LetÂ’s set aside the question of morality. LetÂ’s ignore the question of Roe v. Wade. DoesnÂ’t a proposal that doctors who perform surgical procedures away from a hospital be required to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital in case something goes wrong a pretty reasonable requirement for the state to impose?

The Indiana House of Representatives has passed a bill to require doctors who perform abortions to have hospital admitting privileges.

The House voted 73-20 for the bill April 15. The legislation also would mandate that a doctor inform a woman that her unborn child may feel pain during an abortion, according to The Indianapolis Star.

The measure will return to the Senate, which previously passed it on a 44-6 vote but will need to act on the new version containing House-approved amendments, according to LifeNews.com.

Planned Parenthood of Indiana said only one of the seven doctors in the state who perform abortions has admitting privileges, The Star reported.

Supporters of the bill said it was needed in order to protect women who have problems after abortions.

"This bill is about patient safety," said Rep. Matthew Bell, R.-Avila. "I think it's the right statement to make when we care about the quality of care received by the patients."

Sadly, IÂ’ve seen ambulances leave abortion facilities with a woman inside of them. DoesnÂ’t it benefit them for the doctor who was doing that procedure to be able to admit them and oversee their care? And isnÂ’t it disturbing that so few can?

Posted by: Greg at 01:10 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.