Two Texas Reproductive Health Clinics Close, a Harbinger of a Coming Access Crisis


Read more of Andrea Grimes’ reporting from the Rio Grande Valley here.

Two more reproductive health clinics—one an abortion provider—in underserved areas of Texas closed their doors this week, as the effects of the omnibus anti-abortion access bill passed last summer with the support of conservative lawmakers continue to unfold across the state.

Both now-shuttered clinics, in McAllen and Beaumont, are part of the Whole Woman’s Health group, which once had five facilities in Texas: in Fort Worth, Austin, San Antonio, McAllen, and Beaumont. As of this week, the organization will be down to three locations. And come September, when abortion providers are required to meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centers, there will be just one Whole Woman’s left, in San Antonio. At that time, it will be one of six abortion providers left in a state that, according to data from Texas Department of State Health Services, sees about 70,000 legal abortion procedures performed each year.

“It’s hard for me to feel like I’m giving up, letting people down,” Whole Woman’s Health CEO Amy Hagstrom Miller told RH Reality Check. But when her doctors can’t get admitting privileges in socially conservative communities, and she can’t afford the million-dollar retrofitting required to turn her small clinics into hospital-like surgical centers, she said, “there’s no miracle way to pay the bills.”

The two shuttered clinics were both located in communities where poverty rates are high and many residents are un- or under-insured. The Beaumont facility, in southeast Texas, was the only provider between Houston and Louisiana, while the McAllen facility, in the Rio Grande Valley, served clients in the poorest city in the United States.

“Both of those communities have had safe, legal abortion since Roe v. Wade,” said Hagstrom Miller, until the passage of HB 2 last summer started a wave of clinic closures across the state. The four-fold law puts heavy restrictions on the prescription of medication abortion, bans abortion after 20 weeks, requires abortion-providing doctors to have admitting privileges at hospitals within 30 miles and mandates that abortion facilities meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centers.

While the McAllen clinic stopped providing abortion care last November when the admitting privileges provision of HB 2 went into place, abortion care at the Beaumont Whole Woman’s clinic continued until the end of February, when Hagstrom Miller ultimately decided she couldn’t sustain the facility in the wake of HB 2. The Beaumont clinic’s OB-GYN, who has provided legal abortion care since Roe and who Hagstrom Miller jokes has “delivered half the town,” had admitting privileges, but Hagstrom Miller says there’s no way she could turn the clinic into an ambulatory surgical center come September. It became time, she said, to “rip the Band-Aid off” and close both the McAllen and Beaumont clinics.

The conservative lawmakers who pitched HB 2 with the help of Gov. Rick Perry, who called two special sessions to pass the bill, claimed that it would improve the standard of care for Texans seeking abortions. Instead, a Whole Woman’s employee who worked in Beaumont for two-and-a-half years told RH Reality Check that women in the area will now have a harder time than ever accessing not only abortion, but the affordable contraception and cancer screenings that Whole Woman’s helped them find.

“We’ve been well aware that Texas has been against us and on us for many, many years,” said Marva Sadler, a regional director at Whole Woman’s. “But I did not think I would see a day where they would have put up such barriers that now that we’re actually closing clinics, and they’re essentially taking away the right to fair and safe comprehensive health care that all women, not only in the state of Texas, deserve to have.”

Sadler describes experiencing the clinic closures as a “grieving process,” fraught with anger and frustration at onerous laws that do little to prevent the need for abortion in the first place, or increase access to quality reproductive health care.

“It’s not just a plan on a piece of paper anymore,” said Sadler. “It just seems like breathing gets a little harder every day.”

Patients seeking legal abortion in Beaumont now face a 90-minute drive to Houston or a three-hour drive to Baton Rouge, Louisiana, for their procedures, while Valley residents face a three-and-a-half hour drive to San Antonio or a two-and-a-half hour drive to Corpus Christi, where the city’s sole abortion provider will close in September after the surgical center regulations go into place.

