NRL News

Why abortion clinic regulation drives pro-abortionists crazy

by | May 21, 2014


By Dave Andrusko

 Pro-abortion Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) is working full time to undercut protective abortion clinic regulation

Pro-abortion Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) is working full time to undercut protective abortion clinic regulation

It would be almost amusing if the subject—abortion—was not so horribly tragic and the attempt to conjure up conspiracies so transparent. In a few words, pro-abortionists are forever accusing pro-lifers of “secret” (or “back-door”) plans for this and that which (pro-abortionists hope) will fizzle if only the public finds out.

Of course the problem (for them) is that our objectives—our “plans”—are transparent. Borrowing from President George W. Bush we work unceasingly for “the day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law.”

That glorious day has yet to be realized. As we work toward a restoration of protection (and a “culture of life”), we move one step at a time. We offer commonsensical protections which, unsurprisingly, the majority of Americans agree with.

But, unlike our opponents, we are win-win types—we care about both mother and unborn child. We will do everything possible to persuade a woman to choose life. Every single success matters.

We work as well to ensure there are no more Kermit-Gosnell-type abortion clinics. And for all those apologists who insist he was a “renegade” or “outlier,” there are plenty of clinics that perform “meat-market style assembly line” abortions (to quote one nurse who formerly worked at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Delaware).

That is why we promote laws to require that abortionists who (in many states) fly in, kill unborn babies, and fly out, have admitting privileges in a local hospital if/when complications arise. Similarly for requiring that the abortionist be in the pregnant woman’s presence when she receives abortifacients, rather than hundreds of miles away communicating by webcam/skype.

Click here to read the May issue of
National Right to Life News,
the “pro-life newspaper of record.”

What prompted this post was an article written by Robin Marty, a prolific pro-abortion writer who occasionally stumbles across an insight. This particular piece, which appeared at www., is not an example of such.

However there is an interesting paranoid twist on something Marty [mis]represents: the aforementioned abortion clinic regulation. Like all defenders of the Abortion Industry, Marty can only see any protective regulation through the lens of “TRAP,” the pro-abortionist’s acronym for what she/he thinks is a clever turn of phrase–Targeted Regulation of Abortion Provider.

So, by definition if upgrading minimal requirements leads an abortion clinic to close (or merge), this must be an example of TRAP in action. And of course if you assume that abortion clinics are model “health care providers,” places where it is nearly impossible for an abuse to occur, then—by definition—no upgrades are needed.

But, of course, this is not true. The irony of this was on display Monday in the first day of a lawsuit against Alabama’s admitting privileges requirement, HB 57.

One abortion clinic owner was complaining that “If I close my doors, their [women’s] access is dramatically, dramatically reduced.” We pointed out that one set of doors had already closed, and not because of HB 57.

“The Birmingham clinic of Planned Parenthood Southeast ceased operations in January after firing two staff members for selling an abortion medication to a person in the clinic’s parking lot,” AP’s Phillip Rawls reported. “Staci Fox said the clinic hopes to get approval from the state health department to reopen by next month.”

Our only “target” is to protect women from unscrupulous abortionists.

But Marty’s piece is about how, if abortion clinics close, “private physicians may be fielding more requests to terminate a patient’s pregnancy.” She doesn’t say it, but I’m guessing that she believes that is the one and only redeeming factor. By that I mean pro-abortionists lament that almost all abortions are done in free-standing abortion clinics. The result is, as Marty puts it, that abortion has become “segregated from the rest of health care, resulting in its stigmatization.” But if women in larger numbers come to and are accepted by, say, doctor’s offices….

However the ‘evil genius’ of a Louisiana bill about to be signed into law by Gov. Bobby Jindal is that abortionists who perform only a “few” (aka 60 or fewer) abortions will no longer get a free pass.

As one physician who testified on behalf of the bill said, abortion facilities shouldn’t have “special interest loopholes” that sanction a lower standard of care than what ambulatory surgical centers must have.

So the bill mandates that surgical abortion facilities are held to the same safety standards of other outpatient surgical facilities. What drives Marty crazy is a change in the status quo.

Currently in Louisiana an abortionist can perform 60 abortions a year before being subject to the health and safety inspections that are required of “licensed outpatient abortion facilities.” But because every woman is entitled to the protection of regulated safety standards, the new bill requires licensure and inspections for physicians who perform five or more abortions per year.

Marty laments that this is all unnecessary and a huge inconvenience to the (so to speak) mom and pop abortionist. But of course if patient safety is a concern, you look at the requirement differently.

Marty seeks to assist abortionists polish their image by being reintegrated into real medical care. We are not. Abortion is not health care. It’s death care, whether in free-standing abortion clinics or doctors’ offices.

Bravo to Louisiana and all the other states that have, are, or will insist that abortionists and abortion clinics be regulated.