Mississippi law to close last abortion clinic in the state
By: dgun
June 30th, 2012
9:10 pm
Republican lawmakers in the state of Mississippi have made it very clear that the intention of House Bill 1390 is to close the only abortion clinic in Mississippi. The bill was signed in April and is supposed to go into effect July 1st.
In fact, on the Lieutenant Governor's website it states, "A bill intended to close the state's only abortion clinic is now law and is set to go into effect in July".
The legislation is using regulation in an attempt to close down the clinic by requiring that all doctors working at any abortion clinic be "board-certified" OB/GYNs and have staffing and admitting privileges at the local hospital. Apparently, this admitting privilege is hard to obtain.
The clinic has sought an injunction, but has not been successful thus far.
Maybe I don't understand the subject well enough, but the regulation doesn't seem to me to be too outrageous of a requirement.
Post Reply
22 comments on "Mississippi law to close last abortion clinic in the state"
July 1, 2012 at 7:49 am
Republican lawmakers in the state of Mississippi have made it very clear that the intention of House Bill 1390 is to close the only abortion clinic in Mississippi. The bill was signed in April and is supposed to go into effect July 1st.
In fact, on the Lieutenant Governor's website it states, "A bill intended to close the state's only abortion clinic is now law and is set to go into effect in July".
The legislation is using regulation in an attempt to close down the clinic by requiring that all doctors working at any abortion clinic be "board-certified" OB/GYNs and have staffing and admitting privileges at the local hospital. Apparently, this admitting privilege is hard to obtain.
The clinic has sought an injunction, but has not been successful thus far.
Maybe I don't understand the subject well enough, but the regulation doesn't seem to me to be too outrageous of a requirement.
July 1, 2012 at 7:50 am
Admitting privileges are not the norm for people in such positions. It's a law that sounds simple, but isn't.
Clinic officials have applied at every eligible medical center in the Jackson metropolitan and surrounding areas, Thompson said.
Admitting privileges at local hospitals may be difficult to obtain. Many religious-affiliated hospitals do not allow abortions to be performed at their facilities and some will not affiliate with doctors who perform abortions at other hospitals or clinics.
Public hospitals like the University of Mississippi Medical Center have strict guidelines. At UMC, doctors must apply with the appropriate clinical department, where officials determine whether applicants meet basic qualifications, spokesman Tom Fortner said. Then, the executive committee of the medical staff and the dean of medicine must approve the application.
Republican lawmakers who supported the law were banking on abortion providers having difficulty obtaining admitting privileges at local hospitals.
"If we require them to have admitting privileges, and the hospitals don't provide them, and I don't think they will, then we can end abortion in Mississippi," Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves said during the recent legislative session. "That should be our No. 1 priority."
July 1, 2012 at 9:29 am
There is a federal lawsuit pending in this case. I may have misunderstood about the injunction. Could be that it has to get to the point where the state officials order them to close before they could get an injunction.
If the clinic is Jackson is the only one in the state, how much more trouble is it just to go to Alabama or Louisiana? If there is only one clinic, that's pretty low demand for abortions, which is a good.
Having the effect and intent of removing the only clinic in the state
July 1, 2012 at 10:13 am
Dgun, If your point is that there are very few clinically legal abortions in that state, it is self evident. It has nothing to to do with actual demand of the service.
Medical care just does not work on a supply /demand grade like widgets. Prices are not determined by market forces, and govt involvement on both the price and regulatory side is by far a greater determinator of profit and competition.
I see no reason to assume women in that state are any less likely to need or want abortion services and every reason to believe they either travel out of state, get illegal or unreported abortion services or do without and give birth. Which do you think is the better outcome of those choices?
July 1, 2012 at 10:36 am
If the clinic is Jackson is the only one in the state, how much more trouble is it just to go to Alabama or Louisiana? If there is only one clinic, that's pretty low demand for abortions, which is a good.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...74M6J420110523
Women, especially the poorer women amongst us, will have to pay more to travel out of state for their medical health care.
I am amazed that men in the state capitols, or in our nation's capitol, still think they have all of the answers to a women's health care. Sadly, all they are doing is pandering to a voting bloc who think that they know best.
July 1, 2012 at 10:40 am
There is a federal lawsuit pending in this case. I may have misunderstood about the injunction. Could be that it has to get to the point where the state officials order them to close before they could get an injunction.
If the clinic is Jackson is the only one in the state, how much more trouble is it just to go to Alabama or Louisiana? If there is only one clinic, that's pretty low demand for abortions, which is a good.
And the fact that they have been so open and upfront about this goes to show that they're more interested in winning points with their supporters than actually closing down the clinic.
I'm going to try to find the case I'm thinking of, if I remember correctly there was a similar incident of a state effectively eliminating the only abortion clinic in-state. If I remember right it was held to be a substantial burden. If that's the case, this should be struck down. As far as the injunction goes, I would think that they could seek an injunction preventing the closing of the facility before the issue is resolved.
July 1, 2012 at 10:48 am
It should be struck down, I suppose in the mean time women will just have to travel to neighboring states to get an abortion or be forced to go to the black market.
July 1, 2012 at 11:02 am
Considering that the rate of abortions have gone down in the past few years, this action will effect those who may need it most, the very poor women in our country;
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...74M6J420110523
Women, especially the poorer women amongst us, will have to pay more to travel out of state for their medical health care.
I am amazed that men in the state capitols, or in our nation's capitol, still think they have all of the answers to a women's health care. Sadly, all they are doing is pandering to a voting bloc who think that they know best.
I am going to get into trouble here. The result may be sexist and anti-women, but those men are reflecting a constituancy composed almost equally of women as men. Women represent almost 50% of the pro-life demographic. No reason to think their values are unworthy of being loyally represented by those conservative men. They are not unintelligent sheep and yes they include women who have unwanted pregnancies and who are intimately involved with sisters, daughter and friends in that have unwanted pregnancies. I don't think this belief is fundamentally sexist-induced despite the corrolation to social conservative values that often include sexism. If men could get pregnant, there would be plenty of pro-life men expecting their values to be represented in legislatures too.
July 1, 2012 at 11:32 am
Well, I finally found the complaint. Here it is for your viewing pleasure.
July 1, 2012 at 11:32 am
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/mo...irst-time.aspx
I am going to get into trouble here. The result may be sexist and anti-women, but those men are reflecting a constituancy composed almost equally of women as men. Women represent almost 50% of the pro-life demographic. No reason to think their values are unworthy of being loyally represented by those conservative men. They are not unintelligent sheep and yes they include women who have unwanted pregnancies and who are intimately involved with sisters, daughter and friends in that have unwanted pregnancies. I don't think this belief is fundamentally sexist-induced despite the corrolation to social conservative values that often include sexism. If men could get pregnant, there would be plenty of pro-life men expecting their values to be represented in legislatures too.
Roe v. Wade is established and settled law. Women in Mississippi have the same rights as women in other states and as is the case with Arizona and immigration, the state has very few avenues for not allowing abortions.
States don't get to pick and choose what Federal laws to follow or not. My moron Governor can mouth off all he wants about not having healthcare exchanges but he doesn't get to decide that.
The Feds are supposed to defend the unpopular from the tyranny of the majority. Very few actually like Westboro Baptist's message - but you can turn away or drown them out but you cannot take away their right to say what they say.
Regards from Rosie