So this is becoming a "thing" in TX

[ChillyMcFreeze]

Is a board screening of Vera Drake in order?

[pixy0stix]

Nov 11, 2013 21:28:23 GMT -5 ChillyMcFreeze said:

Is a board screening of Vera Drake in order?

I had to look up what you were talking about. This looks interesting.

[msmerymac]

Nov 11, 2013 10:07:01 GMT -5 @dyermaker said:

Nov 11, 2013 10:02:53 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

If only it were that easy. Your quote here? Is exactly the argument made in the 70s. Do you know how much of an impact it had on saving women's lives how were sticking coat hangers into their uteri? Absolutely none.

So think about your soundbites, and your blithe responses, and then think about the reality of what is happening.

I don't need sound bites, I know what my values are and I vote for them, as do the other people in this country. I know many prochoicers are upset but maybe this issue is experiencing another shift because of what the public wants now.

What the "public" wants and what is best for our citizens are often at odds with each other. Slavery, anyone? 

PS, most Americans are still pro-choice. HTH.

[msmerymac]

Nov 11, 2013 10:15:18 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

Nov 11, 2013 10:00:11 GMT -5 @dyermaker said:

That's why I was asking because this is where my mind went. I'd like to think Texas would be pretty quick to shut down medical proceduresbeing done without trained pprofessionals. If the doulas want to perform abortions they should go to medical school.

Except that even medical schools are not instructing in abortion procedure.  In fact, some states-- and the House in 2011-- have passed bills defunding med schools that teach it.

What you are seeing is the next generation of underground and potentially back-alley abortion service.

eta: TX is pretty quick to shut down medical procedures being done WITH trained professionals.,

Shit like this (and defunding the ACA 40 times) makes me really, really scared of what would happen with a Republican majority in both houses of congress. 

[ttt]

Nov 11, 2013 21:24:41 GMT -5 Michelle said:

Nov 11, 2013 9:04:19 GMT -5 @littlemoxie said:

I'm honestly not sure; as we didn't get into it. However, a woman who referred to herself as an urban curandera who normally does massage and herbal therapy said she was willing to be trained to be an abortion doula. Later in the day she talked about home/self remedies for abortion and how women have used them to control their fertility for centuries.

So I think she means to give women something to cause them to abort. It's so hard to access abortions, I can't see why all these doulas would decide they should market themselves as support for one. They are filling a void in getting abortions. Someone from El Paso would need to drive 10 hours each way to get to the closest clinic in Texas!

I don't see the point of this as whether or not doulas are medical professionals or legally able to do this. I see it as what happens when you make access damn near impossible. It makes people desperate. Well meaning people can cause harm. It's fucking scary and it's happening.

Would you restrict your access to Texas because of insurance purposes?  Just trying to figure out why someone wouldn't just go to Las Cruces which is 45 minutes west/NW?

Note - I'm not saying I support ANY of what is happening to women's rights in Texas right now... I'm just curious about the geography of it.  

A cursory search says that there are no abortion clinics in Las Cruces and that the closest one to Las Cruces in Albuquerque. 

[emisi]

Nov 11, 2013 21:39:22 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

Nov 11, 2013 10:15:18 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

Except that even medical schools are not instructing in abortion procedure.  In fact, some states-- and the House in 2011-- have passed bills defunding med schools that teach it.

What you are seeing is the next generation of underground and potentially back-alley abortion service.

eta: TX is pretty quick to shut down medical procedures being done WITH trained professionals.,

Shit like this (and defunding the ACA 40 times) makes me really, really scared of what would happen with a Republican majority in both houses of congress. 

Honestly, I wonder how many of those Republicans who are voting to shut down clinics care about women dying in back-alley abortions.  Because they're just a bunch of slutty, sinning women, after all, and they brought it on themselves.  If they were good, GOD FEARING women, they'd be home cooking their man a good dinner and taking care of his ten kids because JESUS.

[SusanBAnthony]

Might be a good business opportunity for someone in Las Cruces. I would think El Paso would be a big enough market that it would be worth jumping through hoops.

[AJL]

Nov 11, 2013 21:28:23 GMT -5 ChillyMcFreeze said:

Is a board screening of Vera Drake in order?

I thought of this right away when I opened this thread.

[ttt]

Nov 11, 2013 21:44:12 GMT -5 SusanBAnthony said:

Might be a good business opportunity for someone in Las Cruces. I would think El Paso would be a big enough market that it would be worth jumping through hoops.

Honestly, with the government constantly looking to shut you down and groups roaming around threatening to kidnap your patients, I'm surprised that anyone opens or maintains an abortion clinic anywhere. 