The lengthy drive is just one barrier to accessing legal abortion care; an estimated 61 percent of patients seeking abortions are already parents, which means they must find child care in addition to taking time off work, and in many cases, finding a place to stay overnight.

Amy Hagstrom Miller told RH Reality Check that she’s now turned most of her attention toward trying to find ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs) in Austin and Fort Worth where her doctors might be able to provide legal abortion care, perhaps through leasing the facilities on nights and weekends. But her luck, so far, has not been good.

“I’ve cold-called every ASC in the book,” she said. But even when she finds sympathetic landlords who don’t fear anti-choice protesters turning their sidewalks into soap boxes or harassing their patients, she also finds that there are barriers that keep her from operating, such as land “covenants” in formerly Catholic hospital-owned ASCs that prevent doctors in those locations from performing vasectomies or tubal ligations or providing abortion care.

“It’d be a miracle if I could pull it off in those two communities,” said Hagstrom Miller, of finding ASCs in Austin or Fort Worth. But, she said, “if anyone’s going to figure it out, I’m going to figure it out.”

Marva Sadler said she thinks often of the patients who have come to the Beaumont clinic over the past decade, and those who will soon find the clinic’s doors shut.

“I’m grieving for the women,” said Sadler. “I know the day after we close our clinic, they’ll call and that line is not going to have anyone on the other end to answer their questions. Where are they going to go? What are they going to do?”

To mark the closure of the McAllen clinic, the Whole Woman’s Health staff has invited the community to come to a candlelight vigil outside the downtown facility on the evening of Thursday, March 6, while a private event will be held for staff in Beaumont.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

Follow Andrea Grimes on twitter: @andreagrimes

  • fiona64

    And yet Texas thinks that they have “accomplishments in women’s health” to celebrate. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

    • expect_resistance

      I’m ready to cry at this point. *sigh*

  • Shan

    So short-sighted. And damaging to so many women and their families.

  • red_zone

    This will come back and bite those self-righteous cowards in the ass for YEARS to come. They have NO IDEA of the number of families they’ve hurt, Of the pain THEY are inflicting on the poorest and most vulnerable.

    • Göran Lund

      That is their intention. They have a clear view of this, and they are happy about it. We are talking about sick people here.

      • red_zone

        They’ll be happy about it until it is THEY who end up suffering. Or someone close to them.

    • QuickStriker

      It won’t hurt them. The people they’re hurting aren’t the people that vote for them in the first place.

    • anilpetra

      Access? Isn’t that the fault of President Obama and the Democrats? They excluded abortion services from Obamacare when they had a filibuster proof majority and didn’t need a single Republican vote.

  • Mirable

    Clearly, the women who will be affected by this simply need to stop having sex!

    • Renee Goodwin

      That’s probably next on the agenda, no abortions, no birth control, so the state makes it illegal to have sex unless you can afford to raise a child

  • radicalhw

    When is a choice not a choice? When Rick Perry’s made it for you.

    • Renee Goodwin

      So that is about 70,000 unwanted children born each year, two things that could possibly happen, 1. Texas makes it impossible for those families to get any help and we will have children dying in the streets, or 2. The State goes bankrupt because of welfare, medicaid, etc.

      A really wild out there possibility, the State in about 30 or so years of this, starts paying poor mothers to have an abortion/get sterilized

  • evodevo

    Welcome to the 1950’s, Texas.

    • lady_black

      More like the 1850s.

  • anilpetra

    Instead of complaining and spending dollars on electing Democrats, invest in some first class new health facilities that meet the high threshold standards for women’s health care now enshrined in Texas law.

    In Washington, high standards for what health insurance MUST cover is the touchstone of Democrats.

    In Texas, and nationally, Democrats fight for the right to perform abortions in dank, filthy death factories too quick to perform illegal late term procedures tantamount to infanticide.

    • L-dan

      *eyeroll* Right…objecting to the need for an ambulatory surgical center, for procedures that don’t involve surgery, equals wanting ‘to perform abortions in dank, filthy holes.’

