. . . because action speaks louder than words.
League history, NOW v. Scheidler, Action News, Joe Scheidler, League staff
Q & A on abortion, the unborn child, where we stand on the issues and more
Helping abortion-bound women choose life for their babies
Unmasking the truth about abortion in the public square
Our youth outreach, raising up a new generation of pro-life leaders
Abortion industry converts tell the inside story
News and commentary from the Pro-Life Action League
News and commentary from the Pro-Life Action League
Will the Commonwealth of Virginia be placing new regulations on abortion? Will these regulations make abortion safer, or just rarer?
President Bill Clinton became known for his mantra, that he wanted abortion to be “safe, legal, and rare.” Many, including the Guttmacher Institute [pdf] picked up on this quote, agreeing that most in the abortion-rights crowd want this—they’re not “pro-abortion” because they want it to be both safe and rare, but always legal.
So I’m perplexed when laws are introduced that would make abortion safer—even if it potentially also makes abortion rarer—(all while keeping it 100% legal) that some groups get so up in arms.
To begin, abortion is not safe. This should make the abortion-rights crowd angry in my mind.
Think of Kermit Gosnell’s Philadelphia clinic, which authorities found to be absolutely disgusting in February of 2010. Alberto Hodari is facing charges for forcing abortions on unwilling women. California abortionist Andrew Rutland has been charged with homicide for the 2009 death of Ying Chen. Just to name a few.
And as Christina Dunigan states on her blog, Real Choice, these aren’t just “a few bad apples”—a number abortionists who have killed patients are members of the seemingly prestigious National Abortion Federation.
Unfortunately these circumstances don’t come to light often enough. Mostly (I think) it’s because nobody’s looking. Inspectors aren’t going out on a regular basis to check on clinics to make sure they’re sanitary and safe (if they were, do you think it would have taken so long to uncover Gosnell’s pit?).
And even more unfortunately, the laws regulating abortion clinics are so lax that women aren’t protected when they go there for abortions.
As my co-worker John Jansen noted in a 2009 blog post, “Who Keeps An Eye on Abortion Clinics?” abortion clinics don’t have to meet the same standards as other medical facilities—in Illinois they’re even given a special pass!
I see no reason not to protect women by making sure the clinics they go to are safe and clean.
Yet in Virginia, Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli has written a memo [pdf] giving his opinion on Virginia law—stating that the Virginia Board of Health can regulate abortion facilities–and the pro-aborts are livid.
According to Cuccinelli’s spokesman,
The state has long regulated outpatient surgical facilities and personnel to ensure a certain level of protection for patients… There is no reason to hold facilities providing abortion services to any lesser standard for their patients. Even pharmacies, funeral homes and veterinary clinics are regulated by the state.
But pro-abortion advocates disagree, Julian Walker writes:
Critics of the decision see it as nothing more than a new strategy to curb abortions. Adoption of new rules would require clinics to make costly improvements and force some to close, thereby “eliminating women’s access to abortion and other services, such as birth control and cancer screenings, that these medical facilities provide,” predicted Tarina Keene, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia.
Basically, they could stop offering abortions and keep doing their other services (since places like Planned Parenthood claim abortion is only 3% of their business anyway [pdf]) or they close up shop completely, cutting off their noses to spite their faces.
(Perhaps abortion is a larger, more lucrative component of their services than they would like to admit? hmmm. Notably, Planned Parenthood built their new location to conform with these standards, which they must figure will go into place eventually. They’ll appreciate having less competition, won’t they?)
Currently the abortion clinics in Virginia are categorized as “doctor’s offices” rather than as “outpatient medical clinics,” which is why they have to follow lesser rules.
These new rules, according to the Times-Dispatch would require “operating rooms be at least 16 feet by 18 feet and that public hallways and stairways be at least 5 feet wide.” If there’s a medical emergency and someone needs to be wheeled out on a gurney, that doesn’t seem really excessive to me…But building codes are admittedly not my area of expertise.
But really, we’re putting the cart before the horse. Despite fear-mongering headlines such as “Cuccinelli-approved rules threaten abortion clinics,” the memo [pdf] merely states “that the Commonwealth has the authority to promulgate regulations” for first-trimester abortion facilities (emphasis added).
