There is no functional difference on the ground. For women going to (especially Catholic-affiliated) hospitals, lack of reimbursement to the hospital means lack of availability.
13 Likes
This is more of the erosion of our full citizenship rights… This was something the Iowa AG could do to ensure that less women had access to reproductive care, forcing them to carry a fetus to term.
12 Likes
You know I agree with this part, and I’m quite annoyed you are suggesting I would think otherwise.
And as it stands, they are still in a “deliberation” phase. The tide could turn, which I am hoping for. I mean, even Kansas beat the abortion ban this last year.
ETA: Accuracy in reporting is what my peeve here is. Especially when we take folks like Fox News to task for their inaccuracies.
3 Likes
I get that you don’t think that, but I’m just saying that that is what the GOP believes and there is no reason to think that they’ve deviated from that view or aren’t looking for any chance to ensure that “life begins at conception” is the underpinning logic behind health policy aimed at women’s reproductive health.
I know you oppose that and would not ever think otherwise. I understand what you’re getting at, but I do think that this is a test balloon to see how far they can go with their real agenda.
11 Likes
Even if the state reverses course, this will still have an effect.
When there is clear reimbursement for a drug or procedure, clinicians hold the upper hand in hospital policy decisions. If the guidelines call for it and it’s going to be paid for, hospital administration has a tough time telling docs and nurses they can’t have it. If the reimbursement isn’t there, or isn’t stable, or is in any way uncertain, hospital administration has cover to deny clinicians permission to do that procedure or prescribe that drug. Or they “allow” it, but require pre-approval and burdensome process that functionally denies use.
I guarantee there are hospitals in Iowa that will look at this and, even if it is reversed, will call stocking EC in the ER “too risky.”
12 Likes
I’m guessing that this is the real motivation here too, to ensure that fewer hospitals offer this at all.
12 Likes
It’s the easiest move; don’t ban EC, scare people away from providing it instead.
12 Likes
That way, you have some distance between you and the action… 
They know that they can’t ban it outright, so go this route instead.
11 Likes
Step 2, Claim nobody uses the service, so why provide the service… ?
12 Likes
9 Likes
One of the many, many things I hate about this situation is HOW FUCKING OBVIOUS it all is - they do it this way every time, just with a slightly different cover lie.
14 Likes
The whole lot of them are full of…
9 Likes
my assumption is that they’ll stick in the deliberation phase for as long as possible. if court rulings seem to be allowing bans, they’ll move to banning it. if court rulings don’t support a ban, it’ll never leave consideration.
if it were otherwise, they’d have left it in place while “deliberating.” it’s a new trial tactic for implementing a “soft” ban
10 Likes
Sadly, it already exists. 
7 Likes
Attempted to visit this site. All I got was a lengthy paragraph of code which (not being a techie) I didn’t understand, beyond noting that the word “commerce” appeared repeatedly.
I Googled the organization and the main address as well as individual pages came up with the same result. ???
3 Likes
It works for me. I’m using Firefox, by the way.
4 Likes
I’m on Firefox too.
1 Like
I hate that it is necessary, but it’s more than likely true, and I would not be shocked if it is already out there in the wild somewhere.
6 Likes
5 Likes
Always a safe bet. Always.
8 Likes