      Yes, we can see that you actually have a well-reasoned concern for women at the heart of your argument. /sarcasm

      If they were requiring such upgrades to comparable, non-abortion, medical facilities it might at least have a gloss of integrity.

      Comparing non-necessary requirements to a health care law that says your insurance actually needs to cover basic health services..and which has provided ‘greater’ access to insurance to hundreds of thousands is a monumental task in false equivalence. I salute your dung-shoveling prowess.

      • anilpetra

        Uh huh, bet you haven’t invested a single dollar.

        Hypocrite. You want abortions paid for by other people’s money.

        • L-dan

          Where’s the hypocrisy? Have I said that medical facilities should be upgraded via public money?

          No really, point out the message I have given that would actually mean that not donating money = negation of my message.

          As opposed to you, saying that these actions are for women’s health and safety, when the effect is the exact opposite…since many of those women losing access to these clinics will go without reproductive health care, and many will seek more dangerous methods of abortion.

          rather than actually addressing any points as to why your argument is bullshit, you’d rather keep repeating the nonsensical ‘hypocrite’ like a badly trained parrot. Good going. You’re going to convince lots of people that way.

          • anilpetra

            It’s absurd to suggest that women have not lost their lives by abortions performed at facilities not equipped for ambulatory surgery.

            Read a little of the legislative history and testimony from the medical community, before posting here, OK?

            You’re a hypocrite, because Texas could have more abortion centers, providing a higher level of care, fully LEGALLY — in fact encouraged by this law — if a fraction of the monies spent by Emily’s List alone were invested in promoting women’s health instead of politics.

            And YOU haven’t invested a penny.

            You do know that, under the Affordable Care Act, additional monies flow to ambulatory surgery centers, whether or not they perform abortions, right? (But not if they ONLY provide abortion services, is that what you favor?)

            But acknowledging that won’t help elect Wendy Davis, so I suppose what’s the point, from your warped perspective.

          • L-dan

            *blink* You act as if I haven’t looked at the testimony. Testimony from the medical community overwhelmingly indicates that early term abortions do not require a surgical center. Are you telling me that they looked at all facilities providing medical procedures equally to see how many complications they were seeing in non-surgical centers? I’d really like to see evidence for that. Otherwise…isn’t it sort of sexist to focus on women’s safety when most comparable procedures (dental, for example) are being done for men and women, yet we’re only focusing on women’s health and safety? I mean, men already tend to die younger, that’s pretty egregious to spend all this money and effort while ignoring them.

            Emily’s list and Texas women’s health clinics are apples and oranges as far as donations. Why…if your crowd sunk as much money into actually helping pregnant people as you do into pushing anti-choice bills, propositions, and politicians, I bet you’d actually encourage more of them to chose birth over abortion. Your money would be more effective in that fashion. Likewise, mine is more effective fighting to keep such laws from going into effect than in fighting a rearguard action after the fact. So…wrong again on the hypocrite call. How many of the hundreds of thousands in foster care have you adopted?

            Let’s see…the ACA has some small provision affecting surgical centers (no doubt carved out by someone with a special interest in them thanks to donations from those who will benefit). But…how do you get from there to patients indiscriminately spending public money at those centers? Those subsidies are not going to the actual patients…they don’t get a larger subsidy toward their insurance if they go to those centers…you’re making no sense at all. Whose perspective is warped?

            If the link goes thus–more people will have insurance, therefore more people will be served by the healthcare system; and subsidies are encouraging the creation of more surgical centers, which will be part of the healthcare system serving all those people–then wtf? no, I have zero problem with surgery centers from that angle.

            The problem is passing requirements that facilities performing abortions meet standards that are not necessary for health and safety, and are not required of facilities performing comparable health services. Moreover, the problem is that such nonsense is being enacted under the hypocritical guise of ‘women’s safety’ when it is actually intended to limit their access to safe care.

          • Arachne646

            Abortion is a very safe medical or surgical procedure, and the extreme requirements that were already in place before this last, obstructive bill in Texas, went beyond any requirements for women’s health care as far as medication abortions, in particular. In Canada, we don’t have any laws specifically regarding abortion procedures as opposed to dental or dermatological, for example, and we have only healthy results from our lower rate of terminations than in the US. More coverage for women’s healthcare means less need for terminations of pregnancies.