Basically the memo says these clinics already have to follow a number of rules given by the Board of Health and the Board of Medicine and that if they want to add a few more—or to define exactly what an abortion clinic is—they can do so.
Maybe it’s still too soon to be screaming that the sky is falling.
Note: Visitor comments do not necessarily reflect the views of the Pro-Life Action League.
We welcome a free and open exchange of ideas on the Pro-Life Hotline, from all points of view, but we request that you restrict your remarks to the topic(s) presented in the entry above.
To ensure constructive dialog, the following will not be tolerated:
You may use HTML code to style your comments.
To begin with, abortion is safer than childbirth. The claims regarding cancer have been disproven, as have other factors.
I do agree that abortion clinics should be required to meet the highest medical standards. The sooner they are incorporated into all hospitals the better.
Posted September 1, 2010 at 8:37 pm
And the result of all this?
The destruction of the human race!
Posted September 2, 2010 at 6:16 am
Discussing a “safe” abortion is like discussing a “safe” assasination. It’s safe for those commiting the act, but what about the victim?
The pro-choice crowd is so radicalized by their views that common sense is lost to such a degree that they oppose women in the name of supporting women. Of course all outpatient surgery clinics should be regulated to ensure the saftey of the patients. Of course all minors should have parental consent before surgery. Being pro-life is not “against women” as they claim, but it is a position in favor of the right to life of baby girls. Why do pro-choicers want abortion clinics to be dangerous for the women? A lack of regulation will guarentee that some will be dangerious. Pro-choicers say they’re for women, but they’re against them as babies (abortion), as teens (parental consent) and as adults (saftey regulations).
Posted September 2, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Abortion is a victimless act Chris.
I beg to differ – it is the anti-choicers and evangelicals who are ‘radicalized’. The pro-choicers just want to get on with things but have to deal with the unwarranted and unwanted interference of anti-choicers.
You are not ‘pro-life’, you are anti-choice and self-appointed arbiters.
Posted September 2, 2010 at 7:05 pm
eric says:
Abortion is a victimless act Chris.
————————————————————————–
That is perhaps the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. You didn’t have the guts to check out the testimonials at http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/ did you eric.
I dare you to sign up and just read the stories on this site: http://www.afterabortion.com/ No worries, it’s a neutral site regarding pro-choice/pro-life. No one is allowed to post anything remotely resembling an argument for either side. It’s just a place where women can gather in cyberspace to heal from this “victimless” act.
Sadly, hearing the tales from the women themselves probably won’t inform you much, based your comment on a different post dissecting one post-abortive woman’s experience. You’d rather be spouting pro-abortion propaganda than researching the truth and helping women.
Posted September 3, 2010 at 4:35 pm
Eric -
Your declarations (not supported by any argument) are not views I agree with. However, let me give some additional backing to mine. If you build on the premise that a baby in the womb is a human without rights (the pro-choice perspective), abortion would be legal. I obviously disagree with the premise, but what makes no sense is, upon what basis does the pro-choice crowd by and large favor a lack of regulation on the abortion clinics and not requiring parental consent for minors? That’s certianly not pro-woman, pro-parent or pro-civilized normal way of living. It looks and smells like a position someone would take if they were so radicalized that they lost common sense. For those of us who care about teens and women (not to mention babies), I think it’s very warrented and rational to bring up these points of discussion. To bring them up and talk about them is not being a self-appointed anything, it’s to be a normal person and to be a citizen.
Posted September 3, 2010 at 5:27 pm
The ‘pro-choice crowd’ does not by and large favor a lack of regulation on the abortion clinics and not requiring parental consent for minors. The more radicalized may do. But they don’t line roads with huge signs and gather around people going about their own business either, do they?
But you are self-appointed arbiters. You have decided that abortion should be stopped and you act upon it. I think religion is a total crock, but I don’t try to stop people from going to church.
Posted September 3, 2010 at 6:44 pm
Eric, Do you oppose all protesting in general?
Posted September 6, 2010 at 1:59 pm