Virginia: Regulation Improves Abortion and Women's Safety

[MKSheppard]

Link

Posted at 2:19 PM ET, 02/24/2011
Va. General Assembly agrees to regulate abortion clinics as hospitals
By Rosalind S. Helderman

The Virginia General Assembly has agreed that abortion clinics should be regulated as hospitals instead of physician's offices, a move that antiabortion activists have sought for almost two decades, insisting that it would improve clinic safety.

Abortion rights advocates say it will make the state one of the most restrictive for abortions in the country and could force as many as 17 of the state's 21 abortion clinics to close.

Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R) has said he will sign the bill, which gives the state's Board of Health 280 days from the law's enactment to write new rules for clinics that perform at least five first-trimester abortions a month.

The bill's passage came as the Democratic-led state Senate voted 20 to 20 Thursday to approve the measure after a lengthy and emotional debate. The tie was broken by Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling (R), who cast his vote in favor of the bill. All 18 of the chamber's Republicans backed the bill, as did two conservative Democrats.

Antiabortion activists hailed the vote as the most significant victory they've achieved in Virginia in years. Abortion rights groups said they think the regulations will place an unconstitutional burden on a woman's ability to get an abortion in Virginia, and pledged to sue.

The practical impact of the vote will rest heavily on guidelines ultimately approved by the Virginia Board of Health. Tarina Keene, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia, said she fears the worst, though the 15-member board is dominated by holdover appointments made by former Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D).

She said future rules could dictate the width of hallways and doorways, impose new staffing requirements and govern laundry and food facilities, rules that would require renovations that many clinics would find cost-prohibitive.

"I'm not thinking best-case scenario. I'm thinking worst-case scenario," she said.

Antiabortion activists said those fears are overstated and insisted that they do not aim to shut down Virginia clinics.

Clinics that perform first-trimester abortions in Virginia are regulated similarly to doctor's offices in which colonoscopies and cosmetic surgery are conducted. Antiabortion activists have long said that clinics need stiffer rules, more like those imposed on outpatient ambulatory surgical centers.

In recent weeks, they have cited the case of a Philadelphia-area clinic recently shut down after authorities discovered a series of botched and illegal abortions; inspectors discovered containers of fetus parts.

In response, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett (R) fired state health department workers this month for not monitoring clinics more closely.

"These are health professionals who are going to promulgate appropriate regulations," said Family Foundation President Victoria Cobb, speaking about the state's Board of Health. "It's very typical of the other side that rather than fight what this bill does, they want to fight the biggest extreme of what this bill could be."

The vote breaks a longstanding stalemate on abortion issues in the Virginia General Assembly, where bills to impose new regulations on abortion clinics have for years been approved by the GOP-led House of Delegates but killed by a Senate committee stacked with abortion rights supporters.

Indeed, the Senate's Education and Health Committee has dispatched similar legislation this year. But in the waning days of this year's legislative session, scheduled to conclude Saturday, Republican House members were able to use a parliamentary procedure to force a rare vote of the full Senate on the issue.

On Monday, Republicans slid a surprise amendment dealing with the abortion issue into a bill that had been approved by the Senate that requires hospitals and nursing homes to write policies on infection control.

That sent the issue directly to the floor of the Senate, where several conservative Democrats have always warned their leadership that they would vote with Republicans if ever forced to take a position on an abortion issue.

In August, Virginia Attorney Gen. Ken T. Cuccinelli (R) issued a legal opinion indicating that he thought the state's Board of Health had the authority to regulate abortion clinics.

In the months since, however, the board has made no move to do so, and some antiabortion activists had been critical of McDonnell for not pressuring the board to do so.

Though McDonnell has not made abortion a major focus of his first 13 months in office, he was one of the legislature's most vocal voices in opposition to the procedure when he served in the Virginia House of Delegates. He has said he supports clinic regulations.

[PainRack]

Can someone provide more context to the regulations in particular?

[Lonestar]

Can someone provide more context to the regulations in particular?

The VA AG is a anti-abortion Catholic who wrote out these regulations so that they could close many clinics in the state(specifically, the widening of corridors). While "better oversight"(and isn't it amazing that that is the only "industry" that republicans want more oversight on?) may be needed, the facility requirements are clearly a means to making it more difficult for women to get abortions.

[eion]

The short story is that it is a commonly used method of backdoor banning abortion by requiring abortion clinics to follow the same standards that a full service (read gunshots and heart attacks) hospital would need to, wide corriders and the like. It is certainly not done with the intent to improve the safety of abortions, but rather to reduce the availability of abortions by making it impossible for a clinic to afford to operate. Which means fewer providers, which in the anti-choice crowd’s eyes is a good thing.

EDIT: Lonestar beat me too it.

[Simon_Jester]

The "sterilize your instruments" rules should apply to abortion clinics- that was a big part of what was horribly wrong with that black-market clinic in Philadelphia. But rules that are meant to make sure patients can be rolled into operating rooms on a gurney on wide hallways... not so much.

