Saint Alphonsus is closing their OBGYN care.

[The Barber]

On 11/25/2024 at 11:11 AM, AztecAlien said:

I was having a rational conversation with another poster and he chimed in. I didn't buy what he was stating. Seems like that's a problem around here when you disagree. So, I went with the reaction and cut it short. 

No need to apologize.

If you found my post distasteful, feel free to respond.

What jumped out to me is Bob Kustra saying that the Republicans in Idaho are being overtaken by extremists and embarrassing the State.

[smltwnrckr]

On 11/25/2024 at 10:34 AM, AztecAlien said:

I have been looking into what exactly Idaho's stance and laws are on abortion. It's not totally illegal and women can still get an abortion under certain circumstances, including saving the pregnant woman's life or if the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest.

I also see plenty of OBGYN services available at least in  South Eastern Idaho. 

https://pocatellowomensclinic.com/

https://www.healthwestinc.org/ob-gyn/

https://www.healthgrades.com/find-a-doctor/idaho/best-obgyns-in-pocatello

I have stated multiple times that I don't like abortion, but it shouldn't be totally illegal. Sounds like the stance Idaho has taken as well. Maybe in the Boise area is losing OBGYN's because they can't offer 97% of women that want an abortion because the baby would be an inconvenience for them. It's a fact that the number one reason women choose to have an abortion is because of inconvenience. 

It's worth restating all of this for the millionth time... not to try and convince anti-women extremists such as yourself and others on here that they should consider women to be humans of equal value and freedom as men. But because there may be a discerning, thoughtful person who comes across the info.

First, nothing is ever totally illegal. Heroin is not totally illegal, and alcohol wasn't totally illegal during prohibition. Hell, killing a person -- a real person who was born and now has their own, autonomous body -- isn't totally illegal. There are circumstances and contexts in which you are allowed by the law to do it.

The problem with the laws that make something illegal and then offer exceptions is that another party that was not involved in a dynamic, unstable situation gets to decide either before or after the fact whether or not the exception applies. So, with abortion, how to you apply the rape or incest exception? How do you know for sure that the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest? Well, we have a mechanism in place now to do so. It's called the criminal justice system. As someone who has covered rape and incest trials in my day, I can tell you that in most cases they take longer than a pregnancy to get all the way through. You know, the rights of the accused and all that. And that says nothing about the immorality of  hinging the rights of a woman's (or a girl's) own bodily autonomy over the outcomes of what are already messy, awful and stressful experiences of rape and incest trials.

As for the life and/or health of the mother, again you are now hinging the meaning of life threatening, emergency, a threat to health, etc. on a third party -- usually some sort of ethics committee at the hospital itself (which typically includes lawyers and clergy, not only doctors) in pro-choice states and will (if they don't already) involve government boards filled by anti-abortion political appointees. Those boards decide how much of an emergency it is. They decide it before, often forcing the doctor and the woman to plead for some decision, as well as after through some sort of review. And, just so you know, in a lot of these cases where the pregnancy is ultimately doomed the mother is not in an "emergency" and the fetus is still technically alive. You literally have to wait until an emergency -- which is often some sort of quickly emerging infection or heavy bleeding -- to be free of the interpretive gray area to act. And even then, there are instances of anti-abortion forces STILL trying to prevent doctors from acting on behalf of a woman at risk because there's some sound on the speaker. It's happening now, it happened when Roe was in place, and it will happen more. Not because of the doctors that like dead patients -- because these laws are designed to be barriers, and even with the exceptions those barriers slow down processes and force expert practitioners to delay decision-making in dynamic emergencies. If a fire fighter could go to prison for property damage if they broke a window in a burning building, or cut a tree down on the perimeter of a property, you don't think that would impact the effectiveness of fire fighting? Even if there were clear exceptions for life of the house or of a family or dog or whatever? Come now.

