I'm not entirely sure how I feel about the whole "ultrasounds before abortions" thing or how I feel about defunding Planned Parenthood (being familiar with some sketchy areas, I'd probably trust them before I'd go to the highly-touted government clinics that are usually your only alternative in lower-income 'hoods), but I do know that, in general, women deserve to be treated like human beings and not animals, which is why the arguments against this bill - and not necessarily the bill itself - are giving me the creeps.
State Rep. Darlene Senger (R-Naperville) found
Illinois' law to be inadequate concerning standards for abortion
clinics. Senger's concern about women's safety caused her to introduce a
bill that would have raised those standards.Senger said this week she's giving up on the
bill, however, HB 3156 would have required a facility performing more
than 50 abortions a year to install a statutory number of scrub stations
and halls and doors wide enough for patient ambulance gurneys in case
of emergencies. It also would have required that ceilings be washable in
the procedure and recovery rooms and proper ventilation be available
and working."Surgical outpatient centers are built for
surgery, and that means if something goes wrong, they're equipped to
deal with it," she said.
Look, I understand some of the legal opposition to bills like this, and personally, we've so far conflated the social, political and ideological arguments for and against abortion in this country that we've driven the issue far beyond recognition or control, but this bill brings something to light that I hadn't realized before: what kinds of facilities, exactly, are these procedures occurring in?
The bill calls for, among other things, upgrades and routine inspections for clinics that provide abortions including those listed in the story - scrub stations, washable ceilings, proper ventilation and hallways wide enough for emergency staff. Apparently, some of these facilities lag so far behind on these - pretty darn reasonable sounding - upgrades that the facilities would have to close for renovations for so long that it might actually interfere with womens' long-term access to health care. Think about that. These facilities are so far behind on these basics that it would take months of reconstruction to get them up to code.
Seriously. What. The. F***. People have medical procedures in these buildings. Procedures that, given the right set of unfortunate circumstances, could kill them. And they're required to abide by less stringent standards than your local vet. Creepy. Seriously. Creepy. Obviously opponents of this bill don't want women to return to the days where they had to get these procedures in back alley clinics and behind closed doors, but...seriously.
We talk a lot about "rights" when it comes to women and their health. Everything is a "right." This is a "right," that is a "right." But anyone familiar with the word "right" as anything more than a political term denoting "something you feel you deserve because the sixties told you so" should recognize that "rights" have counterparts: responsibilities. No one ever likes to think about those because they bring up dark, crusty images of people being treated sub-humanly and suffering the consequences of their and other people's decisions, but they're there, hovering around the periphery. It's a tough job, but someone has to pay attention to them.
I'd like to see this bill resurface with a few more credible sponsors, less inflammatory language and a heavier concentration on clinic standards. I'm not sure that will happen until we regain control of this debate from special interests and 501(c)(3)s and (4)s who's job it is to lobby for their own continued existence, but we really should.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Tags: abortion, clinic standards, Illinois house, Illinois legislature, legislative, legislature, social issues
Whoa. I never even thought of that. I'm creeped out too.
I don't know if the bill will pass 4th Amendment and "liberty interests" standards.
However, the one thing I did note in writing a legal encyclopedia on abortion is that after Roe v. Wade, which shows up as "superseded by Planned Parenthood v. Casey" in legal databases, just about every abortion case since then was brought by Planned Parenthood, and decided by Justice O'Connor, who was supposedly a conservative, but also a woman.
Now, it would be one thing if they were doing what their name implied, and giving out condoms and the pill, but I think they made themselves the target by becoming the main advocate for abortion.
I also note that I wrote it before the partial birth abortion ban was upheld by the Supreme Court, and it doesn't appear that the supplement to that set reflects that.
Thus, when you get a battle between ideologues on both extremes on a sensitive issue, it is going to get ugly. However, this probably is no more ugly in an aesthetic sense than legislative proposals to put pictures of people with throat cancer on cigarette packages.
BTW, I didn't know you were back until I saw the banner at the bottom of another page.
I think I agree with you on the point about Planned Parenthood (and I used to litigate a number of cases on this issue). It's primary problem at this point is that a significant amount of it's funding goes directly to political action, whether it's lobbying, candidate support or some other form of advocacy. I believe Open Secrets totaled their single-year contribution at just under $1M. Beyond simply the issue of abortion, the American public, including me, is growing tired of sending money to supposedly benevolent organizations only to see that cash "reinvested" in political campaigns (whether it's Planned Parenthood or others, like public sector unions, doing the investing).
I think part of the ugliness on this issue has to do with the long-term existence of the respective lobbying organizations. When NARAL and National Right to Life took their places at the heads of their opposite positions, arguments began to drift to the margins, simply because any lobbying organization NEEDS to present the most marginal view of an issue possible in order to achieve greater legislative success. There are good organizations on both sides, but so much of the debate is framed by the fringes (who also, in 24 hour news cycles, command the most media attention), the issue is far beyond recognition.
The bill is a fraud, physician's offices providing abortion are already regulated by state and federal agencies like all medical offices. The purpose of this bill is to impose excessive remodeling costs on abortion providers with the idea that they won't be able to afford it and go out of business. Other states have tried similar tactics. If this bill was truly about improving clinic facilites they would require this code for all out patient medical offices like plastic surgery bit it doesn't. http://m.jezebel.com/5771181/new-bill-could-close-majority-of-virginias-abortion-clinics
There are a few problems with what you're saying, partially because the analysis at Jezebel relies entirely on comments from NARAL and very little on the legislative realities of the states in question. Most important among those realities is that regulation does not automatically equal enforcement, nor does regulation specify a host of standards with which facilities are required to comply. In fact, it's kind of strange to see NARAL play the victim in these types of situations since a great deal of litigation they've participated in (as well as Planned Parenthood and others) has been dedicated to preventing the imposition of standards and blocking the enforcement of existing standards. As with the Gosnell case, enforcement of facilities providing abortions is rare, simply because the actions and results are often political incorrect. In many instances, enforcement entities simply refuse to execute the laws in place because of the inevitable headache they would face from these organizations.
Secondly, abortion facilities are not the same as other out-patient medical facilities. Defined by the law in Illinois, its clear that abortion facilities have received some special exception. Should all outpatient surgical facilities be treated equally? Yes. Is this action motivated primarily by a pro-life philosophy? Yes. But that doesn't mean that it's mere existence hasn't exposed a creepy reality. I'm not sure I'm happy with any outpatient surgical facility not being up to code with the basics listed in the article, which is why I noted that the bill should be reformatted and reintroduced in the final paragraph. Just because this came to light with a motivation I and you may disagree with doesn't mean the complaints are not legitimate. I'd like to know, scientifically, whether clinics have these shortcomings, because, if so, in the interest of providing women with quality health care, I'd like the situation to be corrected.
has anyone seen here the doc freakonomics, it proves that the crime rate goes down when women have the right to choose[url=http://www.top3tattoodesignsreviewed.com]alex davis[/url