NEWS BLOG (WSAU) When my daughter was much younger she needed to have an ear tube removed. One had become partially dislodged and there was a chance it would damage her ear drum. It was a delicate but routine procedure. It was done in a hospital. Of course our Ear-Nose-Throat doctor had hospital privileges, although the vast majority of his work was done in his regular medical office.
Now consider a doctor who performs abortions. Its a highly evasive procedure. There are risks of complications. Here are the statistics from the (pro-abortion) National Abortion Federation: for first-trimester abortions, there are complications in 0.5% of all procedures. In the second trimester, where more are performed under general anesthesia, the complication-rate increases to about 2%. Something out-of-the-ordinary will happen to between 1-in-200 and 1-in-50 abortion patients. Many of those situations can be resolved through regular follow-up care. Some require hospitalization. But considering there are 1.3-million abortions in the U.S. each year, the 'complication number' is small but substantial.
Considering those statistics, a state law requiring doctors to perform abortions to have hospital admitting privileges is completely reasonable. That law comes up for a federal court challenge today. The question is whether a proper medical regulation will be struck down because everything about abortion is political.
Many doctors who perform abortions arent affiliated with a hospital. In Wisconsin, abortion clinics in Appleton and Milwaukee dont meet the laws requirements.
Regardless of whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, this is a matter of patient safety. When I see a doctor, one of my basic expectations is that they can get me to a hospital if something goes wrong. If I knew otherwise, I wouldnt let that doctor near me.
This is common sense. Lets see if federal judge William Conley agrees.
Image: An abortion protest/REUTERS via wsau.com