As for maternal care in general, women understand -- as to their partners when perceptive -- the relationship between general maternal care and abortion. All knowledge progresses and expands because people are acting on the extremes. Best practices, and the established norms of a field, set into place long after those practices become general. But before they are general, they are in highly specialized and experimental areas. Common cancer treatments, vaccines, etc. They all start out as experimental research. And the same is true for high-risk OBGYN care. Eventually when things that are practiced as experimental are done enough, with enough success, they filter into the more general areas and more and more people are trained to do them. But when you make an entire field of high-risk medicine functionally illegal, it prevents any real progress for more effective general practice. For example, let's say you are a woman and you have a history of what is called incompetent cervix. That means that your cervix - the little thing that keeps all the baby and the goo from coming out of the tummy -- doesn't work very well and opens up early. Well, you can go to a high risk OB who will do special checkups with special equipment more often than a typical pregnant woman receives. And if in one of those special checkups they find things opening up, they can send you to a special surgeon to basically install a little loop - kind of like a rubber band for you hoo hoo -- to keep things in place. But here's the thing, all those special processes create increased risk. Especially the surgery. So if you see the cervix opening, but it's not opened enough to where things are coming out, and then you decide the patient needs the special rubber band procedure, but then that procedure ruptures the bag, ends a pregnancy and forces an abortive procedure, then every single person involved in that process is now open for prosecution and/or litigation under the law. As long as a person in power (a political appointee) decides that the process was either premature or not done correctly or what have you. And it is a statistical fact that at some point, those high-risk, experimental procedures fail whether the fault of the people doing them or the fault of nature. So if you are a high risk OB in a state where abortion is illegal, save a few narrow exceptions interpreted by political extremists, you can be certain that you will be investigated and/or prosecuted by people whose job it will be to decide whether you did the right thing and you did it right besides having no real knowledge of your field, no real knowledge of the specific situation, and a clear, extreme political bias. That's categorically going to have a huge impact on the number of people around who can and will do those kinds of procedures. It just is. It's not that hard to see how prohibition impacts knowledge of the prohibited. And that's just one example. 

But again, your last sentence says it all. It's about punishing whores, just as it always was and always will be. And all the impacts on good, clean, American women ... that's just pretend, a liberal scare tactic because liberals just love abortions. Women shouldn't have bodily autonomy because of whores. 

[smltwnrckr]

On 11/25/2024 at 10:37 AM, The Barber said:

@Soupslam lives in Idaho.  See his post above.

he said that there is a huge doctor shortage in Idaho - not just OBgyn services.

apparently, they can't find enough doctors there.   They need more OBgyn too.

 

On 11/25/2024 at 10:40 AM, AztecAlien said:

And that seems completely unrelated to abortion laws that's being pushed around here. 

Idaho and a number of states have become generally hostile to any intellectual endeavor that they see as not conservative enough. So it's going to be tough to get experts in all sorts of fields to come there if California crazies keep making those states more and more loony and hostile to research and scholarship. It is what it is. 

[The Barber]

On 11/25/2024 at 11:12 AM, bornontheblue said:

There would be violence in the streets from ISU, lol. 

The state legislature set up ISU as the state school to get all of the medical academic programs, and ISU has built on that. It would be unfair to pull the rug out from under them at this point.

Pocatello has about 60,000 people but medical schools in small college towns in rural states are not unusual. North Dakota's medical school is in Grand Forks with about a 60,000 population. 

Good point.

Plus, they could always set up part of the program in Boise, I guess.   For residency or for OBGyn program to help with the births in Boise.

[bornontheblue]

On 11/25/2024 at 12:10 PM, The Barber said:

f folks ins Idaho think that traveling to Pocatello for certain, specialized medical care is better than having it in Boise, then, that's their choice.

ISU has a campus in Meridian. Part of the med school would no doubt be there. 

[AztecAlien]

On 11/25/2024 at 12:10 PM, The Barber said:

I'll defer to you.   I admittedly don't know much about Pocatello or its services.

If folks in Idaho think that investing in Idaho State University's medical programs should be prioritized over Boise State's, that's their choice.   Idaho State University could be the stronger academically.