          • paganheart

            But Kanaduh have teh ebil soshalizum in ur medicines. Oh noes!!! Onli Merikuh haz teh good healthcares!!!

            /sarcasm off

          • anilpetra

            You’d let more women die at substandard facilities.

            Hypocrite.

          • Arachne646

            In Canada women’s clinics are just as safe as dental or plastic surgery clinics without special abortion laws. Why would things be any different in the US, even considering the fact that you don’t have universal health care, and a consequently higher abortion rate?

          • anilpetra

            With the surgical center standard, Texas is now providing abortion under the same guidelines as France.

            Are you up in arms about those ugly French conservatives and what they’re doing to women?

            Oh, wait … enacted under socialist President Francois Mitterand.

            Do us a favor a read a little before posting here, OK?

          • Unicorn Farm

            “It’s absurd to suggest that women have not lost their lives by abortions performed at facilities not equipped for ambulatory surgery”
            The burden is on you to prove that requiring that the centers meet ambulatory surgery center requirements / that doctors have admitting privileges would have saved these women’s lives.

          • fiona64

            It’s absurd to suggest that women have not lost their lives by abortions
            performed at facilities not equipped for ambulatory surgery.

            Except that it is no such thing. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which is the board certification authority for OB/GYNs, says that this bill creates completely unnecessary requirements. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/06/27/obgyn-docs-say-provisions-in-filibustered-texas-abortion-bill-dont-make-sense

            Quote:

            “The regulations set forth [in the Texas bill] require additional
            standards that are not necessary,” said Lisa Hollier, chair of the Texas district of ACOG, which says abortion clinics should have a plan in place for emergency services instead of transferring patients elsewhere for emergency treatment. “The regulations are much more stringent than for other surgical procedures at similar risk, such as a colonoscopy.”

            Ambulatory surgical centers, which provide outpatient surgeries, often deal with procedures that require a high level of anesthesia, which is not required in a typical abortion. In a statement on its website,ACOG said it also opposed the provision in the bill that would have required abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles. “ACOG opposes legislation or other requirements that single out abortion services from other outpatient procedures,” it said.

          • goatini

            No thanks to Citizens United, the fundraising efforts of Emily’s List, and other organizations that work to protect the civil, human and Constitutional rights of female US citizens, are even MORE needed than ever.

            Why don’t you go harangue smokers to donate to anti-smoking medical programs and facilities; or diabetics to donate to nutritional behavioral modification medical programs and facilities?

            We ALL know why – because you and your fellow travelers are ONLY interested in discriminating against, and attempting to interfere with access to, ONE area of medicine and ONE area alone. What shameful and deliberately ignorant behavior you display.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Liar.
            Organized in 1969, the Jane Collective was an effort to provide abortions, as well as abortion counseling, to any woman who was in need of their services. The collective originated with University of Chicago student Heather Booth, who helped her friend’s sister find an abortion provider.[2] The founders of Jane initially focused their attention on providing women access to competent physicians willing to provide abortion services. They found a physician they called “Mike” who was willing to work with them. After creating a close relationship with Mike they found out that he actually wasn’t really a physician, but the techniques he used were safe and effective.[3]The women of Jane then decided to cut out the middleman and perform the abortions themselves. Mike taught the women his technique, and from then on the women performed the abortions themselves. The women were taught several methods, such as thecannula method for early stage abortions, and the super coil method used in later stage abortions which caused the women to miscarry, but the most widely used was the D&C (dilation and curettage) method. The D&C method involved the opening of the cervix and the insertion of a curette that was used to scrape the walls of the uterus to extract the fetus and placenta.[4]
            The Jane Collective was a member organization and work group within the Chicago Women’s Liberation Union.

