Abortion Rights vs. Women's Safety in Virginia
Conservatives are pushing costly business regulations they usually abhor. Is it an end run around the Constitution?
Last April, the Virginia Board of Health approved strict new regulations for abortion providers. Unlike most similar laws, the regulations cover not just new facilities but existing ones too. Clinics have until October 2014 to comply, but a high-stakes legal challenge in the Old Dominion may change that early next year.
Senate Bill 924 reclassifies any health clinic that provides five or more first trimester abortions a month as an outpatient surgical center rather than a physician's office, which is the current classification. The law sets standards for the number of parking spaces, width of hallways, size of janitor closets, and more, all which could cost millions of dollars in renovations per facility. Abortion clinics throughout the state have said compliance costs will force many of them to close and two out of 20 abortion clinics have already shut down, citing financial burdens related to the new regs.
In a reversal of conventional positions, SB 924 has political conservatives arguing for increasing regulations on small businesses and liberals arguing against them. The bill initially passed the Democratic-controlled state senate in 2011 by a vote of 20-20 (Lieutenant Gov. Bill Bolling, a pro-life Republican cast the tie-breaking vote). Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell eventually signed it into law after numerous rounds of political back-and-forth.
Supporters of abortion rights believe that pro-life legislators in Virginia and elsewhere around the country are using retroactive regulations to get around constitutional guarantees to abortion on demand during the first trimester of pregnancy. Defenders of the new regulations say that they are simply protecting the safety of women.
"This is really necessary to ensure that woman are treated with care consistent with their human dignity," says Mallory Quigley of the Susan B. Anthony List (SBL), a pro-life organization. A woman who chooses to have an abortion, says Quigley, should be able to do so without fearing for her health and safety. Quigley and other supporters point to the deplorable conditions in abortion clinics such as the one run by Kermit Gosnell in Philadelphia. Gosnell, who ran an operation described as a "horror house," was convicted of murder and other crimes after several patients died at his clinic.
"Physicians that are practicing in Virginia have been outspoken about the lack of medical evidence that is deciding [this legislation]," says Sara Wallace-Keeshen of Falls Church Health Care Center (FCHC). Located in northern Virginia, FCHC has filed an administrative appeal against the new regulations, claiming that renovations would cost the center $2 million and potentially force them out of business.
FCHC has had no deaths since opening in 2002, an outcome that is similar to the generally low rate of complications related to abortions performed in clinics. Indeed, since 1974 state data show only three deaths during legal abortions. For first-trimester abortions, the complication rate is 0.3 percent, throwing doubt on the safety argument.
A court date is set for April 2014.
Aprrox. 4 minutes. Produced by Amanda Winkler. Camera by Winkler and Joshua Swain.
Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube Channelto receive automatic updates when new material goes live.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
If abortions are performed with surgical instruments, are they not surgical centers by definition?
I've been a patient at many physician run clinics that have done surgery on me with surgical tools.
I've had Achilles tendon reattachment surgery at my podiatrist clinic, had numerous endoscopies, had my vasectomy, and had all my wisdom teeth removed.
These are surgeries that took me days (Achilles took me 6 months) to fully recover from. My wife who, who had an abortion to remove the remainders of a very traumatic miscarriage (when you have a miscarriage, even if you deliver a fetus....you still have to get an abortion to get rid of the extra stuff inside to prevent infection) was able to get up after 20 minutes of rest and she wanted to go get ice cream at a local ice cream shop. She was up and about doing regular everyday activities within 2 hours and I was told that her surgery felt like a bad menstrual cramp.
By your argument, all clinics should be treated equally and should all be made to follow the same health regulations.
Targeting only abortion clinics is wrong because it holds a surgical procedure which is not as dangerous as getting...say...an Achilles tendon reattached on a different level.
If your argument did not target just abortion clinics then I would be on board with you because I do think that clinics that do dentistry, podiatry, and eye surgeries, etc should be forced to share the same responsibilities as abortion clinics.
I'm sorry to hear about the miscarriage but glad to hear of her recovery. But how was it an abortion if the fetus was already dead?
