Moving back alley abortions into the clinics- and the pro-abortion crowd is fine with it!

 

Although this dental office is situated close to the premiere children’s hospital in the area, there was nothing exemplary about this place. The waiting room had all of the ambiance of a BMV station circa 1950: The walls were bland and dirty, and the few magazines there were had obviously been donated by other people, years ago!  

 

When I was called back to see the dentist I was in for even more surprises. There weren’t individual exam rooms. All the patients sat in dental chairs in the round, and everyone in the room was privy to everything going on in the room. I took an uneasy seat in one of the chairs and waited for one of the dentists to come over to me.  One rather hurried young man sat down beside me and clicked on the big light over my head so that he could peer into my open mouth. But while he was working, I started to notice smoke coming from the light and then POOF!!!  there was a little flame!!

 

I quickly took his hand out of my mouth and pointed to the light. I don’t remember the rest of the visit, but I also don’t remember it as being particularly helpful.  I ended up seeing a regular dentist and making payments, and eventually having the tooth pulled. 

 

Flash forward a few years and I’m waiting to get a colonoscopy done in an outpatient center, and once more, I chose that place for financial reasons. This time however, the waiting room was reasonably comfortable and even cheery.  The doctor saw me in a private room with a nurse and an anesthesiologist, and there were no fires! I woke up in a little recovery area and when I was able to go home, a kind nurse put me in a wheelchair and helped Mr. Pete get me into the car.

 

I was reminded of both of these experiences last week, when the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Whole Woman’s Health vs. Hellerstedt.  This case involves a Texas law that mandates that abortion clinics follow the same safety regulations as outpatient ambulatory surgery centers. Opponents of this law argue that this would be financially burdensome for abortion clinics and would necessitate the closing of many clinics that are unable or unwilling to make these changes. 

 

So what are these horrible mandates that the pro-abortion side is so against?

 

 

• Having a doctor on staff with admitting privileges at a local hospital not more than 30 miles from the clinic.  This seems like a no brainer to me.  The New York Times reported:

requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital would most likely identify unqualified doctors, the law’s proponents say. The process is extensive. Doctors’ credentials are vetted rigorously and their hospital records are reviewed regularly. If Dr. Gosnell had begun such a process, it would have quickly revealed that he was not board-certified in obstetrics or gynecology.

Of course, this would mean that the doctors would have to work and live near the abortion clinic, and this may limit the number of available clinics and cause women to have to travel farther for an abortion. But other patients travel all the time, all over the country for various maladies including cancer and infectious diseases. In that light, it seems kind of whiny to complain that seeing an abortion specialist is inconvenient and not close by. It’s just what you have to do sometimes if you need specialized care.

Alex Proimos via Flickr, licensed cc

Now some may argue, “But it’s a woman’s constitutional right to have an abortion,” and that’s true. But thanks to The Affordable Care Act, everyone else has a constitutional right to health care too – but that doesn’t mean that every type of care, for every type of condition and malady, is available to the entire population at all times.

The good part of this regulation is that if there is a complication, the abortion specialist can give continuity of care to his patient in the hospital. Again, the New York Times argues that if there is an emergency, the patient can just go to the nearest emergency room, and of course that’s true. But speaking as a woman who has had some gynecologic issues, it’s nice to know that my primary doctor has the opportunity to add information about my care, and follow up with me later to check on my progress.  Even though the statistics (if they are to be believed) say that complications from abortion procedures are rare, if you’re one of the statistics, having that continuity of care can be comforting and may even be essential.

 

• Having abortion clinics meet certain health and safety codes.  

Sure, having an 8-foot wide corridor might seem like overkill – until you have a real emergency with someone bleeding out and it’s difficult to get a gurney and paramedics with medical equipment down the hall to the patient!  Regulations are there for the “what ifs!” even if those are very rare.

First of all, they are not singling out abortion clinics.  In Texas, birthing centers  have to face similar regulations and licensure. Secondly, abortion is big business. Planned Parenthood brings in around $300, million a year.  So maybe it might cut into the profits, but most businesses that serve the public have to face certain rules and regulations when it comes to their facility – such is life in the 21st century.

Women aren’t stupid. I knew when I saw that dental lamp go up in flames that I was receiving substandard treatment because of my inability to pay for better dentistry. Likewise, I felt safe and as if I was receiving genuinely good care after my colonoscopy because of the professional staff and the medical-feel of the facility.

Surprisingly, the very women’s groups that have been yelling for years that abortion needs to stay out of the back alley, are adamant about substandard regulations for abortion clinics!  Instead of advocating for the best in “women’s health care” they are  demanding a woman’s right for second rate and subpar standards when it comes to terminating their pregnancies.

It will be fascinating to see how the SCOTUS falls on that one.