Abortion defenders want abortion to be safe… but not really

The feral kids at the Daily Kos never fail to provide blog fodder for those who are looking for something to write about.  In this post, Meteor Blades ♥ complains that the Commonwealth of Virginia is waiting on the the Governor to sign a law requiring abortion clinics meet the same standards as hospitals… you know, real “health care” facilities.  I don’t pretend to believe anymore that abortion-choice advocates want abortion to be safe, lest women be put in danger.

Meteor Blades ♥ seems to be upset that current abortion mills have to upgrade their facilities so that they don’t become like the one run by Kermit Gosnell, the abortionist on trial for killing multiple live birthed babies.  Here’s what Blades says [Blades’ comments in bold]:

The new requirement is the consequence of another round of TRAP legislation—targeted regulation of abortion providers—that the forced-birther movement has used to curtail abortions nationwide. The requirement passed the Virginia legislature in 2011. But it ran into trouble when the board of health tried to soften it, as noted by Robin Marty at RH Reality Check.

The TRAP law was previously approved by the Virginia Board of Health with a clause that would allow current clinics to be grandfathered in and avoid the new standards. However, after a refusal by the state Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli to sign the revised bill and a shakeup in appointments to the Board, that clause was removed in September under intense pressure from Cuccinelli, once again subjecting even existing clinics to the new, unnecessary, and exacting standards.

Once the final rule is approved by Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell, as it no doubt will be, there is a 30-day final waiting period before it goes into effect. The clinics will then have one year to comply with the new standards, which include covered entryways, and mandated sizes of closets, hallways and procedure rooms.

After the vote, anti-abortion advocates in the packed Department of Health room in Henrico County applauded. Abortion-rights advocates rose to their feet and shouted “Shame!” and in a gesture aimed at the attorney general, displayed red hands and yelled “Ken Cuccinelli has blood on his hands” as they were escorted out.Caroline O’Shea, deputy director of NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia, stated in a press release:

Now because of Gov. McDonnell and Attorney General Cuccinelli, Virginia is one step closer to losing many women’s health centers that have exemplary records of providing safe first-trimester abortion and reproductive health care, some of them for decades.  That means thousands of Virginia women, particularly low-income women, will lose affordable access not only to abortion care but to the comprehensive services like family planning and well-women care that these centers provide.Proof once again that women’s health and well-being have nothing to do with such legislation despite the claims of forced-birther propagandists.

The contempt is thick with this one.  Referring to people who believe mothers shouldn’t kill their pre-born children in utero as “forced-birthers” confirms that Blades views children the same way President Barack Obama and professional needer of free birth control Sandra Fluke does: as punishments and barriers to success.

Normally I’m not a fan of government regulation.  It usually involves needless interference where none should exist.  However, when it comes to elective abortion — taking the life of an innocent human being, which should be illegal — the law needs to be as obtrusive and hindering as possible.  And while these new laws may make the process more cumbersome and facilities harder to come by, they are not interfering for interference’s sake, they make sense.  The laws make it incumbent on the abortion provider upholds safety standards and require that the mother is making the most informed “choice” possible.  Waiting periods prevent hasty life-changing decisions and requiring they meet hospital standards to prevent the Kermit Gosnell “house of horrors” clinics defunct.  Opposition to restrictive legislation merely belies the claim that many abortion choice advocates make that they believe abortion be legal, safe, and rare.

Comments

  1. This reminds me of the time a developer threatened to sue my city for putting undue burdens on a low income housing project. They had been denied variances they sought. They didn’t want to adhere to the requirements regarding sufficient parking, road width, and access improvements, all designed to make getting fire trucks into the complex easier.

    “We want this noble undertaking to be as cheap as possible, so we’d like not to be required to make it as safe as other similar installations” is what it boiled down to.

    And if you couldn’t guess, they suggested that our reason for insisting that it be safe was really just a way to make it less affordable for those who would be more likely to need it: minorities. That’s right. We were accused of being racist.

    People want things to be safe for whoever walks in. Why would someone oppose that?

    Yes, it will make it more expensive. But, hospitals are held to certain standards. Would anyone say that those standards place an undue burden on those facilities? Are they designed to make hospital services less accessible?

  2. Of course, abortion is NEVER safe for the baby. That should go without saying.

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: