ACTION ITEM! POLL ALERT! Wisconsin Judge strikes down law requiring abortion docs to have hospital privileges

At the Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinel there is a poll about a recent decision of a federal judge (an Obama appointee, probably raised Catholic HERE) to strike down a law requiring that doctors performing abortions (aka infanticide) also have admitting privileges to hospitals.

After all… what could go wrong?

Click HERE for the article and voting page.

The voting box is on the sidebar.


And at the time of this posting.


I suspect that the readership might have some input for this poll.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Emanations from Penumbras, POLLS and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. I believe the link is corrected. Let me know if there are problems.

  2. tzabiega says:

    Point is simple for everyone, even the pro-abortion people: if you can’t get hospital privileges, you are a quack. There has to be a reason you can’t get hospital privileges, and that is usually something on your record (prior malpractice suits, criminal activity, disciplinary action). As a physician I have filled out many applications for hospital privileges and know exactly why a doctor would get rejected. And the bar is set pretty low, so you really have to be bad not to get those privileges. And since abortionists are ruthless criminals butchering little babies, why would anyone expect them to be good doctors with good ethics to begin with?

  3. Nicholas says:

    It may be because I am on my phone, but I saw no poll. The readership of your blog may have had the intended effect.

  4. Priam1184 says:

    The bigger issue here is not the hospital privileges but the judge. Any law passed by any legislature anywhere in the 50 states that is even the smallest attempt to turn this society back in any way toward Catholic morality will be annihilated by the judiciary at the first available opportunity. And from the judicial fiat there is little to no recourse. Changing laws is now, for the time being, a lost cause, it is hearts that need to be converted, and only God can do that.

    Prayer and fasting.

  5. New Sister says:

    Nicolas – it should be a NO vote.

  6. Nicholas says:

    New Sister,

    I understand what you are saying and agree, but I could not see the poll when I pulled up the webpage.

  7. HyacinthClare says:

    Just voted not only no, but !!!! no…

  8. mburn16 says:

    The great tragedy of America’s existence is going to be its lost potential. No other nation in history every had the ingredients to maintain global hegemony the way America had – and when other powers fell, it was through things they had little direct control over. The story of our own nation is going to be of a people collecting virtually every component necessary for global power (a power which could very well have revolved around a system involving outward Christian conformity)…and leaving it sitting on thr table in order to go chase abortion and gay marriage.

  9. Boniface says:

    That is a poorly-written article. Sadly, not atypical today. I had to read the beginning of it several times before I realized “get” privileges” meant “be required to obtain them,” instead of “be automatically granted them.”

  10. Dad of Six says:

    Unfortunately, it is not Chicago, so you cannot vote early and often (although I tried).

    I will vote no with whatever other devices I can lay my hands on today.

  11. yatzer says:

    Voted no, and also sadly agree with mburn16 .

  12. Jerry says:

    The results are now 61% Yes; 39% No with 2966 total votes.

    Since Fr. Z’s initial snapshot there have been 334 votes cast: approximately 19 Yes and 315 No.

  13. Jerry says:

    Dad of Six – using a browser in stealth mode should avoid the cookies that track whether you have already voted.

    I suggest that those who vote copy the link and open it in a new tab/window rather than clicking on the link. The latter records this blog as the referring site: if those running the poll are particularly biased and see a flood of posts coming from one site they may remove those votes and/or block users coming from this site.

  14. Patti Day says:

    Vote right now is:

    Yes 59%
    No 41%

    with a box reading: State officials moving quickly to appeal abortion law ruling

  15. CPT TOM says:

    voted No. The meter hasn’t moved yet
    Yes. (59%)
    No. (41%)
    Total Responses: 3071

  16. gracie says:

    Slaughterhouses don’t need hospital privileges.

  17. techno_aesthete says:

    Yes. 55%
    No. 45%

  18. Justalurkingfool says:

    I could not find the poll. Not on my phone internet.


  19. pannw says:

    I just voted. It now stands:

    Yes: 47%
    No: 53%
    Total votes: 3832

    :) Thanks for pointing it out, Father Z.

  20. SanSan says:

    No is ahead! Wonder if our voices will every be heard and listened to again?

  21. SKAY says:

    Yes – 46%

    “Slaughterhouses don’t need hospital privileges.” Exactly gracie.

  22. mlmc says:

    nowhere in the article does it state the reason for requiring admitting privileges- that is to ensure safety. Many small outpatient clinics do not have the resources to fully “vet” physicians- but hospitals do and have a good reason since they are the deep pocket in lawsuits. Furthermore, many so called clinics are owned by the person doing the procedure-so would not disqualify an owner from operating there, even if he has a bad track record. It isn’t much of a secret that abortionists in many areas aren’t top of the heap in terms of quality.

  23. mlmc says:

    i guess i should add that when your mortality rate is at least 50% what is a few more deaths?

  24. Suburbanbanshee says:

    56% No.

  25. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    With 4170 having voted it is now 56% ‘no’, I see.

  26. SKAY says:


    “Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin and Affiliated Medical Services had sued the state, arguing the requirement will force AMS’s Milwaukee clinic to close because its doctors can’t get admitting privileges.

    Lester Pines, a Madison attorney who argued the case for Planned Parenthood, said it was clear from the 93-page decision that Conley did not consider the matter a close call.”

Comments are closed.