It's a surgical procedure to remove what's in the womb. The tools and level of invasiveness don't change based on whether you're removing a viable fetus or the remains of an already-failed pregnancy. The moral implications might, depending on your point of view, but this bill purports to be about the safety standards for and mechanics of the procedure.
But like I said, if the fetus is already dead it's not an abortion.
Are these regulations based on the life or the fetus or protecting women's health re these procedures?
As I said, choicers find it difficult to grasp that pro-lifers, such as the w8men of the Susan B Anthony List, want to protect both mother *and* child.
I've been a patient at many physician run clinics that have done surgery on me with surgical tools.
Interns need *someone* to practice on.
If abortions are performed with surgical instruments, are they not surgical centers by definition?
I use kitchen implements in my abortion center. Thank you very much.
Tools by Ginsu. Nice, clean incisions.
Even after hundreds of surgical procedures, it still slices right through this ripe tomato!
But, but I thought that regulations were always for the good of citizens, I was told that the fact they harm businesses by increasing costs was a myth.
I have NO sympathy for the liberals here. Hoisted on your own petard comes to mind.
Yeah, yeah, liberals experiencing hypocrisy where the real victims are people of no necessary political stripe. Regulation that singles out certain companies for excessive regulation (Wal-mart not-Wal-mart bills) are definitely the domain of liberals. And it's fun to see them frantically using arguments they dismiss otherwise to help a pet issue.
But I do have sympathy for them and hope they learn something from this. Libertarianism happens to people. It should be happening to them right now.
What does that even mean?
This pretty much, every fucking day the left slaughters someone else's sacred cow. Now it's their turn and they are crying foul? Fuck em.
If the invisible hand of abortion is so powerful, it should be able to overcome these regulations.
Just curious...why the hell is women's safety everyone else's problem? It should be their own. If women are too stupid that they will just end up falling on knives the second they step outside the kitchen, then just stay in the kitchen. Leave taxpayers out of it. Sheesh.
Abortion Rights VERSUS Women's Safety? More like Abortion Rights ARE Women's Safety!
And this shit the SoContards are trying to pull is just more of the patriarchical handpuppets of the Santorums of other Rethuglihadistructionracists interfering with the BASIC RIGHTS.
and the WARR ON WIMMINZ continues...
too much? I'm kind of admiring this one...I feel it's some of my best work.
Your assessments, please?
9/10, lose a point for no mention of Tealiban extremists.
To lighten the mood in an abortion thread...
OT: Liberal Facebook rube is behind on the news:
Oh Megyn! You and your silly ass name spelling.
Debating the color of a mythical gift man???. Show me a picture of Santa and please prove your point Fair and Balanced.
Also, white Jesus? Have you seen anyone from Jerusalem? If you saw Jesus you and your racist ass War Hawk cohorts would probably label him a terrorist.
He links to this:
http://www.cnn.com/video/?/vid....._referrer=
....and the War on Christmas continues apace!
You know how I know you're racist? Because you prefer a white Santa.
My liberal Facebook friends are still going on and on about white Santa and white Jesus. I cannot begin to imagine why they are doing that and have stopped singing the praises of their lord and savior Obama, but there it is.
Yeah this same guy, when Martin Bashir was taking heat for his comments posted this:
For fucks sake.
1. Freedom of Speech, he can say what he wants
2. I have said way worse about Sarah Palin, she's kind of a c*nt.
Sack up and move on.
1) do they know where the whole idea of St Nick is from? Nothing but white faces all the way down.
2) unless the form has changed, the Census would regard anyone born in the Middle East as white.
If Jesus returned to Earth today, and somehow found himself in a scuffle with a black teenager in Florida, you can bet your ass CNN would consider him whiter than Donny Osmond.
Sincerely, thank you for this comment. My day has been made.
If I'm reading this right, it's simply the redesignation of abortion clinics as surgical centers that is bringing all these regulations into play. If so, the answer is simple - deregulate surgical centers. Of course, I suspect the goal here is to have abortion receive favored treatment relative to other procedures.
You mean both the left and the right are being disingenuous with regard to abortion? My shocked face requires a certain number of parking spaces, per regulations.