          • lady_black

            No it’s not absurd. It’s the truth. Far more women have died in hospitals with complications associated with pregnancy and birth than those who die of complications from abortion, EVEN WHEN THEY ARE THE SAME COMPLICATIONS. There are no “special” complications involved solely with abortion. I don’t want to “invest” in entertaining your silly false notions. YOU “invest” in entertaining them, or even proving that they’re true. Even if we would invest in meeting your simple-minded standards, you would simply move the goalposts, because that’s what you have done in the first place. It has nothing to do with a “lower standard” and everything to do with a ridiculous, specious and discriminatory high standard that only applies to those who serve women. Go screw yourself, liar.

        • Unicorn Farm

          “at facilities that meet a lower standard of care for women’s health.”
          Your argument assumes its own conclusion- that facilities that don’t meet ambulatory surgery center requirements operate at a level insufficient to ensure woman’s health. Support your assertion.

        • QuickStriker

          “Lower standard of care” would be a more believable argument if the same people were pushing the same measures for other facilities that provide far risky procedures.

        • L-dan

          Nice post reply editing there. So you’re as dishonest a shit-shoveller as the rest.

          Noted.

        • fiona64

          You want abortions paid for by other people’s money, at facilities that meet a lower standard of care for women’s health.

          Excuse me, Madame Dumbf**k? Yeah, I’m talking to you.

          The Hyde Amendment means *no one’s tax dollars* are paying for abortions. And there is absolutely, 100 percent no need to have an ASC in order to perform an abortion — particularly a medication abortion. Where is your outrage that oral surgeons don’t have to have ASCs? Does that mean it’s a “lower standard of care”? No.

          It just means that you are a dimwit.

          Meanwhile you support Obamacare, driving hundreds of thousands of doctors out of the practice of insurance financed healthcare.

          Citation needed. Thanks.

        • lady_black

          You’re making no attempt to be honest here. Why aren’t these standards being applied to ALL medical facilities? Answer the fucking question. Why is there some “special” standard being applied to women’s health when there is no demonstrated need? Ever hear the old saying “if it ain’t broken, don’t fix it?” Your meddling is going to make things much worse, and create problem where there were none. You must be so pleased with yourself. A new standard of vile.

      • anilpetra

        All the crazed ideologues here, fighting for third world medical care for the underprivileged.

        Open your wallets and pay for some first world care.

        It’s not the fault of Republicans that, when Democrats had a filibuster proof majority, they excluded abortion services from Obamacare.

        • L-dan

          That’s the best you’ve got with your little troll droppings?

          Do you have some evidence that the care being provided before these laws was third-world quality? Well…nope. Testimony says otherwise.

          And really? Filibuster proof majority when there was a solid block of forced-birth pandering Blue Dogs to work with Republicans to throw anti-abortion gang signs at their base? Nope.

          Man, the troll quality has really taken a nose dive lately. It’s all bluster and stupid.

        • fiona64

          What the women of Texas now *have* is third world medical care. Open your frigging wallet.

    • expect_resistance

      You’re missing the point. Things were fine before the passage of HB2.

      From the article:
      “Both of those communities have had safe, legal abortion since Roe v. Wade,” said Hagstrom Miller, until the passage of HB 2 last summer started a wave of clinic closures across the state. The four-fold law puts heavy restrictions on the prescription of medication abortion, bans abortion after 20 weeks, requires abortion-providing doctors to have admitting privileges at hospitals within 30 miles and mandates that abortion facilities meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centers.

      • Shan

        I know what’s REALLY going on: Perry wants Planned Parenthood to skip Topeka and start building the first of its thousands of Abortionplexes in TEXAS! :-P

    • fiona64

      Who among you has donated even one dollar to Whole Woman’s Health group
      to upgrade its facilities since the passage of the new law?

      Way to miss the point …

      This is a law specifically aimed at abortion providers, and not *any other outpatient clinics of any sort.* Getting an abortion is safer than having your wisdom teeth pulled, but oral surgeons don’t have to have an upgrade to meet ASC standards.

      In Texas, and nationally, Democrats fight for the right to perform abortions in dank, filthy death factories too quick to perform illegal late term procedures tantamount to infanticide.

