Why does the abortion lobby oppose a Louisiana law that protects women’s health? That’s the question pro-lifers are asking after the Supreme Court temporarily blocked a Louisiana law that ensures abortionists have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. The law is blocked by the abortion lobby, who argue they would have to close clinics since hospitals don’t want anything to with their scummy abortion facilities. These admitting privileges are set up so that if a woman is in a life-threatening emergency, the abortionist has an agreement in place to get her admitted for care right away.
Here are the facts: reputable medical doctors generally have no issue obtaining admitting privileges at hospitals. According to lawyers.com, obtaining admitting privileges requires an interview and a check on the doctor’s history of care—in other words, the same things you would want from the doctor treating you. Lawyers.com notes,
“Often the decision of whether to grant privileges to a doctor is a group decision made by a hospital’s credentialing committee. The committee thoroughly reviews the doctor’s application and conducts an in-person interview, then votes on whether to accept the doctor.”
Admitting privileges are beneficial for patients because it makes it easier for a patient to get care in the case of an emergency, such as a botched abortion. In an op-ed opposing a similar law in Texas, a pro-choice writer notes,
“Admitting privileges actually means that the doctor is akin to a staff member of that hospital; among other things, she has the privilege to admit a patient for a stay in the hospital without the say-so of any other doctors. “
But that’s the point, isn’t it? In an emergency, you want to be able to get quick, lifesaving care as fast as possible. You don’t want to sit there, in danger, while paperwork is sorted out. And while the author, and others, argue that abortionists will be denied applications for admitting privileges because of controversies, that alone is a red flag of colossal proportions. The fact that some hospitals view abortion as something that would harm the hospital’s reputation says more about abortionists than the hospital.
Consider that hospitals, like any business, want to make money and avoid risk. It’s in their interest to have patients referred to them, as well as avoid doctors who do bad work and carry risk.
The abortion lobby likes to claim that admitting privileges are not needed because accidents and emergencies rarely happen. Even if that were true, which it isn’t (ask the 71 ambulance drivers who have been called to the St. Louis Planned Parenthood in the last ten years), what a ridiculous argument to make. We practice fire drills in schools not because fires endanger children daily, but to be ready in case the children are at risk. We buy insurance not because we expect catastrophe, but because it’s too important to leave to chance.
Even if you believe what the abortion industry says about how rarely accidents happen– they still occur. For those emergencies that exist, a plan needs to be in place to protect women’s lives. That’s just common sense.
So what’s the conclusion here? Despite claiming to support women’s health, the abortion lobby chooses “abortion worship” over the well-being of women. What else could you call putting women’s safety at risk by opposing common-sense medical safety standards?