[Michelle]

Nov 11, 2013 22:13:14 GMT -5 @littlemoxie said:

Nov 11, 2013 21:24:41 GMT -5 Michelle said:

Would you restrict your access to Texas because of insurance purposes?  Just trying to figure out why someone wouldn't just go to Las Cruces which is 45 minutes west/NW?

Note - I'm not saying I support ANY of what is happening to women's rights in Texas right now... I'm just curious about the geography of it.  

I don't know why someone would try to stay in TX at this point.  The organization definitely pays for bus tickets to NM and hotel stays.  Perhaps if someone has some restriction that requires them to stay in-state?  I also have no idea if there is a provider in Las Cruces, or if you would have to go further into NM.

ETA: Or I could check like ttt did.  Anyway, it does get really complicated logistically and the fact is that there aren't abortion providers at every corner store like some crazy right wing nutters would have us believe.  This law just makes them fewer and more spread out.  I'm sure some women in Las Cruces will be sad to see some of the Texan clinics close.

If they are in El Paso, yes definitely.  So would anyone in Silver City and its surrounding towns, Lordsburg, Deming, and the various towns all around there.

If you live in El Paso and have to drive to Albuquerque, at least it is less than 4 hours, not the 10 it takes to drive across Texas.  But 4 hours for someone without a car, etc. is still ridiculous.  I imagine that now that the violence in Juarez has calmed down people will be driving across the border for these services.

[elleblue]

Hey, remember the good old days when hospitals had whole wings dedicated to women recovering from botched abortions? Those were the days man, those were the days.


Yeah.

[SusanBAnthony]

With regards to traveling for aborigines, I was listening to an NPR story about this. I didn't catch the whole thing, but the part I heard said many women living in border counties have visas that only allow them to go so far into Texas- so they can't just travel up to another city, as they are restricted to within a few counties of the border. This was a group in San Antonio, IIRC, and they said about 1/3 of their patients were unable to get an abortion AT ALL due to this issue.

[Deleted]

Nov 11, 2013 20:34:55 GMT -5 kme said:

Yeah med school doesn't teach abortions. You have to do a residency or fellowship in performing them.

I understand Texas changed their law that will affect access to care currently, but what's the negative side with ensuring MD's whom are performing have privileges at the local hospital? Its one of the only invasive surgical procedures that I know of that can be completed in a MD's office. If the MD got privileges, the access to care wouldn't change.

Wisdom teeth extraction is more invasive than an abortion

[wawa]

Nov 11, 2013 22:10:25 GMT -5 @littlemoxie said:

Nov 11, 2013 14:59:18 GMT -5 @246baje said:

These prices are crazy and maddening.

I will be open and if someone wants to flame me so be it.
I had an abortion in TX 6 years ago. It cost me $500+ and it was a lot of money for me at the time. My then BF, now DH wired me half of the money and my cousin who skipped med school classes to take me to the clinic, gave me a chunk too.

If I had to find $4000 I don't know what I would have done. I am not American although my child would have been. I was making $1400 a month, had shitty insurance and my BF was in another country. And yes I was on the Pill.

Even now after having a child, miscarrying a pregnancy and carrying another I absolutely know that I did the right thing. It was heartbreaking but it was the right thing. It is upsetting to me that other women will have this choice taken from them.

And yes it may be available but costs like this make it out of reach for many.

Fuck anyone who flames you for that.  

To clarify, the $4,000 costs are for a more difficult procedure later on in pregnancy.  $400 would be considered the low end of normal for today, generally they are $400 - $600 for something done in the first 8 weeks or so.  However, who knows what will happen to prices once abortion providers become more scarce and waits become longer (and each additional week generally costs more).

Someone called the hotline of this organization who had decided to embrace the unplanned pregnancy as a blessing, but then found out the baby was missing major organs at the anatomy scan.  It would have been dangerous to wait and see if a miscarriage would happen on it's own.  She would have needed the $3,000 - 4,000, which was damn near impossible in her situation.

This almost exactly happened to a family member. The family stepped in and paid for it but it was g terrible in every possible respect. They had an oops. Embraced it and were actually really excited and then got this terrible diagnosis and decided to terminate rather than chance complications only to learn that her state sponsored meducal plan won't pay for it. I was filed with so much rage.

[kme]

Nov 11, 2013 20:52:29 GMT -5 Catlawdy said:

Nov 11, 2013 20:34:55 GMT -5 kme said:

negative side with ensuring MD's whom are performing have privileges at the local hospital? Its one of the only invasive surgical procedures that I know of that can be completed in a MD's office. If the MD got privileges, the access to care wouldn't change.

I've had other invasive procedures done in office.

I like to leave the judgment of where and how procedures can be performed to my doctor, not to the general assembly.

You should read the circumcision thread then if you trust doctors so much.

