George Weigel on the abortion establishment’s struggle to exempt itself from the cleanliness standards of a 7-11 restroom.
Cuz they, you know, care about women ‘n stuff.
the cleanliness standards of a 7-11 restroom
the same standards as surgery centers, like those in hospital wings
–The proposed standards the Washington Post says is too much
Pretty dishonest of you.
Read the indictment of Kermit Gosnell. He was licensed by the state of Pennsylvania, yet he was allowed to keep a cat that left feces everywhere, including operating rooms, and had an “emergency exit” that had a padlock on it that no one could find the key to. The state never inspected it. The abortion lobby reps who saw it refused to report it to the state.
It seems to me that when women die because of unsanitary conditions and poorly accessible operating rooms, the abortion lobby has lost the credibility to say that they can operate without heightened scrutiny. Perhaps the admitting privileges and hallway width standards are too strict, but the abortion lobby’s willingness to ignore clinics that look like 7-11 restrooms means they should no longer be the arbiter of these policies.
Nobody is defending Gosnell and his practice, including the Washington Post. Condemnation of that monster has been universal, and no abortion advocate on Earth approves of that level of sanitation.
Gosnell is a straw-man. Nobody is on his side. The “pro-life” movement is dishonestly projecting Gosnell onto everybody, and using the case as a flimsy excuse to shut down clean and safe clinics.
Condemnation of the monster has been *superficial*. And your own post proves it.
You are completely willing to condemn Gosnell on the face, but are not willing to even entertain the idea that maybe, licensed but almost never inspected clinics *might not be clean and safe*. And you oppose any attempt to actually force such clinics to become clean and safe (as do the people who own them, I’m just waiting to see which way they decide in Texas- move the clinics to safer, cleaner buildings or shut them down is the choice now).
Considering that the laws under question would simply make them conform to sanitary standards of other facilities that perform surgery… why would this ‘shut them down’? Particularly if they were already ‘clean and safe’?
Your response reeks of implied dishonesty. It would be similar to a beef processing plant getting angry that they are going to be forced to conform to the same level of sanitation as the pork processing plants and claiming that being forced to do so will ‘shut down safe and clean beef processors’. Well, if they are already ‘safe and clean’, what is the problem?
In apartments I rent out, particularly to those on rental assistance programs, my apartments have to meet minimum standards for safety and cleanliness. Why would I have a problem with that? My apartments are clean and safe already, just like they should be anyway.
As I said in another reply, clinics that perform surgical procedures have already been required to adhere to surgical standards of cleanliness. The new law would require NON-surgical clinics to also adhere to surgical standards of cleanliness, a standard above and beyond what is required for any other medical procedure of similar complexity and risk.
Your comparisons completely ignore that fact. A more valid comparison is this: should a garage be held to the same standard as a kitchen? No, that would be stupid, they serve different functions. So why should a non-surgical clinic be forced to adhere to surgical standards?
No, your comparison is false, as a garage isn’t expected to be kept ‘clean’ in the proper sense of the word… is that your expectations for these facilities? What SPECIFIC parts of those standards do you have a problem with?
a garage isn’t expected to be kept ‘clean’ in the proper sense of the word
FALSE. All workplaces have a standard of cleanliness. Different workspaces have different standards based on what they do, for obvious reasons. Your inability to see this obvious point doesn’t make it an invalid point.
Should all walk-in clinics, doctors offices, dentists, and other medical facilities be required to adhere to surgical standards? No? Why would you be against that?
Question: have you READ any of these standards? (no, of course you haven’t.)
I ask because I just finished reading the full standards doc for Mississippi (MINIMUM STANDARDS OF OPERATION FOR SURGICAL FACIILITIES, it was one of the first in Google). Here’s a question for you: What of these standards is so incredibly draconian that they will totally shut down these facilities? Would it perhaps be, say, Rule 40.30.2 which says they have “shall comply with local zoning, building, and fire ordinances.”? Perhaps “The building shall be structurally sound, free from leaks and excessive moisture, in good repair, and painted at intervals to be reasonably attractive inside and out”? Or maybe under Rule 42 “Any contract modification which affects or changes the function, design or purpose of a facility shall be submitted to and approved by the Mississippi State Department of Health prior to beginning work set forth in any contract modification”? Or how about this horrible bit of facism: “There shall be a room designated as the admission office where patients may discuss personal matters in private”. Oh dear Lord hep us! They even make you keep the vending machines in a separate common room!