      Citation needed. Alternately, an apology for telling such a blatant lie will be acceptable.

    • goatini

      What a steaming load of vicious lies. What IS “enshrined” in Texas law is rank misogyny, and exploitation of females as public baby ovens, for either (1) selling the issue in the global human trafficking adoption syndicate for 5 figures a pop to the highest bidder; or (2) for those fetii not deemed suitable for immense human trafficking profits, breeding a slave underclass for miserable exploitation.

    • red_zone

      Prove that was a widespread issue.

    • lady_black

      Prove that this was an issue. These were not “dank, filthy death factories performing illegal abortions.” These were legal, clean clinics providing lawful abortions. All the donations in the world won’t force a hospital to give unnecessary admission privileges, and this law will not pass constitutional muster. Because that IS unconstitutional. Unless you’re planning on requiring the same thing for ALL doctor’s offices and dental offices where minor procedures take place. You can’t just single women out for your underhanded “safety” regulations. Nice try.

    • Renee Goodwin

      I’m below the poverty threshold and I donated, whats your point?

  • John Richter

    I guess they think Texas women are too stupid to know what is best for them and their families.

  • anja

    Tragic, devastating and needless!

  • anilpetra

    The ugly argument of the Democrats here is that, under Texas law, abortion is not any more a profitable enough business.

    What made it “unprofitable”? Higher standards for women’s health.

    Sick.

    • L-dan

      oh yeah…that’s precisely the argument. You’ve really got us there, boy howdy.

      By ‘profitable enough’ you mean ‘not willing to run hugely in the red’. Who can do that?

      Also, there’s a different between higher standards and unreasonable standards.

      “you must be this tall to ride” is a reasonable standard for fairground rides where the safety equipment isn’t sufficient for shorter folks. “you must be this tall and have a written certification from your doctor that your heart is healthy and you’re not pregnant,” is an unreasonable standard that intrudes into the privacy of riders and would most likely put that ride (or a fair requiring that for all rides) out of business.

      • Renee Goodwin

        Two upvotes on that, it must have at least two sock puppets

    • Mirable

      Dumbass.

    • fiona64

      Yeah, that’s the argument all right … ::rolling my eyes so hard that I can see my brain::

    • goatini

      Since what IS actually quite profitable is the global human trafficking adoption syndicate, exploiting innocent women with unwanted pregnancies in gestational slavery to seize and sell the issue (valuable inventory acquired almost free of charge) to the highest bidder, for 5 figures a pop to barren selfish vultures…

      your post is nasty, specious, and 101% utter nonsense.

      • Renee Goodwin

        Texas is biased tho, poor kids, especially of color or older will be returned to abusive families, probably to be murdered, it’s only the cute, mostly light colored babies that cps wants to rip from their families, and they don’t really care if the family is unfit or fit, as long as the baby is cute and adoptable

    • red_zone

      Please explain how shuttering clinics that provided for the poorest and most vulnerable is in ANY way ‘higher standards’ for ANYONE’S health.

      it’s not. It means families will suffer because you don’t care about them or their families.

    • lady_black

      Medically unnecessary laws? Sick. Abortion is safer than a root canal. Why don’t you go make sure all root canals are “safe” and make all the dentists obtain hospital admission privileges. When you do that, I might listen to your claims of “safer.”

  • expect_resistance

    This sucks!

  • anilpetra

    Mission accomplished. So much ignorance and rigid demagoguery exposed on the Left.

    Texas is beyond their grasp, period.

    • red_zone

      Now families living in poverty will suffer and experience greater hardship because of your desperate desire to control their choices.

      That’s what you wanted, right?

      • http://batman-news.com Mummel18000

        Of course. That is the meaning of “pro life”

        • red_zone

          But heaven help us if someone tried to control THEIR choices, right?

          • http://batman-news.com Mummel18000

            Do not use such awful words as choice here. If a “pro lifer” would come here he might die from the shock.

      • anilpetra

        Why should a single family experience hardship?

