Myths And Facts About HB 2, The Anti- Choice Law That Could Overturn Abortion Rights. On March 2, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, a controversial case that will determine the constitutionality of a Texas anti- choice law (HB 2) that severely limits women's access to abortion and medical care.
Holding: Two provisions in a Texas law – requiring physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital and requiring abortion clinics.
In covering the case, some media outlets have relied on right- wing media talking points about the purported medical necessity of restricting women's access to abortion, as well as the false claim that HB 2 would prevent another . Here are the facts.
Supreme Court Will Hear Arguments Over Constitutionality Of Texas' Dangerous Abortion Restriction Law. Supreme Court Will Hear Challenge To Texas Abortion Restriction Law On March 2, 2. Hellerstedt involves a Texas law that places requirements on abortion providers that have been deemed . The law's restrictions have already forced about half of Texas' abortion clinics to close and are estimated to ultimately close . As explained by the Los Angeles Times, the decision made by the Supreme Court in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt could impact the .
Making the case for the court to uphold HB 2, the state of Texas' brief emphasized the supposed medical necessity of such highly restrictive measures to protect women's health. According to Texas, these requirements in HB 2 .
In response to counterarguments by Whole Woman's Health, a Texas abortion provider, the state alleged that anti- HB 2 findings were not well supported by . James Anderson testified that the admitting- privileges requirement ensures . For example, if an abortion patient experiences complications and arrives at an emergency room on her own, the emergency- room physician will not have access to her medical records or history and may not be able to contact her abortion provider. As a study quoted by Anderson explained: . Mayra Jimenez Thompson explained.
On the November 1. Shepard Smith Reporting, Gallagher reported that . Fox contributor Kirsten Powers appeared on the July 1.
![A Woman`S Law [1919] A Woman`S Law [1919]](http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/52ccb6f96bb3f7a245e61166/a-man-tried-sneaking-across-the-border-with-a-thai-woman-hidden-inside-a-suitcase.jpg)
Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor to discuss the Women's Health Protection Act, which would prohibit states from targeting abortion with unnecessary restrictions like waiting periods and specialized medical standards for clinics. Powers claimed that state laws restricting access to abortion . This probably won't even pass the Senate, let alone the House, and this is something to get the women ginned up in the Democratic Party base, who, as you know, have been ginned up before in the so- called . I also think that this is destructive because most of the laws that I think that they would like to roll back are laws that were put in place to make abortion clinics safe. For example, like the Gosnell clinic in Pennsylvania. These types of laws were created to respond to what happened to women.
![A Woman`S Law [1919] A Woman`S Law [1919]](http://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2011/04/25/8342972/NinaKaufman-headshot.jpg)
![A Woman`S Law [1919] A Woman`S Law [1919]](http://theracketreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/shrugging-obama.jpg)
There was a woman who died. There were multiple women who died there. In an amicus brief filed with the court in support of Whole Woman's Health, five of the leading organizations for medical professionals described as . According to these medical professionals, because . As an initial matter, an increasingly large percentage of early abortions are medication abortions rather than surgical abortions. No designated procedure space is required for medication abortions because the procedure involves administering prescription pills that induce pregnancy termination, which then typically occurs at home.
Even surgical abortions, however, do not require an operating room. To conduct a first- trimester surgical abortion, the clinician has the patient recline on an examination table, taking the same position as for many gynecological exams. Few personnel are involved; little is required by way of equipment. The procedure is not commonly performed using general anesthesia, so designated space for related equipment storage is not generally required.
Surgical abortions simply do not require the size, layout, or equipment of a full operating theater. In this respect, they are no different than many procedures used for the management of miscarriages, which are also commonly addressed in office settings.
In a November 2. 01. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) outlined its opposition to the sort of restrictions on abortion facilities and staff included in HB 2, noting that such measures are . Also known as TRAP laws, these measures have included needless requirements such as mandating that facilities meet the physical plant standards of hospitals; that staffing, drug, equipment, and medical records be maintained at unnecessary levels; that physicians performing abortions in the clinic setting obtain hospital admitting privileges, with no mechanism to ensure that hospitals will grant such privileges; that the same physician perform in- person counseling, ultrasonography, and the abortion procedure, resulting in difficulties for physicians who travel long distances to provide abortion care in rural states and for multi- day procedures; and that clinic physicians be board certified obstetrician- gynecologists despite the fact that clinicians in many medical specialties can provide safe abortion services. The College opposes such requirements because they improperly regulate medical care and do not improve patient safety or quality of care.
