Registration law latest assault on abortion rights
An anti-abortion-rights activist stands in front of pro-abortion-rights activists with the National Organization for Women at a vigil outside the U.S. Supreme Court Jan. 23, 2012, in Washington. / Getty Images
(The New Republic) The latest assault on abortion rights is taking place in Tennessee, where a new law that goes into effect on July 1 will require abortion providers to register at local hospitals. Though it seems mundane and bureaucratic, the law is actually part of an increasingly successful strategy for quietly destroying access to abortion.
The Tennessee bill, called the Life Defense Act of 2012, would require every Tennessee practitioner who performs abortions to be a member of a local hospital. Proponents of the bill claim that obtaining "admitting privileges" -- that is, obtaining member status -- better positions doctors to deal with possible medical complications. The aim, they assert, is to ensure the safety of women. But it's easy to perceive ulterior motives.
First, the admitting privileges standard isn't applied to any other outpatient procedure. "[C]osmetic surgeons, dentists and oral surgeons, urologists, orthopedic surgeons -- basically any other medical professionals," are exempt from this standard, according to Jeff Teague, the President and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Middle and East Tennessee. Second, hospitals are allowed wide discretion in their membership. In Tennessee, this means that many hospitals will close their doors to doctors who provide abortions. "We don't do that here," said a representative at Baptist Hospital in Nashville when I asked if a doctor who performs abortions could obtain membership. A spokesperson at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville echoed this sentiment. Doctors in rural and more conservative areas will have an even harder time finding a local hospital that will admit them. As Teague put it: "We are very concerned with it having a chilling effect."
The likelihood of this has been echoed by non-partisan research: An October 2011 report in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that bureaucratic measures that do little to ignite culture-war flare-ups have greater effect than dramatic, controversial measures. There's evidence of this "chilling effect" in the eight other states that have recently passed admitting privileges provisions, often alongside similar bureaucratic restrictions. In Mississippi, one of the states that has passed this type of law, one clinic may be forced to close its doors, as only one of its three doctors has admitting privileges. (The clinic's owner, Diane Derzis, told Politico that she plans to sue the state if closure becomes likely.)
Abortion in Tennessee has thus far been protected in large part by a 2000 state Supreme Court decision, Planned Parenthood of Central Tennessee, et al. v. Sundquist, which asserted the right to an abortion as an extension of the right to privacy. This decision has made it harder for the state legislature to pursue barriers like enforced waiting periods. It has not, however, prevented administrative hurdles. According to Carrie Russell, who teaches constitutional law at Vanderbilt, it's unclear if the admitting-privileges hurdle would be deemed unconstitutional. "The Supreme Court hasn't given us a bright line on what that constitutes." Moreover, a state-level constitutional amendment explicitly exempting abortion from the protection established by the Sundquist decision is expected to make it onto the 2014 ballot.
Regardless of what may await this law in the courts, its impact will be felt when it goes into effect next month. While the bill might not achieve the crippling impact of its Mississippi cousin, it will be a palpable blow to safe and legal abortion in Tennessee. The war over abortion in this country has fallen back to the states, and it's a fight in which the pro-choice lobby is losing ground.
Thomas Stackpole is a reporter-researcher at The New Republic. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.
Recommended
- Top Twelve Most Patriotic Songs Ever
- Many British Muslims Put Islam First
- The Decline and Fall of the American Empire
- Confessions of a former Republican
- Is 60 The New 40 Or Is 40 The New 60?
- Population Decline Is Bad For Us
- Here's Why People Don't Buy Global Warming
- George W. Bush Vs. The Constitution
I have been proved right:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47889107/ns/health-womens_health/#.T-LMtRf-_90
While the pregnancy rates are down for teens and women in their 20s, they are up for women in their 30s and 40s, the report found. That is consistent with previous research.
Women between 40 and 44 had a dramatic increase in pregnancy rates of nearly 65 percent from 1990 to 2008, the report said. There were 18.8 pregnancies per 1,000 women in that age group in 2008, compared with 11.4 per 1,000 in 1990.
And before, some man tells me that these women didn't have the foresight to not get pregnant I say to you: contraception is not 100% effective. And as I wrote before there are medications that make the birth control less effective. I know this because I suffer from severe sinus infection and my doctor at the CLEVELAND CLINIC told me that my strong antibiotic will effect my birth control.
That last bit was for nygurl who is an extremely naive little thing.
No, I am not a Brit but American and most Brits I know don't live in a fairytale in somewhere in Hollywood.
Researchers found that of more than 4,100 women who were seeking birth control, about 45 percent overestimated the effectiveness of the Pill and condoms.
They also had too much faith in hormonal birth control patches, vaginal rings and injections, according to findings reported in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47208482/ns/health-womens_health/t/women-overestimate-effectiveness-pill-condoms/?ns=health-womens_health#.T-LRVxf-_90
I wonder if Southerners will progress into the 21st Century before the 22nd one arrives.
Even before Roe v. Wade the rich and/or connected could get an abortion, disguised as a dilation (or dilatation) and curettage, which can also be used for other purposes.
Requiring these doctors to get membership, they know will be denied them, is dishonest.
Now, the article is about none of this, but about forcing licensed medical doctors who have safely been performing abortions at clinics to register with hospitals (which will have nothing to do with the abortions) in order to continue to perform abortions at their clinics (not at the hospitals). It is nonsense and the purpose is to pressure hospitals to deny them admitting privileges so that they cannot perform the abortions at their own clinics. Keep your eye on the ball.
Now, the article is about none of this, but about forcing licensed medical doctors who have safely been performing abortions at clinics to register with hospitals (which will have nothing to do with the abortions) in order to continue to perform abortions at their clinics (not at the hospitals). It is nonsense and the purpose is to pressure hospitals to deny them admitting privileges so that they cannot perform the abortions at their own clinics. Keep your eye on the ball.
Yep. The above post needs a rewrite. Not only is the grammar confused but so are the points he is trying to address. I'm assuming he is saying that a mother's life is never in danger because the medical care would pick up the danger signs. Weird and so wrong, Mike.
Try to understand Mike, half of pregnancies are unplanned for whatever reason. Medical complications do occurred in quite a few of those pregnancies; some being extremely dangerous for both or either mother and baby. I'm not quite sure why you bought up this particular point. Are you trying to correlate medical complications with abortions? Because most medical problems don't end in abortions.
As for the rest of your post, I can't figure it out.