Analysis

Why the abortion industry can’t regulate itself

abortion_clinics_closing1

The abortion movement is up in arms when abortion facilities close, even if the closure is for legitimate reasons. It’s common then for pro-life individuals and legislatures to be accused of playing politics. There is even an acronym for laws designed to regulate abortion. Abortion supporters often whine about TRAP laws, or Target Regulation of Abortion Providers.

The pro-life movement and the abortion movement cannot both be right: abortion is either a safe procedure, or it’s not. However, the regulatory laws that shuttered 73 facilities in 2014 show how unsafe abortion actually is.

But let’s look at this from the perspective of one who supports or performs abortions. The procedure is neither a popular one for American voters, nor those practicing medicine. So, while the abortion movement may have taxpayer money, Supreme Court decisions, and unwavering support from the Obama administration on their side, there are still problems with image. And trends on how Americans view abortion show they would want to try harder.

The lure of such a lucrative trade suggests the abortion business cannot be trusted to police itself. It makes sense that those in the abortion movement would be in favor of a rushed, meat-market, assembly line type of business, if it makes them more money. But it does very little to improve the health and safety of women, or to provide them with actual care.

What those in the abortion industry do is whine that such inspections are politically motivated, however, these places are shut down by the state because they are anything but safe.

But those who stand by abortion certainly don’t like to admit how unsafe it actually is. Nevertheless, it does not make sense. If only for the sake of the movement, it’s puzzling that abortion supporters refuse to allow for routine inspections, but fight those findings at every turn. And, if abortion is as safe as the industry claims, then abortion facility staff should have nothing to hide – such inspections would even be welcomed.

Then there are those who seek to mask the inherent nature of abortion. An abortion facility in New York offers the VIP treatment: Women aborting their children are offered, to make them feel more at home, a “luxurious mahogany bed, oil paintings, Internet and TV for complete privacy and comfort.” For an extra charge, a woman may even have the entire facility closed to all but her.

Such upscale offerings make it easier to cover up that abortion kills not only a child, but may injure or kill the mother, as well. That must be why abortion advocates deceive with their language, and refer to aborted children as “products of conception,” a “blob of tissue,” or a “clump of cells.” It may also explain why Planned Parenthood is so deceptive when it comes to fetal development.

Regardless, if you’re providing abortions, you likely wouldn’t wish to receive negative reviews like this place does, where patients complained about the cleanliness, how they were treated, and a plethora of other issues. Many warned readers to avoid the abortion facility.

Recently, after an inspection of her abortion facility resulted in 22 pages of violations, Margaret Vanduyn claimed that the inspection was unnecessary, and that a bill proposed to increase inspections was “politically motivated.” Vanduyn is the executive director of the National Health Care facility in Peoria, Illinois, where a woman was taken away in an ambulance the same day the bill was introduced.

As mentioned by the Chicago Sun Times, some abortion facilities in the state have not been inspected in 15 years; most are inspected once after three or four years.

This is true, as seen in the case of Philadelphia’s notorious abortionist. The blame for Kermit Gosnell’s “House of Horrors” does fall on those playing politics, and not on pro-lifers, as those in favor of abortion would like people to believe. No – Gosnell was able to get away with what he did because the pro-abortion governor and health officials deliberately chose not to inspect abortion facilities.

And the findings are ubiquitous across the board.

In Virginia, abortion facilities considered themselves to be above laws passed in a previous legislative session, despite violations discovered at several facilities.

In New York, other places of business are being inspected more so than abortion facilities.

Can it really be that every single abortion facility violation is politically motivated? Could it be that abortion is itself an unsafe procedure, and those who work in the industry make it more dangerous by refusing to face the truth?

Why else would such a big deal be made about rightfully closing abortion facilities? Why else would abortion supporters focus on other details besides patient safety when it comes to facilities that are too dangerous to remain open?

The abortion industry continually refuses to acknowledge how unsafe abortion is, and rejects standards high enough to prevent women from being butchered along with their children.

Thus the abortion industry will continue to remain unsafe —not just for preborn children who do not leave an abortion facility alive, but for the mother. Abortion is surely unsafe to both women and children.

READ NEXT
Comments4
To Top