These laws make abortion more difficult and expensive to obtain, imposing new costs on the women who can least afford them. Compliance with some of the most onerous regulatory requirements has proved to be so difficult that some practices have closed. In states with few abortion providers, TRAP laws can make abortion essentially inaccessible. The Texas Hospital Association (THA), representing 4. HB 2 was passed opposing its hospital admitting privilege requirement for doctors who provide abortions. THA explained that such a requirement is unnecessary, since a patient suffering complications from an abortion typically is transferred to an emergency room in a hospital to receive treatment (emphasis added): THA agrees that women should receive high- quality care and that physicians should be held accountable for acts that violate their license.
However, a requirement that physicians who perform one particular outpatient procedure, abortion, be privileged at a hospital is not the appropriate way to accomplish these goals. A hospital's granting privileges to a physician serves to assure the hospital that the physician has the appropriate qualifications to provide services to patients in the hospital. Thousands of physicians operate clinics and provide services in those clinics but do not have hospital admitting privileges.
Biography Documentary Films 36,429 views. Sharing fun stories about mothers-in-law (and other relatives) that will make you laugh. A great way to relieve family stress and tension! Visit Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law on Facebook. Advance Publication; Current Issue. Legal information (U.S.-specific) and other advice for women living with or escaping domestic violence. Includes focused sections for teens, military women. Women in the United States haven't always had the right to an abortion. Before 1973, individual states were allowed to decide whether abortion would be legal within. ALM's Law.com is the Web's leading legal news and information network for attorneys and other legal professionals.
Coverture (sometimes spelled couverture) was a legal doctrine whereby, upon marriage, a woman's legal rights and obligations were subsumed by those of her husband, in.
![A Woman`S Law [1919] A Woman`S Law [1919]](http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Woman_Card_Hillary-600x354.jpg)
Requiring a hospital to grant admitting privileges to physicians who do not provide services inside the hospital is time- consuming and expensive for the hospital and does not serve the purpose for which privileges were intended; rather, the Texas Medical Board is the appropriate agency to address whether physicians are delivering appropriate care to patients, as the TMB regulates all physicians. Hospitals should not be required to assume responsibility for the qualifications of physicians who do not practice in the hospital. Should a woman develop complications from an abortion or any other procedure performed outside the hospital and need emergency care, she should present to a hospital emergency department. Requiring that a doctor have privileges at a particular hospital does not guarantee that this physician will be at the hospital when the woman arrives. She will appropriately be treated by the physician staffing the emergency room when she presents there.
If the emergency room physician needs to consult with the physician who performed the abortion, the treating physician can contact the doctor telephonically, which is often done in other emergency situations. In a December 2. 0, 2. United States Court of Appeals in Planned Parenthood v. Abbott, ACOG and the American Medical Association (AMA) condemned regulations requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at hospitals, writing that these rules . ACOG and the AMA oppose HB 2 because it imposes government regulation on abortion care that jeopardizes the health of women in Texas and denies them access to the safest and most effective evidence- based protocols for medical abortions. Abortion is a very safe procedure, and complications requiring hospital admission are extremely rare. There is no medical basis to require abortion providers to have local hospital admitting privileges.
Emergency room physicians, hospital- based physicians, and on- call specialists already provide prompt and effective treatment to all patients with urgent medical needs, including women with abortion- related complications. Moreover, there is no medically sound reason for Texas to impose more stringent requirements on abortion facilities than it does on other medical facilities that perform procedures with similar, or even greater, risks. The state argued that .
Petitioners' trial expert, Grossman, asserted that existing ASCs will not be able to provide more abortions than they previously had. But the court of appeals rightly held that . Grossman's testimony counted clinics, but that does not reveal anything without evidence of capacity. Grossman did not conduct any research into the current or future capacity of existing ASC abortion clinics, or whether physicians from non- ASC abortion clinics would transfer to ASCs. Nor did petitioners even try to discover capacity evidence from most of the non- party abortion clinics. There is no evidence or finding that the admitting- privileges requirement has caused half of the State's abortion clinics to close. Much less is there evidence substantiating petitioners' claim that remaining abortion clinics will lack capacity to meet the demand for abortion.
Abortion providers have been able to comply with both the admitting- privileges and ASC requirements, and the Legislature gave abortion clinics over 1.
For your safety, please be sure you are using a safer computer.