If folks ins Idaho think that traveling to Pocatello for certain, specialized medical care is better than having it in Boise, then, that's their choice.

My point was and still is, that certain posters are pushing a lot of drama regarding their stance on abortion. I posted links that other places in Idaho don't seem to be having the same problems and are growing in population as well. There seems to be a shortage of doctors in many places across the country, and it's not because of abortion laws or Republicans. 

[The Barber]

On 11/25/2024 at 11:14 AM, smltwnrckr said:

 

Idaho and a number of states have become generally hostile to any intellectual endeavor that they see as not conservative enough. So it's going to be tough to get experts in all sorts of fields to come there if California crazies keep making those states more and more loony and hostile to research and scholarship. It is what it is. 

I've heard this about Idaho - what other States are turning hostile to intellectual funding?

The reason I said it is extremist right wingers moving to Idaho is because I saw a documentary on this.    It was some people moving to the Coeur d'Alene, Idaho area from California, that were very anti-government, and had this mentality of "this is about me and mine", rather than society as a whole.

I agree - unless Idaho funds education, it might start turning off businesses from locating there.   That said, downtown Boise is apparently strongly Democrat, and much of the Boise metro area is traditional Republican.  So, it seems like this is a rural vs metro battle about the vision of their State.

[renoskier]

On 11/25/2024 at 11:11 AM, AztecAlien said:

I was having a rational conversation with another poster and he chimed in. I didn't buy what he was stating. Seems like that's a problem around here when you disagree. So, I went with the reaction and cut it short. And we already know how you are, you even have even admitted it. 

thank you, this is a start...

Actually, it appears you were having a conversation with him.

The Barber isn't one of your stalkers, nor am I.

"He" wasn't stating anything, he provided actual quotes from long time conservative Republicans who seem to be concerned about the direction their party has taken in the last 8 years . Do you disagree that Idaho politics hasn't gotten a little crazy?

what do you mean "how I am"?

 

 

[azgreg]

On 11/25/2024 at 11:15 AM, bornontheblue said:

ISU has a campus in Meridian. Part of the med school would no doubt be there. 

Is there a time frame in place for this?

 

[AztecAlien]

On 11/25/2024 at 12:21 PM, azgreg said:

Is there a time frame in place for this?

 

https://idahocapitalsun.com/2024/11/12/everything-is-on-the-table-idaho-state-looks-at-the-practicality-of-buying-a-medical-school/

[The Barber]

On 11/25/2024 at 11:17 AM, AztecAlien said:

My point was and still is, that certain posters are pushing a lot of drama regarding their stance on abortion. I posted links that other places in Idaho don't seem to be having the same problems and are growing in population as well. There seems to be a shortage of doctors in many places across the country, and it's not because of abortion laws or Republicans. 

It's probably a mixed problem.

(1) rapid growth rate, so existing services can't keep up with demand

(2) rapid growth from extremist Republicans from California, who are against funding and investing in the growth of the State.   They are anti-education to some degree, and don't want to use tax dollars to fund "liberal universities", when it is really about educating the work force. 

 

This is a battle between metro cities college educated intellectuals / blue collar and rurals and working class.  

Both can be very condescending and stereotype the other side.  It's a problem and divide in the Country.   They have different moral codes too.   One is more traditional religion.  The other is secular humanism.   Generalization.

[azgreg]

On 11/25/2024 at 11:24 AM, AztecAlien said:

https://idahocapitalsun.com/2024/11/12/everything-is-on-the-table-idaho-state-looks-at-the-practicality-of-buying-a-medical-school/

Thanks you.

 

[Billings]

On 11/25/2024 at 11:15 AM, bornontheblue said:

ISU has a campus in Meridian. Part of the med school would no doubt be there. 

I question that unless they buy the DO campus already there, Either way you know rotations and residencies will be all over the Boise area and State.

[Billings]

On 11/25/2024 at 11:24 AM, AztecAlien said:

https://idahocapitalsun.com/2024/11/12/everything-is-on-the-table-idaho-state-looks-at-the-practicality-of-buying-a-medical-school/

Meaning they don't want to build one.   Much easier to buy one but the owners say it is not for sale.

