Latest Headlines
- FDOT Updates Status Of Century Highway 29 Construction Work
- Tate Grad, UWF Standout Darrien McDowell Selected In 2024 MLB Draft
- Suspect, 19, Indicted For Fatal Drive-By Shooting Of 70-Year-Old
- Blue Angels Select Officers for 2025 Show Season
- ECSO: McDavid Woman Claims Crockpot ‘Magically Makes Meth”, Charged With Child Neglect
- Driver’s License, Tag, Tax Collector Services This Week In Walnut Hill, Century
- Florida Gas Prices Hold Steady Over Last Week
- Register Now For Northview Chiefs Football Camp
- Wahoos Drop Back-and-Forth Road Finale
- Walnut Hill Man Was The Boss Of The Pensacola Beach Air Show. Here’s A Behind The Scenes Look.
Local Rep. Files Bill That Would Place New Requirement On Abortion Doctors
December 30, 2014
A Northwest Florida lawmaker filed a proposal Monday that would require doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.
The proposal foled by Rep. Mike Hill, R-Pensacola Beach, is similar to measures that have spurred political and legal battles in other states. It would require physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at hospitals 30 miles or less from where the abortions take place.
Supporters have argued such proposals help ensure patient safety, while critics contend the requirements are designed to make it harder to provide abortions.
Comments
15 Responses to “Local Rep. Files Bill That Would Place New Requirement On Abortion Doctors”
I think when men have reproductive organs that give birth than and only than should they be allowed to make any laws that govern what a women does with her own vagina .. Really .. Lets all just grow up and call it what it is OPRESSION OF WOMEN BY MEN WHOM MAKE LAWS
Of course the true intent is to restrict access to abortion, but he very well cant say that. Its 2014, you cant speak honestly anymore, eveything has to be sideways talk so nobodys feelings get hurt.
Education isnt key at all. Not when every commercial from Big Lots to Burger King uses sexual innuendos. Should i mention music and magazines ? Your toddler watch disney shows ? Pre-teen watch Nickelodeon or MTV ? Sexual innuendos.
I’ll not get any applause for saying this…….but…..families started getting neglected when women’s lib. came around and women wanted to be equal in the workplace. When infact they were equal to start. Getting married and having a family is a team effort. Just because men made money never negated all that women did. Now its all crap. Look at divorce rates now and before. Abortion is just an easy way out for those who wanna live irresponsible lives with risque behavior. When they do have kids, their part time parents. Another thing about the effect of decisions, when corporal punishment was taken out of schools and you couldnt beat your kids anymore,well, just look around. In just 25 years and their monsters. Im done, just wasting breath anyway.
There are too many situations that make the attempt to ban abortions troubling and the notion that the initial term of a pregnancy is a viable conscience human is a falsehood. But if we were serious about this problem we’d push a viable sex education of our young people instead of leaving them to their own devices and ideas that are just wrong, and we’d also not attack viable contraception methods, including the morning after pill. It has been shown in poorest Africa, women giving an education will take charge of their bodies and have fewer children.
And we need to stop promoting large families; the world is over populated with us at the point we consume more of the planet’s resources than it can put back in any given year.
Dan your point is well taken. BT- you are also right on target. As to the concerns for “something going wrong”, if a problem does come up, no hospital will turn the woman away. Hospitals have staff who they most time prefer to use. Some will say the woman should’nt make the mistake of having to do this. If you close down the clinics we can always go back to the old “back alley” coat hanger system. This is just an attempt to cause more problems for someone who has a problem. I wonder how many have taken a woman into their homes while she goes full term and then adopted the child. How many have help raise a child by buying food and clothing. This smell like “we’ll make her regret this and punish her and the child for ever”.
As long as ALL outpatient care providers are subject to these same rules then sure, let’s go for it. That means your dentist, chiropractor, massage therapist, and anyone else providing you with care which could, even at the remotest level of chance, result in an injury requiring hospitalization. Why single out doctors who provide abortions when the rate of complications is so small? Let’s be honest about the true intent here. It is not to ensure the health of the patient. This is nothing more than an attempt to further restrict access to abortion.
I believe abortion should be legal and extremely rare. It should be not used as routine birth control, but those women seeking abortions should have the freedom to have one if they and their doctor deem it necessary.
Wouldn’t it be a better world if the anti abortionists had the same passion for the well being of the fetus after the birth as they do before ?
Molino Jim aka (yankee Jim), If he were anything like a godly man, he would raise the child not murder it. For a daughter, raise the child so she could still have a life. A child is worthy of love and kindness no matter how it was conceived. You may say, it wouldnt be your choice, however, my wife and i have actually talked about the situation and i know she is firmly against murder. As for a daughter, we have always raised our children in truth.
Number one, the percentage of women actually gang raped is so small, it’s not as likely as one commentor would suggest. It’s not as if that is the main reason that thousands of unborn children are aborted every day. The main reason unborn children are being murdered is because of irresponsible planning on the mother’s part. Not 100% of the time, but far more often than people give credit for. The though that a decision should be between a woman and her God is a curious one. Did God not bless that woman with a child? He did, and the woman is making the “choice” to destroy a beautiful miracle of life that God gifted her, regardless of the circumstances. The child did not ask for anything. It was created because of other people’s actions. It did nothing wrong to deserve a death sentence. It would be wise of people to think about that as cruel and unusual punishment rather than a death sentence to a pedophile or murderer. At least those people brought the just punishment on themselves.
This is a commonsence proposal..my perspective on this comes primarily from a healthcare provider position…legal position too, really…continuity of care is very important- that’s why the performing physician needs to be able to participate in that process as the patient proceeds to a higher level of care…in addition, I feel fairly confident in saying that most doctors would prefer that the Dr who preformed the procedure (with unexpected complications) continues to manage their patient to the extent of their expertise and not suck another OBGYN into a probable lawsuit down the road…I would really like to hear what the view of the surrounding NWFLA hospitals are too…especially Sacred Heart- since they take a firm position against most contraceptive methods and, ESPECIALLY abortion- I have a feeling that they would frown on allowing an abortionist privileges at their hospital or, affiliate hospitals… I don’t know whether Mike Hill is prolife, or not ( I wasn’t able to vote for him, unfortunately). But, I certainly give him a lot of credit for having the courage to legislatively approach this controversial issue (for some) in an effort to help insure the most important aspect- which is optimal patient safety.
No one is trying to stop the abortion rights of women, molino jim – whether you are for it or not is immaterial here. I think it’s smart to be able to admit a patient to a nearby hospital if things go awry, as they sometimes will. Stick to the point. I think it’s a smart move designed to protect people, not violate their rights.
I’m not sure what possess him to try this. It’s an attempt to restrict abortion, which will cost a ton of effort, emotion and cash to defend. It will ultimately be declared unconstitutional.
It has nothing to do with patient safety…that argument is dishonest.
I probably hate abortion more than most, but this is a cartoonish effort destined to fail.
I wonder how he would feel if his wife or daughter were gang raped and found to be expecting? The decision should be between the woman, her doctor and her God. Not some new kid on the block. Rick Perry pushed for this and now it looks as if the court are going to reject it.
Just makes sense that a Dr. doing a procedure that could cause a woman to bleed to death would have such? Protect the customer… Good move Mike.
That is atleast a move the the right direction.
Doctors practice medicine. Abortionists practice murder.