[Deleted]

Nov 12, 2013 7:24:18 GMT -5 kme said:

Nov 11, 2013 20:52:29 GMT -5 Catlawdy said:

I've had other invasive procedures done in office.

I like to leave the judgment of where and how procedures can be performed to my doctor, not to the general assembly.

You should read the circumcision thread then if you trust doctors so much.

I trust most doctors have medical training and there is also a governing body made up of medical professionals who set what is standard protocol for procedures. 

I do not trust my legislature which is full of insurance salesmen to know anything about health care delivery 

[ttt]

Nov 12, 2013 7:24:18 GMT -5 kme said:

Nov 11, 2013 20:52:29 GMT -5 Catlawdy said:

I've had other invasive procedures done in office.

I like to leave the judgment of where and how procedures can be performed to my doctor, not to the general assembly.

You should read the circumcision thread then if you trust doctors so much.

You're right. That circumcision story would have had a much better outcome if a Texas Congressman had been performing the surgery instead.

[kme]

Nov 11, 2013 20:50:36 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Nov 11, 2013 20:34:55 GMT -5 kme said:

Its one of the only invasive surgical procedures that I know of that can be completed in a MD's office. If the MD got privileges, the access to care wouldn't change.

This isn't true. Many surgeries are performed in outpatient centers (this is a list of codes, but it lists all the procedures): www.health.ny.gov/health_care/medicaid/rates/methodology/amb_surg_proc_codes.htm

In any of them, if a patient experiences complications, they're transported to a hospital.

[

Outpatient surgical centers are different but I wasn't talking about them. I specifically said MD offices. Typically outpatient surgical centers do have atleast 1 attending in practice that has admitting privileges/can perform in hospitals.

But an office/surgical centers debate is not the real topic at hand. I don't think there's any harm in enforcing your practitioner should have privileges somewhere, especially for this type of procedure. That doesn't mean abortions need to happen in the hospital but if complications occur and you end up in the hosptial or need to have a further procedure in the hospital (eg, D&C) the one who performed the procedure will be able to be your primary MD or partake in your care if needed. Those type of procedures are rare but they do occur (we do about 3-7 per week at our hospital).

I don't think this should have been mandated this as quickly as it was. They should have given more time (start in 2015) to allow the privileges process to occur.

I posted from my phone so please disregard spelling/commas and weird things that are there.

[kme]

Nov 12, 2013 8:06:46 GMT -5 Catlawdy said:

Nov 12, 2013 7:24:18 GMT -5 kme said:

You should read the circumcision thread then if you trust doctors so much.

So your point being that if botched circ doc had privileges at a local hospital and could continue treatment of the child, there'd have been a better outcome?

Nope.

Lol no. I was just trying to make a point pertaining to trusting all doctors and their decisions. Everything about that situation is messed up. You should listen to what a doctor says, research yourself, make an informed decision and not blindly trust everything that is told to you - there are doctors who don't perform to current standards. Just listening to them blindly will only hurt you. That's it.

[ttt]

Nov 12, 2013 8:21:47 GMT -5 kme said:

Nov 12, 2013 8:06:46 GMT -5 Catlawdy said:

So your point being that if botched circ doc had privileges at a local hospital and could continue treatment of the child, there'd have been a better outcome?

Nope.

Lol no. I was just trying to make a point pertaining to trusting all doctors and their decisions. Everything about that situation is messed up. You should listen to what a doctor says, research yourself, make an informed decision and not blindly trust everything that is told to you - there are doctors who don't perform to current standards. Just listening to them blindly will only hurt you. That's it.

Who said anything about trusting all doctors? The question was, who is more qualified to decide which procedures should be performed where, doctors or legislators with no medical training? 

[wawa]

Nov 12, 2013 7:59:02 GMT -5 kme said:

Nov 11, 2013 20:50:36 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

This isn't true. Many surgeries are performed in outpatient centers (this is a list of codes, but it lists all the procedures): www.health.ny.gov/health_care/medicaid/rates/methodology/amb_surg_proc_codes.htm

In any of them, if a patient experiences complications, they're transported to a hospital.

[

Outpatient surgical centers are different but I wasn't talking about them. I specifically said MD offices. Typically outpatient surgical centers do have atleast 1 attending in practice that has admitting privileges/can perform in hospitals.

But an office/surgical centers debate is not the real topic at hand. I don't think there's any harm in enforcing your practitioner should have privileges somewhere, especially for this type of procedure. That doesn't mean abortions need to happen in the hospital but if complications occur and you end up in the hosptial or need to have a further procedure in the hospital (eg, D&C) the one who performed the procedure will be able to be your primary MD or partake in your care if needed. Those type of procedures are rare but they do occur (we do about 3-7 per week at our hospital).

I don't think this should have been mandated this as quickly as it was. They should have given more time (start in 2015) to allow the privileges process to occur.