        Open your wallet, pay for some first world medical care for the underprivileged.

        stop telling other people to open theirs.

        • fiona64

          So that’s your latest “talking point,” eh?

          I don’t suppose you understand why WHO says France has the best health care in the world. Not only do I understand from a statistical perspective, but from first-hand experience of that healthcare system whilst on holiday in Paris.

          You might want to look into the reasons for WHO’s determination before you come back here and run your ignorant mouth again.

    • Jennifer Starr

      What mission would that be, exactly? Denying women needed reproductive healthcare?

    • fiona64

      “Mission accomplished”? Preventing the poorest women from getting access to all manner of medical care, including pre-natal? PAP smears? Breast cancer screenings? Because those are *also* things done in the clinics that were shuttered.

      You must be so proud.

      • anilpetra

        Open your wallet, pay for some first world medical care for the underprivileged.

        stop telling other people to open theirs.

        • goatini

          We both know that you are lying. You have no BS fake poutrage about, as just one example, dental surgeons’ facilities and admitting privileges. All you have is irrational lying BS, because you can’t rationally defend discrimination based solely on gender, against ONE type of safe, legal outpatient medical procedure ONLY.

        • King Rat

          Well then I hope you will open your wallet to improve the safety of dental facilities. Getting one’s wisdom teeth removed can result in permanent injury and even death.

        • fiona64

          What makes you think I don’t, you snotty creature?

      • Renee Goodwin

        Perry already quadrupled the mortality rate of pregnant women, maybe he is going for tenfold or more before he steps down, prolife, mission accomplished!

    • lady_black

      Don’t bet on that, sweetie. It’s working it’s way through the federal courts. Texas is still part of the United States of America, is it not?

  • anilpetra

    All Texas did was raise standards, exactly as Washington is raising standards for a whole host of medical procedures (and financial structures underneath them) across the nation.

    All the crazed ideologues here, fighting for third world medical care for the underprivileged.

    Open your wallets and pay for some first world care.

    It’s not the fault of Republicans that, when Democrats had a filibuster proof majority, they excluded abortion services from Obamacare.

    High standards for what health insurance MUST cover is, we’re told, the touchstone of Democrats. By the article’s argument, that the Texas bill was “anti-access”, Obamacare is the most anti-access health care bill in history, driving providers out of the profession at record rates, by requiring they provide too many services at too low a cost, with no relief from federal and state laws requiring high quality of care (or case law on “community standards”), and no malpractice reform.

    • goatini

      More lies.

      1. The Democrats had an actual, effective **24 days** of supermajority. Between 2008 and 2010, there was one 11-day period, and one 13-day period of supermajority. Also, the “independent” LIEberman was falsely counted as a “Democrat” in this number.

      2. The vote on Stupak-Pitts, and the vote for ACA with the gender-discriminatory restrictions that Stupak forced a deal to get, occurred during NEITHER of these periods of supermajority.

      3. We have no love for Stupak, a vile DINO (and lodger at the C Street “Family” Christo-Fascist nest of vipers) who threw half of his constituents under the bus because of his lust for power and greed for money. He is now quietly pulling in the dough as a lobbyist, defending the “corporate personhood rights” of such scum as Wal-Mart and offshore drilling companies.

      Go peddle your BS elsewhere.

    • fiona64

      Bullshit. If that were true, your dentist’s office would have to qualify as an ambulatory surgery center.

      Obamacare requires physicians and hospitals to provide too many services at too low a cost,

      Citation needed.

      Or an admission that you’re full of crap. Either one is fine.

    • goatini

      TROLL ALERT: the above troll is also trolling as “Melinda Hampton” on the “We Won’t Forget” article. On that article, s/h/it is trolling from what s/h/it thinks is a credible pro-choice viewpoint. Check it out, for a rueful laugh and a flag.

  • Renee Goodwin

    Or they fight the mothers for custody, get the child because he has more money, but he doesn’t want to pay a whole $244.00 a month in child support (approx minimum in texass) then he gets the child and neglects it, but the mother can’t do a damn thing because she doesn’t have money to take him to court