Washington Posts backs abortion industry in opposition to new safety regulations

Planned Parenthood Virgina Beach

Planned Parenthood Abortion Center in Virgina Beach, VA

The following is a recent article from the Washington Post, which epitomized the notion that the abortion lobby wants abortion laws as liberal as possible, to the point of opposing safety regulations that could potentially save women’s lives:

IF SOMETHING about anti-abortion advocates pressing for “safer” abortion clinics rings false to you, trust your instincts.

Virginia recently unveiled regulations to beef up oversight of the 22 clinics in the commonwealth.

“It is imperative that you contact the Board of Health and urge them to pass the regulations!” exhorts the conservative Family Foundation on its Web site.

“[I]t is hard to imagine why groups that say they are concerned about women’s health would oppose these standards,” the Virginia Catholic Conference said in a statement.

Actually, it’s not hard to imagine at all, because the standards are not really about safety. They are unjustifiably stringent and could force abortion facilities to shut their doors.

Since abortion is one of the most common procedures in our nation, why shouldn’t it be one of the most well regulated?  Is it strange that I find this to be commonsensical?  As the Washington Post states:

“The regulations require the same strict physical requirements as outpatient surgical centers that would be doing complex and invasive surgery, abortion rights activists said.”

Well, pro-choicers, doesn’t this just uphold the “safe” aspect of your “safe, legal, and rare” mantra?  Abortion is an invasive procedure, so why in the world shouldn’t the clinics in which they’re performed be regulated as such?

Washington Post makes it apparent that the pro-choice lobby opposes any law or regulation that would put the slightest damper on the availability of abortion. So often the pro-choice ideology is that pro-lifers are “anti-woman.”  If this were the case, we wouldn’t be pushing for legislation that would protect women, even if she is obtaining an abortion.  To be pro-life encompasses being pro-woman as well, and includes wishing no harm upon those who support, obtain, or profit from abortions. Back to the Washington Post:

The draft regulations, released by the Virginia Department of Health on Aug. 26, apply only to abortion clinics, out of all the health facilities in the commonwealth, and cover everything from the handling of medical records to requirements for covered entrances. They would regulate these clinics as if they were outpatient surgical hospitals that perform much riskier and more invasive procedures.

“Much riskier and more invasive procedures?” I can’t think of many other procedures more invasive than an abortion. The “safe, legal, and rare” mantra touted by pro-choicers has only held pursued in one aspect: its legality.  Abortion isn’t just lethal for unborn children, but it can be physically dangerous (not just in regards to immediate complications, but long-term ones like increased chances of getting breast cancer) and emotionally and mentally devastating to women as well.  (And, obviously, the fact that over 1,200,000 abortions are performed in America each year kind of squashes the “rare” aspect of it.)

And they would for the first time require existing abortion clinics to meet guidelines meant only for new construction; in the past, when adopting new regulations for physical structures, the commonwealth typically established different standards for existing structures and for new construction. Not so here, which means that abortion clinics could be forced to engage in all manner of expensive renovations that have nothing to do with safety, including the widening of hallways and the enlargement of examination rooms.

The new regulations were mandated by emergency legislation adopted by the General Assembly last winter. No justification has been given for such fast-track treatment. Abortions are among the safest of medical procedures.

Here it seems like the main issue the Washington Post has is the expenses of abiding by these safety regulations.  If regulations to be implicated which would protect women would cost them money, have no doubt that they are going to fight the regulations.  And no, abortion isn’t one of the “safest of medical procedures.” As I stated earlier, women who obtain them are more susceptible to breast cancer and mental and emotional health problems.  Of course, the abortion industry is going to vehemently try to push those findings under the rug.  It’s bad for business if people figure it out.

Virginia’s Department of Health does not keep track of complications associated with the 25,000 or so abortions performed in the commonwealth each year. But the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit think tank that focuses on reproductive health and supports legal abortion, reports that less than one-half of 1 percent of all abortions performed in the country result in complications and require follow-up medical treatment. The abortion clinics targeted by the Virginia legislation perform only first­ trimester abortions — the safest of all procedures.

Well, this is interesting.  Since Virginia’s Department of Health doesn’t keep records of abortion complications, Washington Post refers to Planned Parenthood’s own research arm, the AGI, to back up its claim that abortion is.  In reality, the Washington Post admits that it actually has no idea if the abortion procedures provided in Virginia were really “safe” because the complications of the abortions aren’t even tracked by the state!  How convenient. Why isn’t the pro-choice lobby fighting to keep women safe by demanding all states report abortion complications?

The 15-member Board of Health is expected to vote on the proposed regulations Sept. 15. Some of the provisions are sensible, including those governing the maintenance of health records and requiring a physician to be on the premises when a woman is put under general anesthesia — a rarity with first-trimester abortions. But it should reject the new building requirements.

Regulatory shenanigans and legal sleight of hand should not be used to undermine Virginia women’s constitutionally protected rights by shuttering facilities that have been safely providing such services for decades.

Again, I’ll ask: how can the Washington Post know if the state of Virginia has “been safely providing such services for decades” when they admit that complications from abortion procedures aren’t even reported?  I wonder what we’d find if Virginia suddenly started investigating the clinics in the state… For all we know, there could be another Kermit Gosnell butchering born children and killing women in a clinic in Virginia because he knows complications conveniently aren’t reported.

To Top

Send this to friend