Really the only thing I’m seeing that would require possible remodeling would be making sure the hallways were wide enough. Otherwise, I see nothing here particularly bad. Demanding that areas that are ‘operating areas’ have to be tile or similar wouldn’t even apply if you have no operating areas.
So, what IN PARTICULAR is so horrible?
Here is just one:
The following equipment shall be available to the operating suite: emergency call system, oxygen, mechanical ventilatory assistance equipment, including airways and manual breathing bag, cardiac defibrillator, cardiac monitoring equipment, thoracotomy set, tracheotomy set, laryngoscopes and endotracheal tubes, suction equipment, emergency drugs and supplies specified by the medical staff.
This stuff is completely unnecessary for a non-surgical outpatient procedure and you know it.
What IN PARTICULAR about the current standards isn’t good enough? Your comment is appalling (but not surprising) in its dishonesty. When you bring up zoning standards, for example, you’re not making a point, you’re just being dishonest. They already have to abide by zoning standards, you hack.
If there is surgery performed on the premises, then certain rules apply. If not, those specific ones don’t apply. That’s fairly straight forward in the regs I’ve read.
I’m not a hack for bringing up zoning standards. Those specifics are IN the regs. Copy/Pasting from the standards doc is ‘dishonest’? Wow…
If there is surgery performed on the premises, then certain rules apply. If not, those specific ones don’t apply.
Exactly. They’re different NOW. The proposed change is to bump ALL facilities to those surgical standards. My God, you have no idea what this conversation is even about, do you?
Copy/Pasting from the standards doc is ‘dishonest’?
No, implying that I’m against these common-sense rules that they already abide by is dishonest.
No, I’m implying that you have no idea what you’re talking about. An implication you keep confirming.
“The proposed change is to bump ALL facilities to those surgical standards.”
– You need to read the actual regs. WITHIN the surgical reg documents it specifies what regulations are specific to actual operating rooms, recovery rooms etc. If the particular room doesn’t exist, then that particular reg doesn’t apply. It also mentions having to have elevators to go to the other floors. But there there are no other floors, there’s no requirement for an elevator. Understand?
And you didn’t answer my question. Trying to misdirect by changing the subject isn’t going to work.
Ah, there it is! Perhaps you added it on edit as it didn’t show up before.
As for your cited reg, did you perhaps notice this line “The following equipment shall be available to the operating suite”
If no surgical operations are done, there will be no ‘operating suite’.
I would point out that the cited materials are used to try to save your life if you suddenly flatline. Why you wouldn’t expect a facility that performs surgery (again, if zero surgery, doesn’t apply) to not have decent means of saving your life onhand if you, say, have a reaction to the sedative, choke on your vomit and flatline is a mystery to me.
It’s a trivial step to declare the examination room an “operating suite”.
How about this obvious one: Doctors who perform abortions would have to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, which may require them to live near one and/or meet a quota of hospital admissions per year.
“It’s a trivial step to declare the examination room an “operating suite”.”
– Hmmm, considering that examination rooms are not, by definition, operating rooms… I think you and I have VERY different definitions of the word ‘trivial’.
“Doctors who perform abortions would have to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals”
Definition of ‘admitting privileges’: “Admitting privilege is the right of a doctor, by virtue of membership as a hospital’s medical staff, to admit patients to a particular hospital or medical center for providing specific diagnostic or therapeutic services to such patient in that hospital.”
Nope, I have no problem with that. And considering how many abortionists ACTIVELY seeking these privileges, I don’t see how having them is a bad thing.
Well of course YOU have no problem with that. You want abortion banned and you’re happy to support any dishonest runaround to make that happen.
It was never a question of whether you have a problem with it, it’s a question of whether that is a reasonable requirement for doctors performing low-risk non-surgical procedures. The answer is a plain “no”. Why isn’t Texas adding this requirement to dentists, general practitioners, and other walk-in clinics? Because it’s not about patient health, it’s about making abortion harder to perform / obtain.
No, zealot. I have no problem with surgical doctors EVERY KIND kind having that requirement.
I have no problem with surgical doctors of EVERY KIND having that requirement.
And what about non-surgical doctors, theocrat? That’s what this whole discussion is about.
