Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

1 Bump

What's fiscally conservative about spending an unnecessary $1mil to force med centers out of business?

Thereby very likely INCREASING the cost paid out through medicaid and government employee insurance by endangering women's lives and forcing them to drive 400 miles for treatment?

Is putting someone's religion into law worth the extra expense and cost to human safety?

http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/07/06/4984328/controversial-texas-abortion-bill.html

 

For those who prefer to skim:

Texas' anti-abortion bill is a catch 22 by design, it will force health clinics to be affiliated with a surgical center, then makes it illegal for hospitals to affiliate with a health clinic.  The clinics will be required by law to shut down, even if they do more pap smears, mamograms and bc prescriptions than abortions - even if they've NEVER done an abortion, but offer counseling.  Only 5 existing centers that meet the criteria will be allowed to stay open - all located in 3 major cities.  Anyone outside those cities will have to drive to them, 400 miles or more, just to have an exam or get (no longer low cost when you acct for gas money) birth control.

Answer Question
 
NotPanicking

Asked by NotPanicking at 3:34 PM on Jul. 7, 2013 in Politics & Current Events

Level 51 (421,172 Credits)
Answers (4)
  • That's the government for you, cutting off its nose to spite its face.
    Ballad

    Answer by Ballad at 4:20 PM on Jul. 7, 2013

  • I assume because being fiscally conservative takes a back seat (preferably a back seat in a car 20 miles behind you) to making sure you control the reproductive health of the women of your state. The poorer the women are, the better.

    That'll learn 'em
    Mrs_Prissy

    Answer by Mrs_Prissy at 6:08 PM on Jul. 7, 2013

  • I don't have a problem with making these "medical facilities" perform surgical procedures in the proper environment. Isn't it supposed to be about access to "safe" care for women? Women have died from abortions performed in filthy, unsafe conditions. The buildings often do not have the required entrances and exits that are accessible when EMTs need to perform a rescue.
    Iamgr8teful

    Answer by Iamgr8teful at 9:45 PM on Jul. 9, 2013

  • I don't have a problem with making these "medical facilities" perform surgical procedures in the proper environment. Isn't it supposed to be about access to "safe" care for women?

    Um, did you miss the part that they also want it illegal for the proper environment to give them access? There are multiple parts to this law - one part, no center can remain open unless it's affiliated with a surgical center. next part - it is illegal for any surgical center to provide services to these facilities unless they already have an established relationship. Do you only care about "safe" care for the women in the 3 cities where the 5 existing centers are located, and not give a fuck about all the women who live hundreds of miles away?
    NotPanicking

    Comment by NotPanicking (original poster) at 10:55 PM on Jul. 9, 2013

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.
close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN