Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 7:53 PM ET, 08/27/2010

Common sense on Va. abortion providers

By washingtonpost.com editors

By Jeanne Monahan
Washington

The Aug. 25 editorial “Safe and legal” disputed the common-sense idea that abortion facilities in Virginia should be held to the same standard as other outpatient surgical facilities or hospitals in the state.

Any reasonable person who has studied different surgical abortion methods will agree that the procedure is physically intense and deeply invasive. As such, it would be irrational not to hold these clinics to the standards of similar facilities in Virginia.

Abortion clinic operators routinely equate women’s health with access to abortion. But they are less concerned about such issues as health standards for safe and sanitary surgical abortions or abortion pills (troublingly, doctors are now prescribing abortion pills over Skype).

That abortion facilities should have less oversight than veterinary clinics is an outrageous injustice to women. If those who manage abortion facilities truly had the best interests of women at heart, they would be more than willing to support and comply with basic hospital or outpatient surgical facility standards.

The writer is the director of the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council.

By washingtonpost.com editors  | August 27, 2010; 7:53 PM ET
Categories:  HotTopic, Virginia, health care  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: New members of the Local Blog Network
Next: Jackson: New jobs within 100 days

Comments

These are fair points, but of course the real question is what the motivation is behind the people pushing for these regulations. Beware the slippery slope of oppression. Virgina AG Cuccinelli is an anti-abortion social conservative. He's currently waging a jihad against climate science and is generally hostile to progressive positions. Gives guys like that an inch and they'll restrict your rights a mile.

Posted by: simpleton1 | August 27, 2010 10:42 PM | Report abuse

Yes, and of course "the director of the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council," which is viciously against a woman's right to choose, is really concerned about the details of the facility that a woman uses.

Does this person advocate the use of "morning after" types of pills that prevent the need for a possible abortion? I suspect not.

This person presumably believes that the "traditional" way of coat hangers and unsafe drugs, etc. is safer??

Posted by: edallan | August 28, 2010 8:48 AM | Report abuse

Well said, Jeanne Monahan.

Posted by: austinrl | August 28, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Of course the facilities that are using invasive procedures routinely and whose clients/patients are new or infrequent visitors (rather than frequent comprehensive care patients) should be inspected! This is doubly important if there is any sedation involved.

Posted by: hocndoc | August 28, 2010 2:21 PM | Report abuse

The author has stated her opinion and it seems to be a reasonable one. However, the author's concern for women's health is laughable given the stance of her organization.

Posted by: Freethotlib | August 29, 2010 12:28 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company