I think they probably still should. What admitting privileges really signify is that the doctor/surgeon has been critically
reviewed by other members of the medical staff, the hospital administration, and the credentialing boards. So yea, no problem with that.
And ‘theocrat’? Please, what does religion even have to do with this particular discussion? I haven’t brought it up once. And yet, you try to cover your spectacular failing and lack of knowledge using this ad hominem? For good measure, why don’t you also call me a Nazi too! Or, hey, how about racist? I think by the modern rules of argument that automatically means you win, or something.
Given the numbers we now know, I would not call abortion a low risk procedure, nor would I call it a non-surgical procedure.
All those other clinics already HAVE this level of requirement.
Too bad abortion isn’t really a “non-surgical outpatient procedure”. It is instead an invasive surgery.
That list of stuff isn’t even particularly expensive, might cost you a few tens of thousands to set up, but it isn’t like building an Intel Clean Room Fab.
Depends on the abortion. But then, you never were one for fact or nuance…
Even a D&C invades the womb with instruments and carries the risk of great harm. Some chemical abortifacients used in the first five weeks of pregnancy aren’t strictly surgery, but all carry a good deal of risk to the mother. And few women realize that they are pregnant early enough for those methods anyway.
And all these laws are really asking for is about the same level that my doctor’s office already does for minor surgery, like the cyst I had removed last year.
I really do not understand your attitude. Or rather, I understand it too well, and it confirms the lack of ability to think that is common to most Americans.
In other words, abortion would now be called an invasive surgery- which gee, it is.
Condemnation of that monster was not ‘universal” at all until the mainstream media was forced to pay some attention to it and only reluctantly. If they had had their way, it would never have attained national attention.
Putting aside pro-life/pro-abortion positions for a second…
“the same standards as surgery centers, like those in hospital wings”
– Considering what the abortion procedure is, why is demanding this kind of standard a problem? Why should it be ok to not meet cleanliness standards if you’re cutting out children but NOT ok to not meet cleanliness standards if you’re installing fake boobs, say? Or perhaps I’m misunderstanding you. Are you defending them not having to meet requirements?
There are lots of abortion procedures, but only a tiny percentage resemble major surgery. I’m all-for such major surgical procedures to be conducted in places with surgical-grade standards and the already-existing laws require exactly that. The new law requires clinics that only provide simple gynecological procedures to be held to an unreasonably high standard, higher than the standard required for countless other procedures of equal or greater risk.
Yes, you’re right, it is TOTALLY unreasonable that such facilities be forced to have “Emergency lighting systems shall be provided to adequately light corridors, operating rooms, exit signs, stairways, and lights on each exit sign at each exit in case of electrical power failure” and “Minimum width of doors to all rooms needing a ccess for stretchers shall be 3 feet 8 inches wide and doors shall swing into rooms.”
You’re right, it’s practically Stalinesque!!! What are we becoming, barbarians???? What’s next? Perhaps “Infectious waste materials shall be rendered noninfectious on the premises by appropriate measures.”??? What is this, the Dark Ages?!?!!?
Do honestly think the current standards don’t involve emergency lighting and exit signs?
No, you don’t. But you’ll dishonestly say that, anyway.
Considering that unlike you, I’ve at least read SOME of the standards, I think that qualifies you as the hack here. I’m sure there are lots of things that overlap. My main point is that you obviously haven’t bothered to read the regs.
Again, what specific reg (provide a reference to said reg please) is so incredibly draconian?
I already pasted one. Keep up.
I see no specific reg cited by you on this thread. Which reg? Which document? Which State? And exactly why is the application of that particular reg terrible?
Again, contact the Montgomery County Council. Maybe they require emergency lighting and exit signs for abortion facilities and maybe they don’t. What I know for sure, though, is that they steadfastly maintain that they have no authority under state and county law to actually inspect the facilities. “Standards” which can’t be enforced are pretty useless.
News flash, when people wake up and realize that they haven’t held regular inspections and haven’t held abortion facilities to the same standards as other outpatient facilities you’re going to get laws tightening up requirements.
One of the requirements that is being protested is that corridors be wide enough so that you can get an ambulance stretcher in and out of the facility easily. This was apparently a problem in the Gosnell facility and a problem in other abortion facilities. I don’t care if you’re a dermatologist. You need to be able to get in and out of the office and if somebody crashes on you due to something as unexpected as an allergic reaction, you don’t want the EMTs slowed down.