[Mr Bean]

But rules that are meant to make sure patients can be rolled into operating rooms on a gurney on wide hallways... not so much.

Along with provisions for ambulance loading/unloading docs.
In essence what this law will do will force abortion clincs to buy/build everything they need to become full fledged hospitals without needing 90% of that equipment. The 10% they do need they already have.

Imagine if you will you run a small fitness Gym, you have elliptical's, a weight room, a steam room your typical inner city gym. And a law is passed required you to build a quarter mile track, soccer field and your own Olympic swimming pool. Code violations not cost are going to shut down most of these abortion clinics because they were not built with hospital type features in mind such as the aforementioned ambulance access, extra wide halls and a host of other things that must now be crammed into an office built for something else entirely.

[someone_else]

awesome, so more women will do it illegally risking their own life (or just going in another state to do it).

I mean, all this is sick. Try to legislate them out by banning abortion and show some balls, instead of recurring to idiotic tricks.
Next time what? "every abortion-clinic must own and operate a fleet of 45 nuclear-powered long-range nuclear bombers"?

[TheHammer]

Can someone provide more context to the regulations in particular?

The practical impact of the vote will rest heavily on guidelines ultimately approved by the Virginia Board of Health. Tarina Keene, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia, said she fears the worst, though the 15-member board is dominated by holdover appointments made by former Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D).

I am going to reserve judgement until actual guidelines are issued. As noted in the article, many things feared here are "worst case scenario". But since the guideliens will be written by the board of health, staffed by appoints from a Dem governor, as opposed to the politicians themselves I've got a little more optimisim. I do think that regulation is needed, as we've seen what a zero regulation environment breeds with the philadelphia clinic.

[Simon_Jester]

It really does boil down to whether the regulations are being used as a pretext to close clinics, or whether they're tailored to a facility that provides abortions and not other, broader and more invasive medical procedures.

Zero regulations are too few; "you must have an ambulance loading dock" is too many.

For that matter, if a few of the twenty or so clinics in the state close because they are unable to comply with regulations, that would not be a disaster, so long as the regulations themselves are reasonable (i.e. not requiring them to tear the walls out to meet the code requirements for floor layouts).

[CmdrWilkens]

Its a difference in degree of regulation. Currently clinics are treated as limited surgical doctor's offices. This means currently a clinic has to comply with standards for offices that perform activities such as colonoscopies (noted in the article) or Vasectomies as another. So the provider must have a certain amount of emergency equipment available, a certain level of ventilation and air quality, staff training, accessability, etc. Under the upcoming regulations clinics would be reclassified as ambulatory surgical centers which (the rules aren't written yet) would most likely require increases in all of the above categories.

Now the issue isn't so much the regulations that will come (as noted the board is heavily Dem and could leave relatively lax regulations) but rather that the Board could update such regulations in the future requiring constant costly upgrades to facilities that were not originally designed to handle the physical requirements.

[Illuminatus Primus]

As someone who has had a significant other who got an abortion, this is just more "wink wink" obstructionism and deliberate spite aimed at women who elect themselves to require such a procedure. Not that this matters to Shep et al, who think it their place to morally judge women and get the State to come join in on it, but of course we have to not step on the toes of the would-be John Galt egomaniacs of America--now that would be removing some liberty.

[CmdrWilkens]

As someone who has had a significant other who got an abortion, this is just more "wink wink" obstructionism and deliberate spite aimed at women who elect themselves to require such a procedure. Not that this matters to Shep et al, who think it their place to morally judge women and get the State to come join in on it, but of course we have to not step on the toes of the would-be John Galt egomaniacs of America--now that would be removing some liberty.

Just out of curiosity but how did you discern Shep's viewpoint since he posted the article without comment?

[Flagg]

As someone who has had a significant other who got an abortion, this is just more "wink wink" obstructionism and deliberate spite aimed at women who elect themselves to require such a procedure. Not that this matters to Shep et al, who think it their place to morally judge women and get the State to come join in on it, but of course we have to not step on the toes of the would-be John Galt egomaniacs of America--now that would be removing some liberty.

Just out of curiosity but how did you discern Shep's viewpoint since he posted the article without comment?

He read the thread title.

[xthetenth]

As someone who has had a significant other who got an abortion, this is just more "wink wink" obstructionism and deliberate spite aimed at women who elect themselves to require such a procedure. Not that this matters to Shep et al, who think it their place to morally judge women and get the State to come join in on it, but of course we have to not step on the toes of the would-be John Galt egomaniacs of America--now that would be removing some liberty.

Just out of curiosity but how did you discern Shep's viewpoint since he posted the article without comment?

He read the thread title.

A summary of an article is now comment? Interesting. If it weren't for that "Virginia:" prefix, sure. With? Not so much.

[Flagg]

Just out of curiosity but how did you discern Shep's viewpoint since he posted the article without comment?

He read the thread title.

A summary of an article is now comment? Interesting. If it weren't for that "Virginia:" prefix, sure. With? Not so much.