[FresnoFacts]

I ran across a factoid that relates to Idaho's OBGYN situation, whatever the reasons that existing doctors are leaving and others are not setting up new practices in the state.

My medical contacts tell me three major factors for doctors selecting a practice location are proximity to family, where they attended medical school, and where they did their medical residency.

Idaho is one of only 6 states with no OBGYN residency program. The others are Wyoming, Montana, both Dakotas, and Alaska. Although lower population states there are other small states that do have OBGYN residencies.

Map of OBGYN residency program locations:

 

[bornontheblue]

On 11/25/2024 at 12:21 PM, azgreg said:

Is there a time frame in place for this?

 

No. But if and when we get a med school it will be part of ISUs system. 

 

[AztecAlien]

On 11/25/2024 at 12:13 PM, smltwnrckr said:

It's worth restating all of this for the millionth time... not to try and convince anti-women extremists such as yourself and others on here that they should consider women to be humans of equal value and freedom as men. But because there may be a discerning, thoughtful person who comes across the info.

First, nothing is ever totally illegal. Heroin is not totally illegal, and alcohol wasn't totally illegal during prohibition. Hell, killing a person -- a real person who was born and now has their own, autonomous body -- isn't totally illegal. There are circumstances and contexts in which you are allowed by the law to do it.

The problem with the laws that make something illegal and then offer exceptions is that another party that was not involved in a dynamic, unstable situation gets to decide either before or after the fact whether or not the exception applies. So, with abortion, how to you apply the rape or incest exception? How do you know for sure that the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest? Well, we have a mechanism in place now to do so. It's called the criminal justice system. As someone who has covered rape and incest trials in my day, I can tell you that in most cases they take longer than a pregnancy to get all the way through. You know, the rights of the accused and all that. And that says nothing about the immorality of  hinging the rights of a woman's (or a girl's) own bodily autonomy over the outcomes of what are already messy, awful and stressful experiences of rape and incest trials.

As for the life and/or health of the mother, again you are now hinging the meaning of life threatening, emergency, a threat to health, etc. on a third party -- usually some sort of ethics committee at the hospital itself (which typically includes lawyers and clergy, not only doctors) in pro-choice states and will (if they don't already) involve government boards filled by anti-abortion political appointees. Those boards decide how much of an emergency it is. They decide it before, often forcing the doctor and the woman to plead for some decision, as well as after through some sort of review. And, just so you know, in a lot of these cases where the pregnancy is ultimately doomed the mother is not in an "emergency" and the fetus is still technically alive. You literally have to wait until an emergency -- which is often some sort of quickly emerging infection or heavy bleeding -- to be free of the interpretive gray area to act. And even then, there are instances of anti-abortion forces STILL trying to prevent doctors from acting on behalf of a woman at risk because there's some sound on the speaker. It's happening now, it happened when Roe was in place, and it will happen more. Not because of the doctors that like dead patients -- because these laws are designed to be barriers, and even with the exceptions those barriers slow down processes and force expert practitioners to delay decision-making in dynamic emergencies. If a fire fighter could go to prison for property damage if they broke a window in a burning building, or cut a tree down on the perimeter of a property, you don't think that would impact the effectiveness of fire fighting? Even if there were clear exceptions for life of the house or of a family or dog or whatever? Come now.