I posted from my phone so please disregard spelling/commas and weird things that are there.

You work in the medical field?
So...do you know if are there other procedures where it's common for these sorts of requirements to be set by law rather than by licensing boards? thinking like wisdom tooth extractions, colonoscopies, cosmetic surgery, minor lump removals...all stuff I know is done in office sometimes. Where do the requirements for those procedures come from?

[pixy0stix]

Nov 12, 2013 7:24:18 GMT -5 kme said:

You should read the circumcision thread then if you trust doctors so much.

I'll note you down as wanting your representative to make your healthcare decisions for you. Good luck with that.

[pixy0stix]

Nov 12, 2013 7:59:02 GMT -5 kme said:

[

Outpatient surgical centers are different but I wasn't talking about them. I specifically said MD offices. Typically outpatient surgical centers do have atleast 1 attending in practice that has admitting privileges/can perform in hospitals.

But an office/surgical centers debate is not the real topic at hand. I don't think there's any harm in enforcing your practitioner should have privileges somewhere, especially for this type of procedure. That doesn't mean abortions need to happen in the hospital but if complications occur and you end up in the hosptial or need to have a further procedure in the hospital (eg, D&C) the one who performed the procedure will be able to be your primary MD or partake in your care if needed. Those type of procedures are rare but they do occur (we do about 3-7 per week at our hospital).

I don't think this should have been mandated this as quickly as it was. They should have given more time (start in 2015) to allow the privileges process to occur.

I posted from my phone so please disregard spelling/commas and weird things that are there.

Again, this issue with this is that many hospitals don't want to be attached to doctors that are performing abortions. Doing so opens them up to the crazies that will kidnap your patients, picket the front door, and send you bomb threats. So requiring that doctors have admitting privileges is inherently self limiting if the hospitals don't want that type of exposure.

So now women are left without access to health care at all.

[pixy0stix]

Real world example of how being tied to abortions hurts organizations: Planned Parenthood

PP provides a wide range of medical services for women. Only 3% of those services are abortion services. Yet PP's are picketed everywhere, are constantly at the risk of losing funding, and have to deal with the crazy daily.

Now imagine a small hospital in TX suddenly has an "abortion doctor" on staff. How would that go? Suddenly that hospital would turn into an abortion mecca where there is a spa for women who are about to have an abortion. (See public reaction to Onion piece: www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/02/congressman-falls-months-old-onion-story-about-planned-parenthood-abortionplex/48344/ )

[msmerymac]

I've had oral surgery. My periodontist does not have hospital admitting privileges. My ophthalmologist asks for my medical insurance information in case there's an issue they can't address and I need to be transferred to an MD. None of this means they are not capable professionals, or that my issues won't be addressed if I have complications, or that they'll just dump my at the ambulance bay of a local hospital. And yet, no state legislature is trying to make sure my dentist has admitting privileges at a local hospital. That would be... ridiculous. Right?

[AJL]

Nov 12, 2013 6:00:53 GMT -5 SusanBAnthony said:

With regards to traveling for aborigines abortions, I was listening to an NPR story about this. I didn't catch the whole thing, but the part I heard said many women living in border counties have visas that only allow them to go so far into Texas- so they can't just travel up to another city, as they are restricted to within a few counties of the border. This was a group in San Antonio, IIRC, and they said about 1/3 of their patients were unable to get an abortion AT ALL due to this issue.

FTFY

[SusanBAnthony]

Oh Lordy.

[gpw]

Nov 12, 2013 9:47:05 GMT -5 SusanBAnthony said:

Oh Lordy.

Gotta love auto correct!  I actually may have spit water when I read it, though!

[thejen626]

I have a close friend who is a doula. She's ~65 years old. She volunteers at a local abortion clinic at least one day every week. As she puts it, "she supports women during pregnancy and birth, including the termination of pregnancy".

[pixy0stix]

Nov 12, 2013 13:27:56 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

Nov 12, 2013 8:21:47 GMT -5 kme said:

Lol no. I was just trying to make a point pertaining to trusting all doctors and their decisions. Everything about that situation is messed up. You should listen to what a doctor says, research yourself, make an informed decision and not blindly trust everything that is told to you - there are doctors who don't perform to current standards. Just listening to them blindly will only hurt you. That's it.

So when I "researched myself" to make an "informed decision," amazingly, I found out that birth has a higher complication and morbidity rate than abortion!  But I was puzzled to see that we ALLOW and in some cases ENCOURAGE even homebirth.  Can you explain this dichotomy?  Should we stop allowing birth?  Should we stop allowing homebirth?  Should we force women to be admitted into hospitals for birth? 

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270271

So now what?

And obviously we can't have midwives at the birth, because they don't have admitting privileges.