Are you retarded or something? He put "Regulation Improves Abortion and Women's Safety" when the regulation is purely designed in order to stem abortions by shutting down the clinics that perform them.

[Serafina]

The thread title is at best misleading and at worst simply false, little or no improvement to women's safety or abortion will come from this.
Shep either did not properly understand the article (and therefore summed it up wrongly) or he agrees with the proposition that this is actually about women's safety. If he does the latter, he is at least partially agreeing with those who proposed this.

[Skgoa]

Is it really so difficult to understand that VIRGINIA is making that claim?

[eion]

Is it really so difficult to understand that VIRGINIA is making that claim?

It is when the title of the article is actually, "Va. General Assembly agrees to regulate abortion clinics as hospitals" which means Shep was making an editorial decision in choosing the thread title.

[TheHammer]

Is it really so difficult to understand that VIRGINIA is making that claim?

It is when the title of the article is actually, "Va. General Assembly agrees to regulate abortion clinics as hospitals" which means Shep was making an editorial decision in choosing the thread title.

Which doesn't indicate his preference either way. He was more or less summing up what the Virgiana Assembly was saying by this.

And since the regulations are not yet written, all of this uproar is premature. I'll point out, again, that the regulations are going to be written by the state board of health - staffed in its majority by Democratic appointees. Its not as if Republican fundamentalist preachers are going to be coming up with the particulars on this.

[eion]

The simple solution would be for Shep to actually post a comment when he posts new stories, but that doesn't seem to be his style.

[Darth Raptor]

Or you could skip the middleman and ask Stuart what he thinks.

PS. Arch-conservatives may not be feminists. Shocking, I know. For the morally and mentally defective, abortion hurts the nation's supply of poor people military recruits poor people, so of course it's bad. Also, women can't stand to talk to you for more than four seconds, so maybe they shouldn't be such fucking whores.

[CmdrWilkens]

Are you retarded or something? He put "Regulation Improves Abortion and Women's Safety" when the regulation is purely designed in order to stem abortions by shutting down the clinics that perform them.

No he put "Virginia: Regulation Improves Abortion and Women's Safety" which is, if not universal, then common enough formatting to show that everything after Virginia is a paraphrase of what the speaker (Virginia in this case) is advocating.

I personally have no clue what Shep thinks on this subject but its a big ol' leap to conclusions mat to claim (as IP did) to have divined Shep's viewpoint from what is in this thread.

[Illuminatus Primus]

This is the most pathetic legalism I've ever seen in a series of posts. Everyone with eyes to see and ears to hear knows the lobbying forces behind Republican policies pushed through of this kind are for the purposes of shutting down abortion clinics. These activists are not mobilized ideologically or strategically around the end of, nor are they funded for the purposes of, making sure abortions are safer for women. Where are the studies bought and paid for proving that there is a disaster here of gynecological health, suggesting this as a remedy? I've been to an abortion clinic. I know what it is like for women who need to go to them. I know how little choices of customer service they already have. And people wonder why feminists consider this low-rent political moralism on the anti-abortion side to be anti-woman. It is clear they have only their own self-indulgent moral superiority as a motive.

Oh yes, I'm sorry, I'm required to stuff my head in the sand and sing nonsense to myself.

As for Shep, well, here's a fellow who argued that it was perfectly legitimate to ban the public sale of sex toys because women can just use Internet images to judge the quality of goods. Because fuck 'em.

If the problem was assigning agency to Shep, thus causing this episode of holier-than-thou hysteria by the nitpick police in lieu of constructive discussion, I apologize and amend my "Shep" to "rightists, especially in Virginia". Now I don't see any reason to continue quibbling on the ancillary issue of who particular can be identified with the anti-woman agenda. Maybe we could talk about the actual women (especially poor and working women) who will be disproportionately affected personally by this deceitfully motivated bill.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I think women's groups should respond by calling for urologists who prescribe boner pills to men to be regulated as hospitals.

[Todeswind]

Are you retarded or something? He put "Regulation Improves Abortion and Women's Safety" when the regulation is purely designed in order to stem abortions by shutting down the clinics that perform them.

You might have missed what this part of the article is referring to.

In recent weeks, they have cited the case of a Philadelphia-area clinic recently shut down after authorities discovered a series of botched and illegal abortions; inspectors discovered containers of fetus parts.

The case this is referring to is a recent case of a truly horrific failure to provide basic conditions of safety and sanitary care for women making use of its services. It is literally the most nightmarish failure of medical care I can imagine.

I suggest not reading the charges if you plan on eating anything soon and they are most certainly NSFW.


This is the list of charges being filed against the clinic. Spoiler

http://www.phila.gov/districtattorney/P ... edical.pdf

Regulating abortion clinics in the same way that we regulate hospitals isn't a bad thing per se but obviously we don't want the religious right using this as an excuse to take away the right to chose. However the current current regulations requiring abortion clinics to provide safe and sanitary conditions have clearly been woefully insufficient in Philadelphia and are equally insufficient in a number of states, not the least of which is Virginia.