How can you possibly stand the hypocrisy?
Not sure where you live, Sven2547, but I live in Montgomery County, MD, in the Post’s backyard, and our County Council President’s secretary has explained to me in great and condescending detail that the Council simply has no authority to inspect (or to even visit) abortion clinics, so our local government has no way to even know if an abortion facility meets the 7-11 restroom standard. Bear in mind that here in Montgomery County, nail salons are inspected twice a year, restaurants are not permitted to cook with trans fats, and children’s sports teams must obtain licenses in order to run concession stands. I’m sure you’re not defending Gosnell, but where I live, another Gosnell could operate with utter impunity…no one would have any authority to check on him. Meanwhile, if you come to my kids’ swim meets or baseball games, you’ll be safe from foodborne illness at the licensed and regulated bake sale.
To sum things up, Sven2547’s argument is overblown BS. She is simply parroting talking points that she doesn’t even understand. Note that when I called her out for specifics, she up and vanishes.
Her primary objection, that forcing non-surgical facilities be judged by the regulations of surgical facilities is somehow draconian, is totally off base. At best she honestly doesn’t know what she’s talking about. At worst she’s willfully trying to muddle the truth. I would like to think she’s simply naive.
Reading through a couple of states’ regs, I have been struck by the fact that the regulations actually seem to be rather EASY to comply with. Most are simply restating codes that already are enforced (see some of my examples below in response to her.) In fact, what REALLY struck me after reading them was that the Minute Clinic I went to a couple of weeks back (they do no surgery there) because I thought I had Strep probably meets these requirements already. Of course some things like type of air filters in the ac/furnace I couldn’t see, so I couldn’t be certain about those.
What is really striking is how few of the REALLY arduous rules (well as arduous as they get) would actually apply anyway. Sven2547 is trying to conjure up this idea that nice little offices would be forced to transform into something that looks like a cut scene from ‘Outbreak’, with plastic on the walls, full yellow suits, and everyone walking around in those horrible ‘head condom’ oxygen masks sounding like a bunch of Darth Vader clones. This is not the case. In fact, if the facility doesn’t actually DO surgery, the regs don’t even apply. So far what I have read is phrased kind of like this: In areas or rooms of the facility WHERE SURGERY IS PREFORMED, such and such rules shall apply. No surgery in the rooms, no application. What’s the problem? (spoiler: there isn’t one.)
Perhaps forcing them to buy equipment is draconian, like a system of back up power supply so that devices that are needed to keep people alive and keep medications from spoiling stay going? Considering that the small dentist office I go to has backup power they installed and fairly minimal cost, I really don’t see a problem here either.
In conclusion: Sven2547’s argument is without any real merit.
The real problem, I think, is that Sven doesn’t know that abortion is an invasive surgery.
Some abortion is chemical. Take chemicals and you have a miscarriage.) But not a lot of it. Some is combo. Frankly can’t figure out why anyone thinks that inserting laminaria and/or vacuum tubes into the womb DOESN’T count as a technique requiring standards of cleanliness.
All surgery is major surgery, there are risks with any surgery. Risks which can lead to death. I’ve worked in operating rooms for the past 20 years and you learn quickly to not say “oh, it’s just a knee arthroscopy or just a gallbladder removal”.. You never know when a patient will crash or develop a post surgical infection, so your mind set always is making the procedure as safe as possible. All patients deserve the same standard of care no matter where the procedure is taking place. Sterile isn’t sterile if clean isn’t clean, anesthesia drugs are high risk. We are told we don’t care about women, yet it is somehow more caring not to expect a woman having an abortion to be in a facility that meets the same standards as a man having a vasectomy or child having their tonsils out. Sorry, I just don’t understand how meeting this standard of care is so bad or onerous.
Because you must be a theocrat who hates women!!!! Or something… It makes no sense to me either.
Numerous sources have confirmed that Gosnell’s house of horrors was known about within the industry. Ignoring this, and condemning it after the fact is unbelievably cynical. I won’t even say hypocritical because I honestly think it is a calculated move and nothing more. The people who knew about Gosnell and didn’t report him knew that to do so would undermine an overarching project and they were fine with sacrificing women on that altar.