By: Cheryl K. Chumley
Special to The Examiner
A controversy is brewing in Virginia over the future fate of a woman’s right to choose, but criticisms from the pro-choice crowd are largely unfounded – and some may have even taken a sharp turn down Crazy Lane.
Explaining that abortion is a court-ruled woman’s right that should not be infringed is one argument. Telling the attorney general of Virginia to “get your cross out of my crotch,” according to this rant from the aptly named EnoughisEnough1 – if it’s not been deleted, it’s at the bottom of the Washington Post blog entry -- is quite different and really, one has to wonder what medicines have gone missing from that commenter’s cabinet. Does that really help the pro-choice cause?
The comments stem from a recent opinion of the attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli that states the Commonwealth “has the authority to promulgate regulations for facilities in which first trimester abortions are performed, as well as for providers of first trimester abortions, so long as the regulations adhere to constitutional limitations.” From that come headlines like “Cuccinelli goes after state abortion providers” or claims, like the one from NARAL Pro-Choice America, that Cuccinelli is taking on abortion providers with the ultimate goals of closing abortion clinics.
The truth, however, is far less shocking.
Cuccinelli’s opinion simply states the state has the right, as based on analysis of legal precedents, to regulate the safety and medical practices of abortion clinics and physicians who perform the procedure – in a manner that’s similar to how other medical facilities in the commonwealth are monitored. For instance, right now in Virginia, “first-trimester abortions are not required to be performed in licensed hospitals” that are subject to state standards for staffing, for sterile equipment, for how operations are conducted, according to Cuccinelli’s opinion. A facility can dodge state licensing requirements completely by simply calling itself a physician’s office and providing solely services that focus on reproduction.
That may be a plus for women seeking speedy access to abortions, but if safety and welfare of the patient is also a health care priority, suddenly Cuccinelli’s opinion doesn’t seem so radical.
NARAL would have the public believe that 17 of the 21 state clinics that offer abortion services would close, due to Cuccinelli’s opinion and ensuing new regulations that could result. But if that’s true – isn’t that just making the case that these clinics are presently sub-par in the area of health standards?
Read more at the Washington Examiner:
No comments:
Post a Comment