As I often say, R's are just D's with bibles. They're the same socio-economic engineers, they just have a different vision of what the all-powerful central government should do. One side will force you to both participate and pay for it, the other side will arrest you if you participate or pay for it.
This is the by product of creating big government (BG).
Liberal will use BG to push liberal causes with force, whey do you not expect a SOCON to do the same?
It is us the Libritarian that are at fault in part (defining health standards for a medical facility is not wrong IMHO).
There are more than a few of us on this site who are more than will to support the Progressive tax/force social engennering with big government because we buy in to the fear that all republicans (and the lie that tea-party is a socon movement) are out to use BG to make you go to church, work for a living, and take your porn. Instead you are duped into growing BG voting progressive killing the fiscal small government conservative.
I would submit to ya'll that small government cannot push any social views by force; instead by starving BG of funds shrinking it, we will have even more freedoms and liberties. Now mind you you are going to have to accepts that there will be places that will enact laws you don't like -- and odds are they are places you were never going to live anyway so why bother?
Prolifers want to protect both women and children. Choicers don't get this because they are blinded by an ideology which women constantly endangered by their child's very existence. At least the article quoted a prolife woman instead of assuming all prolifers are male.
If abortion is merely a form of surgery, why should abortuaries be exempt from the same regulations as other surgical centers?
Prolifers constantly see patients at abortion clinics being taken away in ambulances due to "complications!" Yet choicers profess bafflement that omg they want hallways to be wider! You can't fit an ambulance gurney into a narrow hallway.
The article focuses on women dying from abortion, without mentioning the hospital visits and the narrow hallways.
Please, Eduard, this is about making abortions more rare, not women's health, otherwise you and your friends would be out there protesting every kind of physicians office which might engage in something where a gurney may be called. Just be honest about it, sheesh.
If I were you I wouldn't speak about honesty. If you were honest, you would have acknowledged that other surgical centers *already* are subject to regulations requiring wider hallways.
Like I said, choicers can't imagine anyone supporting both the woman *and* her unborn child. It's *your* ridiculous ideology which pits mother and child against each other.
But abortion is special and needs to have special dispensation. The libertarian position is that it be treated differently from any other location in which surgery is performed.
"If abortion is merely a form of surgery, why should abortuaries be exempt from the same regulations as other surgical centers?"
Well, there is this from the linked article.
"The advisory panel also wanted to limit the regulations to clinics performing surgical abortions, exempting medical terminations of pregnancy, Strauss said. But again, the attorney general's office advised the board that state law makes no distinction between medical and surgical abortions so the board can't either, Gibson said."
Republicans hate laws and regulations that restrict freedom. Except when it comes to abortion, contraception, gays, the border and marijuana. Because then it's not about freedom but about protecting [the unborn/the children/society]... which makes them sound an awful lot like Democrats when they talk about healthcare or workplace protections, doesn't it?
The parties we have in place today are nothing but two sides of the same coin. Their disagreements are stupid because they each -- in their own way -- support the expansion of the government and regulatory state. You can choose to vote for Democrats and be forced to pay for needless programs/regulations through taxes or you can choose to vote for Republicans and... be forced to pay for needless programs/regulations through taxes.
Wait what? Contraception? Buy your own damn condoms, freeloader. And to tell you the truth, I hope you kill all your potential kids - just not with Federal funds.
I find it funny that liberals always advocate for theoretical victims that may not even exist to push their policies but they're rather cavalier about ending the lives of fetuses because "they can't function outside of the mother's womb".
I can't ask a hospital to perform an amputation or castration on a whim just because "it's my body", but a woman should be able to erase a fetus with ZERO restriction or regulation? Doesn't make sense to me.
I wonder if most women considering abortion actually wouldn't mind going through the pregnancy and give the child to a another couple. But they fear they won't have the courage to hand their infant to someone else when the time comes. That baby is a little version of you.
If you want an abortion because you want 8 months of partying, you're a real scumbug. Yeah, I said it. The constitution gives the KKK the right to wave their confederate flag before my eyes, but that doesn't mean I have to respect them.