In 1978, Ohio passed a law that an abortion after the first trimester must take place in a hospital. Makes sense, right? Where are the incubators? In a hospital. And, as we all know from reading our partial-birth abortion caselaw, second and third trimester abortions can be kind of messy. A hospital is a good place for invasive medical procedures. You protect the woman's health, and if it turns out the baby is bigger than you thought, you can put him in an incubator. So it's a win-win, right?
In Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, the Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional. The Court is overturning a health regulation that protects women and babies. Why?
"A primary burden created by the requirement is additional costs to the woman. The Court of Appeals noted that there was testimony that a second-trimester abortion costs nearly twice as much in a hospital as in a clinic." The Court goes on to note that a hospital abortion costs $900, while a D&E in a clinic costs $350-$400.
Now, it is true, safety regulations cost money. I am well aware of the cost burdens of the liberal welfare state. I mean, women should be free to contract, right? Some women want safer abortions in a hospital--just in case they are bleeding or they have that free-floating head problem. So they pay an extra $500 for safety. Other women don't mind risking their lives, so they can get cheap, not-as-safe abortions, with the ol' slice-and-dice method in the clinic. Lochner, Lochner, right to contract, woo-hoo!
"A primary burden created by the requirement is additional costs to the woman. The Court of Appeals noted that there was testimony that a second-trimester abortion costs nearly twice as much in a hospital as in a clinic." The Court goes on to note that a hospital abortion costs $900, while a D&E in a clinic costs $350-$400.
Now, it is true, safety regulations cost money. I am well aware of the cost burdens of the liberal welfare state. I mean, women should be free to contract, right? Some women want safer abortions in a hospital--just in case they are bleeding or they have that free-floating head problem. So they pay an extra $500 for safety. Other women don't mind risking their lives, so they can get cheap, not-as-safe abortions, with the ol' slice-and-dice method in the clinic. Lochner, Lochner, right to contract, woo-hoo!
What F.D.R. and the New Deal democrats would say, I think, is that this Supreme Court has obviously lost its mind, its rules are illegitimate, you are feeble-minded idiots, and we need to pack the fucking Court. Okay, they would probably be more polite. What happened to liberalism, man? What happened to feminism? Do you not actually give a damn about a woman's health anymore?
A woman going into a clinic has no idea of the health risks involved. She is counting on the procedure being safe. She cannot bargain effectively. This is the basis for state regulation of all industry, you Supreme Court shit-for-brains. Yeah yeah, abortion is an industry, and it needs safety regulations from the welfare state. And, since Lochner was overruled and disgraced like 70 years ago, I shouldn't have to jump up and down and tell you this. You're fucking liberals! This is your side, man! Do you want women to die?
Just go through the Ginsburg list of all the life-threatening injuries that can happen to a woman who undergoes a D&E, and then consider that the Supreme Court has insisted, for twenty-seven years, that a hospital requirement--a simple fucking safety regulation--for this invasive medical procedure is unconstitutional. Unconstitutional! She's unconscious and you're ripping into her body with a knife. Hacking and removing, hacking and removing. I kinda think a hospital would be a good place for that. I mean, am I insane? Have I lost my mind? Have I misunderstood the purpose of a hospital?
Why not do away with that bothersome M.D. requirement and let plumbers have a crack at it? I bet we could deregulate our way down to $90 abortions.
A woman going into a clinic has no idea of the health risks involved. She is counting on the procedure being safe. She cannot bargain effectively. This is the basis for state regulation of all industry, you Supreme Court shit-for-brains. Yeah yeah, abortion is an industry, and it needs safety regulations from the welfare state. And, since Lochner was overruled and disgraced like 70 years ago, I shouldn't have to jump up and down and tell you this. You're fucking liberals! This is your side, man! Do you want women to die?
Just go through the Ginsburg list of all the life-threatening injuries that can happen to a woman who undergoes a D&E, and then consider that the Supreme Court has insisted, for twenty-seven years, that a hospital requirement--a simple fucking safety regulation--for this invasive medical procedure is unconstitutional. Unconstitutional! She's unconscious and you're ripping into her body with a knife. Hacking and removing, hacking and removing. I kinda think a hospital would be a good place for that. I mean, am I insane? Have I lost my mind? Have I misunderstood the purpose of a hospital?
Why not do away with that bothersome M.D. requirement and let plumbers have a crack at it? I bet we could deregulate our way down to $90 abortions.
As bad as Lochner was, I doubt anybody died as a result of it. I mean, if the nanny state can pass safety regulations keeping bakers from working 11 hours in a day, it seems to me that it can pass safety regulations protecting 16-year-old girls from blood loss and uterine trauma. What are the bakers worried about, hot fingers? You brought back Lochner, you clods. You morons.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the whole point of legalizing abortions was to make them safer for women. And now you are removing safety protections for women? And you say with a straight face that the Constitution requires this? Why must abortions be cheap, plentiful, and life-threatening as possible?
No comments:
Post a Comment