NRL News

Bill to enlarge the categories of non-physicians allowed to perform first-trimester abortions on way to pro-abortion California Gov. Jerry Brown

by | Sep 5, 2013

By Dave Andrusko

Pro-Abortion California Gov. Jerry Brown

Pro-Abortion California Gov. Jerry Brown

Given how relentlessly pro-abortion the state of California has become, it is a minor miracle that pro-lifers were able to stave off a bill to enlarge the categories of non-physicians who will be allowed to perform a kind of early-term surgical “aspiration” abortion as long as they did.

The bill—AB 154—is now on pro-abortion Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk, or will be imminently. Short of a miracle Brown will sign the bill into law.

What will happen? Physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and nurse midwives will perform these abortions. (Unlike the vague suggestion in a supportive Los Angeles Times editorial, these non-physicians already are allowed to administer chemical abortifacients.)

Although obliquely described in news accounts, what is aspiration abortion? A powerful suction tube with a sharp cutting edge is inserted into the womb through the dilated cervix. The suction dismembers the body of the developing baby and tears the placenta from the wall of the uterus, sucking the baby’s remains into a collection bottle. Of course not a syllable about what happens—and to whom—ever made its way into the “mainstream media.”

The campaign in California to enlarge the number of non-physicians allowed to perform abortions is a textbook example of how the mainstays of the abortion industry–Planned Parenthood—gather legitimacy from the work of academic hotbeds of abortion advocacy–the University of Southern California-San Francisco, in this case—which dutifully grind out phony-baloney “studies” to justify what they want to do. (It helps when the most powerful media outlets uncritically repeat their every pronouncement as if it was gospel.)

 If you want to help unborn babies,
Click here to receive the latest pro-life news and commentary

We’ve written about this many times, for example, “California bill advances to allow non-physicians to perform certain first-trimester abortion.”  In summary, here’s what happened.

USC-San Francisco’s Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health conducts a multiyear pilot study (of which Planned Parenthood is a key player) and finds–surprise, surprise–that the “complication rates for abortions performed by doctors and by other healthcare providers trained to carry out the procedure” are virtually identical, according to the Times’ editorial (both of which are tiny, of course).

But this is NOT what the study actually demonstrated, as NRLC’s Dr. Randall K. O’Bannon explained in great detail (see “Takeaways from the UCSF Abortion Turnaway Study” ).

The Times’ editorial regurgitated every pro-abortion talking point, all of which we (and others) have debunked at length. To take just one, the ever-present “access” question, aka not enough abortionists and not close enough.

In fact California “has one-third of the nation’s abortion providers and its abortion rate is 27 percent, far higher than the national average,” wrote Margaret A. Bengs in an op-ed for the Daily News. Moreover, “The bill’s advocates claim that because some counties don’t have an abortion provider, women must drive ‘long distances’ to get abortions, but only 1 percent of women live in those counties, according to the [pro-abortion] Guttmacher Institute.”

Etc., etc. etc.

Which illustrates for the gabillionth time, pro-abortionists will say anything to carry the day.

 If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at Please send your comments to

Categories: Abortion