Abortion Backers Not Interested in Health, Safety of Women

Opinion   |   Ciara Matthews   |   Jul 21, 2011   |   4:54PM   |   Washington, DC

Time and again, the pro-abortion movement engages in a collective attack on state legislators when new laws and regulations on abortions are passed around the country. Abortion proponents just can’t seem to wrap their heads around the idea that Americans’ views on the issue of life are trending in our favor.

The most recent “I can’t believe this!” moment occurred not long after the passage of new clinic regulations in Kansas. First, some background:

In 2010, an abortion doctor in Pennsylvania was found to have killed at least one patient, spread venereal diseases to countless others, preformed illegal late-term abortions, kept aborted baby parts in the same refrigerator where employees stored their lunches, and used infanticide as a measure for terminating pregnancies when he couldn’t do so otherwise. He went 17 years unchecked by the state’s health department because then-governor Tom Ridge felt the yearly health inspections of abortion clinics put up “a barrier to women.”

Now, in an attempt to prevent the same horrors from occurring in their state, Kansas legislators have passed new regulations affecting the three abortion clinics operating in the state. After the measures were passed and signed by the governor, each clinic was inspected and failed under the new law. Two of these clinics, privately owned and operated, did not receive the necessary license to continue performing abortions. The third, Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, did receive the license after a last-ditch effort to meet the requirements.

However, the debate continues not only because Planned Parenthood — an organization that claims to be looking out for the rights of women — is fighting back against the health regulations designed to keep women safe, but also because liberal, pro-abortion commentators are losing their marbles over the idea that certain requirements should be met in order for a health care provider to perform an abortion.

Now, this naturally raises a question: What exactly are these regulations that seem to have the Left in such a tizzy? The examples that the pro-abortion community cites most often are the new measures requiring a fully stocked janitor closet, operating rooms large enough for a gurney to fit inside, certain drugs and medical equipment — like blood pressure cuffs — to be readily available, and recovery rooms to be a certain temperature.

My word! Those anti-choice extremists! (Insert sarcastic cough here)

Addressing the concerns about operating-room size and the mandate to have certain medication and equipment on hand would be even more pointless than the points themselves. They are not only self-explanatory but entirely reasonable. But, for the sake of not dismissing them outright, here are a few points the pro-abortion crowd either forgot to mention about the new regulations or decided weren’t worth the six-second Google search:

1.      A good portion of the new Kansas requirements come from suggestions made by the National Federation of Abortion. That’s right: The organization responsible for providing “quality training and services to abortion providers” has its own set of guidelines it says clinics should follow. The Kansas Legislature relied upon these guidelines as a model for its new legislation.

2.      Many of the requirements not recommended by the NAF are similar to those passed by other states. In South Carolina, for example, similar regulations were challenged and upheld in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In Pennsylvania, even though the regulations were not enforced, they were also upheld after a legal challenge, this time at the United States Supreme Court. Laws in New York and Texas also contain abortion-clinic regulations.

3.      The U.S. Congress has also passed a number of bills, like the Hospital Survey and Construction Act, mandating that certain structures, equipment and medication be found in medical facilities.

What is being done in Kansas is not new, radical or extreme. It constitutes reasonable oversight of an industry that performs very invasive procedures on millions of women a year. If the pro-abortion community really were as “pro-woman” as it claims, it would welcome any protections aimed at keeping women safe.

Abortion proponents have a slogan: Keep abortion safe, legal and rare. With 1.3 million babies aborted each year in the United States, and the pro-abortion movement fighting against safety regulations in health care facilities, it seems the only part of the slogan they really believe in is the “legal” part.