previous employers the hospital needs to contact to verify employment and other necessary prior work experience.
“It is a rigorous, lengthy process,” Brunette said.
“It is a tactic to overturn Roe v. Wade without actually overturning Roe v. Wade,” said Tanya Atkinson, Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin’s vice president of public affairs. “This is another legal barrier being put in place to make abortions as inaccessible as possible for women.”
Atkinson and Nash reiterated that abortions are safe, with .3 percent performed nationally resulting in hospitalization.
“This is just not necessary,” Nash said. “The admitting privileges provision is giving a hospital veto power over whether abortions are provided in an area.”}
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/writers/jessica_vanegeren/admitting-privileges-provision-a-successful-pro-life-tool/article_51e88346-e82f-11e2-8d13-0019bb2963f4.html
Honestly, it is surprising to me that doctors that perform abortions don't have admitting privileges to hospitals in the area of their clinics. I mean, my kid's dentist has admitting privileges to a hospital in case something goes wrong or they need to do a procedure under general anesthesia at the hospital. What doctor performing an invasive procedure doesn't have admitting privileges? That is very odd to me. Unusual even. Granted, docs usually don't have admitting rights to every hospital in an area but do usually have at least two.
I guess this is one of those things unique to abortion clinics? Why can't the doctors file for admitting rights? If I were having an abortion I'd want a certified doctor, a doctor that is a physician that can admit me to the hospital if he/she feels it is necessary, etc. I never realized these doctors don't operate the way all other doctors do.
Maybe some revamping of procedures of abortion would be a good idea to indeed insure the safety of women.
I read in this that they are concerned this is just to prevent abortion. And I don't think that is a good thing if that is all it is. But am just wondering why there isn't more scrutiny of this odd practice that doctors who perform abortions don't have hospital rights. They should!
And the issue with ultrasounds is that women often have a hard time figuring out where they are at in pregnancy. Some may think they are 10 weeks along and really be 15. Good for a doctor to know. And women should know that the farther along they are, the greater risk of complication both short term and long term. If a woman is going back and forth about having an abortion, they should have all the facts first. Those who know they want one won't change their mind due to an ultrasound.
Anyway, I can see a window period to get these doctors performing abortion on board with admitting privileges and making it a requirement going forward. I do think that is safer for women.
I guess this is one of those things unique to abortion clinics? Why can't the doctors file for admitting rights? If I were having an abortion I'd want a certified doctor, a doctor that is a physician that can admit me to the hospital if he/she feels it is necessary, etc. I never realized these doctors don't operate the way all other doctors do.
Maybe some revamping of procedures of abortion would be a good idea to indeed insure the safety of women.
I read in this that they are concerned this is just to prevent abortion. And I don't think that is a good thing if that is all it is. But am just wondering why there isn't more scrutiny of this odd practice that doctors who perform abortions don't have hospital rights. They should!
And the issue with ultrasounds is that women often have a hard time figuring out where they are at in pregnancy. Some may think they are 10 weeks along and really be 15. Good for a doctor to know. And women should know that the farther along they are, the greater risk of complication both short term and long term. If a woman is going back and forth about having an abortion, they should have all the facts first. Those who know they want one won't change their mind due to an ultrasound.
Anyway, I can see a window period to get these doctors performing abortion on board with admitting privileges and making it a requirement going forward. I do think that is safer for women.
I still think a woman has the choice. The father should probably be in on the decision process, but ultimately the woman's body is host and she... not some politician, should get to decide what happens. (I don't like the idea of abortion as birth control, but I think it needs to be provided by a trained professional so women who have an unwanted pregnancy don't take an abortion into their own hands.)
I don't agree with the admitting privilege that this law was going to thrust in. I doubt that any hospital would deny a Dr from at the very least going to the hospital and explaining to a surgeon what happened and what was going on.
But what is scary in this article is this statement, "dozens of women with abortions scheduled in the coming week". Really dozens.
I am tired of the "private medical decision" crap that is being thrown around. It is not private, it takes 2 people to get pregnant so at the very least it should be something spoken about with the father, of course rape and incest would be excluded but that is very very very rare.
But what is scary in this article is this statement, "dozens of women with abortions scheduled in the coming week". Really dozens.
I am tired of the "private medical decision" crap that is being thrown around. It is not private, it takes 2 people to get pregnant so at the very least it should be something spoken about with the father, of course rape and incest would be excluded but that is very very very rare.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
