Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 76 to 85 of 85
  1. #76
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    of course PP isn't giving it up yet, and Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land.

    Planned Parenthood Out, But Docs Can Still Discuss Abortion in New Texas Women's Health Program


    But unlike the rules initially proposed earlier this year, the final rules will allow providers to have "private" discussions about abortion, what Janek called "non-directive counseling." A provider could answer factual questions, or provide the name of a doctor who provides abortion, but could not go any further. The rules will not effect what, or in what way, TWHP providers discuss abortion with their non-TWHP clients, Janek said. The final rules also allow physicians who work in hospitals or are members of a physician group to participate in the program, even if another doctor they're associated with provides abortion services. The changes were meant to address the concern raised by the Texas Medical Association (on behalf of their members and those of theAmerican Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Texas Academy of Family Physicians andTexas Pediatric Society) that constraining their relationships with patients in order to participate in the TWHP would violate medical ethics.http://www.austinchronicle.com/blogs...ealth-program/

    http://www.austinchronicle.com/blogs...ealth-program/

    So docs and others can still recommend and perform abortions, 80K to 100K/year, and get paid. Texian Repugs wouldn't dare touch "free enterprise". eg:

    http://www.gynpages.com/ACOL/texas.html

    so the Texian Repugs have done nothing by legislating their morality except cause poor women who can't pay for birth control or can't pay for "private" docs to have more pregnancies and more abortions.
    Last edited by boutons_deux; 01-20-2013 at 08:17 AM.

  2. #77
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    114,077
    The federal government has awarded family planning dollars that used to go into state coffers to a coalition of Texas women's health providers instead.


    The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' compe ively bid le X money — $6.5 million worth, for starters — will now be granted to the Austin-based Women's Health and Family Planning Association of Texas, a consortium of statewide reproductive health providers including Planned Parenthood.


    It's a blow to the Texas Department of State Health Services — which had also applied for the funding, and relied on it for years. Carrie Williams, a spokeswoman for the agency, said DSHS learned on Monday that its federal award would end in a few days.
    http://www.texastribune.org/2013/03/...ey-state-vied/

  3. #78
    Believe. BobaFett1's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Post Count
    1,263
    If you can't afford children maybe you should stop having sex..
    AMEN or put a sock on it.

  4. #79
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    114,077

  5. #80
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    I suppose none of Perry/Cornyn/Cruz's families are too poor to pay for health care or peri-natal care.

    There are plenty of white rural bubba familis who are in the same boat as poor browns and blacks.

  6. #81
    I cannot grok its fullnes leemajors's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Post Count
    24,176
    I just don't understand how people can listen to Perry, and then keep voting him in.

  7. #82
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    114,077
    Duckspeak. Guys like Cruz and Perry see their bull printed in the newspaper before it becomes part of the perceived reality fans and critics alike admire from afar.

  8. #83
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    114,077
    collateral damage, cancer screening for rural Texans:

    Under the chamber's proposed plan, public en ies like state, county and community health clinics would get first crack at the cash. “Non-public en ies” that provide screenings as part of “comprehensive” primary and preventive care would come in second place.


    And private specialty clinics like the Livingston facility would only get cancer-screening funding if there's money left over. That includes Planned Parenthood — whose family planning and cancer-screening clinics are a target of GOP lawmakers even though they are prohibited from performing abortions if they receive tax dollars.


    The Senate’s chief budget writer, state Sen. Jane Nelson, R-Flower Mound, has said the proposed tiered funding is intended to ensure that facilities unaffiliated with abortion providers are funded first.



    But under the proposed funding revisions, at least 34 providers not affiliated with Planned Parenthood — nearly one-fifth of those currently using program dollars — would be moved into the second or third tier for funding.



    “There’s not going to be anything left by the time it gets to us,” said Carol Belver, executive director of Community Action Inc. of Central Texas, whose three clinics screened a combined 625 women in the San Marcos area last year. Though her clinics provide primary care, the cancer screenings are offered as a separate service — leaving Community Action in the bottom tier for funding.


    “We’re the collateral damage,” she added.



    The screening program, which is primarily funded with federal dollars, served 33,599 Texas women in fiscal year 2014 — 57 percent of whom were Hispanic.


    In some rural parts of the state, the funding change could leave the sole program provider in the area with little to no funding for cancer screenings. In Amarillo, for example, four Haven Health clinics are the only program providers, but they would all likely fall into the third tier for funding.



    Patricia Jones, director of community-based care for Memorial Health System of East Texas, which treated Riley, said Memorial is the only program contractor with clinics in Livingston, Lufkin and San Augustine.
    “We’ve had this funding almost 20 years, and if we were to lose that funding, you have 350 ladies who lose this access to a complex system,” Jones said. “You’d have 20 cancers that wouldn’t have been diagnosed as early as they were.”
    http://www.texastribune.org/2015/03/...-collateral-d/

  9. #84
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    collateral damage, cancer screening for rural Texans:

    http://www.texastribune.org/2015/03/...-collateral-d/
    Repugs' war on poor women's health, s, vaginas, this is includes poor white, rural women who vote Repug.

  10. #85
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    A federal judge in Wisconsin ruled as uncons utional on Friday a state law requiring any doctor performing an abortion to have privileges to admit patients to a nearby hospital.

    U.S. District Judge William Conley temporarily blocked the law in August 2013, which requires doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital located within 30 miles (50 km) of his or her practice, shortly after Republican Governor Scott Walker signed it into law.

    Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin and Affiliated Medical Services, the state's two abortion providers, challenged the measure in court, saying it could force abortion clinics in Appleton and Milwaukee to close.


    On Friday, Conley ordered a permanent injunction against the law, saying in his 91-page order and opinion that the law violated women's 14th amendment rights under the U.S. Cons ution.


    "The marginal benefit to women's health of requiring hospital admitting privileges, if any, is substantially outweighed by the burden this requirement will have on women's health outcomes due to restricted access to abortions in Wisconsin," Conley wrote.


    "While the court agrees with the State that sometimes it is necessary to reduce access to insure safety, this is decidedly not one of those instances,"

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0MH05H20150321



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •