Generally speaking, we tend to see that those who support abortion also favor government interference and regulation, while those who are against abortion favor the government having a more limited role. However, we do not always find this to be the case when it comes to those who are pro-choice on abortion. To them, it seems to be that the Declaration of Independence’s proclamation of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” does not apply to the unborn. And the government having a role in regulating abortion clinics? Well, that’s a political attack on women’s rights and their health care.
For those who are against abortion, they seem to understand the life issue in a way that those who support abortion do not. It’s not that they want to control women through supporting such regulations; they want to keep women safe. It’s not exactly government interference to protect life and fully abide by one of our founding documents. Many want the government to ensure that life is protected and then to get out of the way.
During the Democratic National Convention over the summer, Reason TV did a video, reposted by LifeNews, which showed delegates and attendees expressing that they were pro-choice but also support government regulation on other issues. One woman perfectly summed up this sentiment when she said this after being asked about soda and trans fat bans:
I think a lot of people make harmful decisions. There’s alcohol, there’s cigarette smoking, and so I understand the government trying to intervene ‘cus the American taxpayer pays a lot of money for fat people.
And an ironic statement comes from this woman, who previously in the video mentioned her support for a ban on Four Loko drinks:
I’m pro-choice on everything about everything about everything. A person should have a right to choose, but there should be an informed choice, and government has a role in that.
It would have been truly interesting and helpful if Reason TV had gotten more in-depth with asking about abortion. If these two women and others interviewed had been asked about regulation of abortion clinics, it is entirely possible that they would be against such regulations, and thus the irony and hypocrisy of such statements would be further highlighted.
But abortion supporters don’t seem to see regulation as what it truly is: regulation. After all, tattoo parlors and nail salons are inspected and regulated, which is for the safety of clients. It seems silly to argue against that, yet supporters of abortion are really arguing only against safety. Instead, anything that could restrict abortion, even if it is through properly regulating the procedure, is seen as some sort of attack. The title of this Kaiser Health News piece, which mentions several other articles about abortion regulations, represents this pro-choice opinion rather well. The title? “Abortion Opponents Use Regulation As Weapon Against Clinics.”
In September 2012, abortion clinics in Virginia were found to have horrific conditions. And if clinics aren’t being licensed or inspected on a regular basis, why should we expect them to keep safe conditions? Obviously we can’t. Victoria Cobb, president of the Family Foundation, told LifeSiteNews:
Some of this is just horrific. Now we know why the abortion industry fought so vehemently over the year against even simple legislation that required only inspections, licensing and emergency equipment in their centers.
“They were hiding for a reason. Even with time to prepare for announced inspections these centers were found to be what I think most reasonable Virginians would deem unsafe in many cases and utterly disgusting in others. Now the same industry claims it should be trusted on the construction standards as well, but these inspection reports show that the industry simply cannot be trusted on anything.”
Yet when Bob McDonnell, governor of Virginia approved measures to regulate abortion clinics, those supporting abortion claimed that a disregard was actually being shown for women’s health care, as Live Action News reported back in January.
But this also ties in with the Kermit Gosnell “House of Horrors.” Gosnell’s clinic had not been inspected since 1993, a decision that was made for political reasons. The discovery of such deplorable conditions was actually made by accident, during an investigation into pill-mill abuses of prescription drugs.
Had Gosnell’s business been routinely inspected, abortions would still have been performed and resulted in the death of innocent unborn children – but fewer abortions would have been performed, and perhaps fewer children born alive and women would have died.
In March, Americans United for Life pointed out that “Gosnell Case Underscores Urgent Need for Abortion Clinic Regulations.”
And a CBS article from April 15 mentioned abortion-supporters calling for the same thing. Well, sort of:
But looming over this case is the debate over abortion rights. Opponents say it illustrates the brutality of abortion and how it’s taking a human life, while supporters of abortion rights, who have condemned Gosnell, say it highlights the need for clean, safe places for women to have legal abortions.
If abortion-supporters really think this case “highlights the need for clean, safe places for women to have legal abortions,” then they have to get the hint that this means regulation and interference from the government. If the abortion regulations necessary to meet medical industry standard result in the procedures being significantly restricted, what does that say about the current level of safety not only for the unborn baby, but for their mothers?