As for maternal care in general, women understand -- as to their partners when perceptive -- the relationship between general maternal care and abortion. All knowledge progresses and expands because people are acting on the extremes. Best practices, and the established norms of a field, set into place long after those practices become general. But before they are general, they are in highly specialized and experimental areas. Common cancer treatments, vaccines, etc. They all start out as experimental research. And the same is true for high-risk OBGYN care. Eventually when things that are practiced as experimental are done enough, with enough success, they filter into the more general areas and more and more people are trained to do them. But when you make an entire field of high-risk medicine functionally illegal, it prevents any real progress for more effective general practice. For example, let's say you are a woman and you have a history of what is called incompetent cervix. That means that your cervix - the little thing that keeps all the baby and the goo from coming out of the tummy -- doesn't work very well and opens up early. Well, you can go to a high risk OB who will do special checkups with special equipment more often than a typical pregnant woman receives. And if in one of those special checkups they find things opening up, they can send you to a special surgeon to basically install a little loop - kind of like a rubber band for you hoo hoo -- to keep things in place. But here's the thing, all those special processes create increased risk. Especially the surgery. So if you see the cervix opening, but it's not opened enough to where things are coming out, and then you decide the patient needs the special rubber band procedure, but then that procedure ruptures the bag, ends a pregnancy and forces an abortive procedure, then every single person involved in that process is now open for prosecution and/or litigation under the law. As long as a person in power (a political appointee) decides that the process was either premature or not done correctly or what have you. And it is a statistical fact that at some point, those high-risk, experimental procedures fail whether the fault of the people doing them or the fault of nature. So if you are a high risk OB in a state where abortion is illegal, save a few narrow exceptions interpreted by political extremists, you can be certain that you will be investigated and/or prosecuted by people whose job it will be to decide whether you did the right thing and you did it right besides having no real knowledge of your field, no real knowledge of the specific situation, and a clear, extreme political bias. That's categorically going to have a huge impact on the number of people around who can and will do those kinds of procedures. It just is. It's not that hard to see how prohibition impacts knowledge of the prohibited. And that's just one example. 

But again, your last sentence says it all. It's about punishing whores, just as it always was and always will be. And all the impacts on good, clean, American women ... that's just pretend, a liberal scare tactic because liberals just love abortions. Women shouldn't have bodily autonomy because of whores. 

I stopped reading when you started with the false accusation of me being an "anti-women extremists."  

[bornontheblue]

On 11/25/2024 at 12:26 PM, Billings said:

 Either way you know rotations and residencies will be all over the Boise area and State.

That is not unusual in small states with population centers spread far out. 

 

[The Barber]

On 11/25/2024 at 11:30 AM, FresnoFacts said:

I ran across a factoid that relates to Idaho's OBGYN situation, whatever the reasons that existing doctors are leaving and others are not setting up new practices in the state.

My medical contacts tell me three major factors for doctors selecting a practice location are proximity to family, where they attended medical school, and where they did their medical residency.

Idaho is one of only 6 states with no OBGYN residency program. The others are Wyoming, Montana, both Dakotas, and Alaska. Although lower population states there are other small states that do have OBGYN residencies.

Map of OBGYN residency program locations:

 

 

If they build a medical school in Idaho, they probably need to set hard quotas to prioritize in-state students admission.   Would go along with your factors of "proximity to family" after graduation.  Together with the medical residency problem you identified.

That could go a long way to increasing the OBGyn and other doctors in the State.

[The Barber]

info about ICOM which is a brand new school -- so makes sense why they are so shorted on doctors.

It was founded in partnership with Idaho State University.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_College_of_Osteopathic_Medicine

 

Before ICOM was established, Idaho was the most populous state without a medical school of its own. Although Idaho is among the most rapidly growing areas of the country, the state ranks 49th in physicians per capita.^[8] ICOM was founded by Dan Burrell, who also founded the Burrell College of Osteopathic Medicine in Las Cruces, NM. Though the school is private, it was founded in partnership with Idaho State University and other senior Idaho healthcare and government officials, with Dr. Robert Hasty as the founding dean. The medical school helps address the current and growing shortage of physicians in the Mountain West region and beyond. With approval from the Idaho State Board of Education, former Idaho Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter announced the creation of ICOM on February of 2016. In December 2017 COCA granted ICOM pre-accreditation status and authorized the recruitment of 162 students. ICOM's inaugural class matriculated in August 2018.^[9] This class graduated in May 2022^[10] and went on to have a 100% residency match rate,^[11] leading to ICOM's elevation to full accreditation status by COCA.