Laws that force doctors providing abortions to have admitting privileges in local hospitals are portrayed by their advocates as being designed to "protect women's health." But they are clearly and overtly designed to reduce the places where women (especially in rural areas and conservative areas) can actually get an abortion.
First, outpatient abortions are actually safer, statistically speaking, than outpatient colonoscopies. But nobody's passing laws to require doctors performing in-office colonoscopies to have local admitting privileges.
Second, "admitting privileges" means being able to actually admit a patient to a particular hospital without an admission exam by hospital physicians. But these laws are ostensibly about responding to some dire (and rare) emergency complication from an abortion — and in a medical emergency, patients are seen and treated without the need of a referral by an external doctor with admitting privileges.
SCOTUS this year struck down a similar law in Texas, for that very reason, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court followed that precedent in striking down a state law with that provision.
I have little doubt we will see increasing efforts by state and federal legislatures to do what they can (where so inclined) to restrict abortion rights, and Trump has promised that he'll appoint judges — especially to the Supreme Court — that will support such efforts. Wins like this against disingenuous laws are going to become more difficult, I fear.
Oklahoma abortion restrictions blocked
The Oklahoma Supreme Court on Tuesday blocked a state law that would have required abortion providers to have special relationships with hospitals, in continuing fallout from a U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down a similar provision in Texas.
