NRL News
202.626.8824
dadandrusk@aol.com

The dream world of pro-abortionists and the real impact of abortion clinic regulation

by | Oct 15, 2013

By Dave Andrusko

Gosnell50If, like our pro-abortion counterparts, someone lived in a dream world where there are no Kermit Gosnells, where there are never complications following an abortion (let alone deaths), where a woman’s best friend is an out-of-state abortionist who flies into knowing nothing about her, then they might be forgiven if they wondered why state legislatures actually want to make abortion clinics safer.

But while Gosnell may (or may not) be the only abortionist who aborted babies alive and then murdered them, there are plenty of abortionists with well-earned reputations for complete indifference to women. NRL News and NRL News Today has been writing about them for decades.

Pro-abortionists in Texas would have grotesquely exaggerated the intent and the impact of heightened clinic regulations under any circumstances. But with a pro-abortion “icon”–state Sen. Wendy Davis–now officially running for governor  it is essential to pretend that HB2 made it practically impossible for abortion clinics to operate.

Planned Parenthood and its ilk have already challenged part of the law, but not the requirement that all abortions be performed in ambulatory surgical centers. They noted that this portion of the law does not go into effect until September 2014 but the real reason likely is it gives them a chance to try to exaggerate the impact.

As we read in a piece by Amy Silverstein. She goes off the deep end because the proposed rules implementing the law do not “grandfather” in existing abortion clinics. Silverstein cites two other examples of how the rules are “stricter on abortion clinics than regular ambulatory surgical centers.

One, she writes, is the “requirement that abortion providers have ‘active admitting privileges’ at a hospital within 30 miles.” Silverstein quotes Elizabeth Nash, the state issues manager for the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, who says current rules for ambulatory surgical centers “have a transfer agreement with a hospital or that all physicians on staff have admitting privileges at a ‘local’ hospital.”

But 30 miles is simply more specific than “local.” And if the point is to have the abortionist accompany the woman experiencing complications to a hospital, wouldn’t you want that hospital close by?

The second example of “stricter” rules is (according to Nash) that “existing regulations on abortion clinics and the proposed regulations, require annual inspection,” as opposed to ambulatory surgical centers in general which “are required to be inspected every three years.”

Again, the pro-abortionist’s operating premise is that abortion is no different than any other “surgical procedure” and/or that the state can safely ignore abortion clinics for three years. Tell that to the woman who died at Gosnell’s “Women’s Medical Society”; the babies aborted alive whose spinal cords were slit; and (to name just one) the women who’ve been maltreated at Planned Parenthood of Delaware. (See “Powers asks, ‘Another Gosnell in Delaware?’)

Pro-abortionists can gin up all the hysteria they want. It won’t change the importance of and need for abortion clinic regulations.

Please join those who are following me on Twitter at twitter.com/daveha. Send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com.

Categories: Abortion