Last year, in response to legislation
passed earlier in the year, emergency rules regarding operation of abortion
providers were issued effective Nov. 20 by the Department of Health and
Hospitals, which will stay in effect until DHH issues permanent rules to be
guided by a hearing occurring next week. The 20-pages worth in the Louisiana
Register update requirements regarding licensing, reporting, staffing, facilities,
and procedures, and has sent proponents of abortion on demand into a tizzy.
One shill for the industry called
the new rules “convoluted and dense,” and designed to hamper it if not shut it
down. In particular, its representatives objected to procedures to challenge citation
issuance, with the shill claiming
it was biased, to having licensed nurses present during the extinguishment
of the unborn, and that a certificate of need would be required to open a new
facility, to reopen one closed because of violations, or if there is a change
of ownership or location. A specific complaint about room size requirements DHH
said will apply only to new or renovated facilities in the permanent rule, and another
that requires a 30-day window between drawing blood for laboratory analysis
prior to aborting DHH said would be excised from the permanent rule.
But when analyzing the text of the emergency
rule and in comparing its content to those covering administrative and medical aspects
of the rule to other providers, there’s nothing remarkable or onerous about it
at all. For example, typically medical providers must have some kind of a
certificate of need to operate. The record-keeping requirements seem no more
burdensome than those that home health agencies must comply with, the medical
facilities and practices portion is no stricter, if even as much, with those that
outpatient medical facilities must adhere to, and the personnel practices are
not dissimilar to what both these kinds of providers follow.
And it’s hyperventilating to
declare that administrative procedures are rigged against abortion mills. They
follow the typical pattern in these matters, where informal appeals for
presumed mistakes in review can be reviewed and if found erroneous deleted,
formal appeals may be made to the department secretary, and appeals can proceed
outside of DHH to the state’s Division of Administrative Law in a process
designed to be impartial. The right to injunctive relief is guaranteed in the
case of emergency (immediate) suspensions, and these interests have every right
to take adverse decisions even further into the judicial system. In fact,
revocation or denial of license review cannot be taken over a single issue;
only if there is not “substantial compliance” with the law and regulations.
If the new regulations seem very comprehensive
and specific, it’s only because the set being replaced were not. Herein lies the
real reason why objections, and in apocalyptic terms, come from the merchants
of death: having to follow these rules, none of which are unreasonable given
this is the only industry that the state allows not only to kill human beings
legally, but to ensure that others survive in the process, will cost more money
and time. Given the extremely dangerous threat on some occasions, and
nontrivial threat at all times, to the life of the woman intended to be saved
in the process despite the death induced to one or more other humans, such
abundant caution as promulgated in the regulations is more than justified – a sentiment
backed by many at least in rhetoric who argue for the right to abort who in
same breath declare it should be “safe,
legal, and rare,” such as the most ardent pro-death president in history, Barack Obama.
So these new measures will reduce
the profit margin of the industry, but there is persuasive evidence that the
hands-off regulation of the industry has opened it up to serious malfeasance,
especially considering the fact that only in instances of rape or incest may
public dollars pay for abortion, and only from a particular source of money. In
fact, there is considerable evidence to back the allegation that tax-exempt Planned
Parenthood, which derives
half of its total earned revenues from abortions to the tune most recently
of $164 million a year (and performs about 40 percent of all abortions in the
country) where some of that comes from the two facilities in Louisiana it
operates (with plans to open a third in New Orleans), comingles
taxpayer dollars from prohibited sources with those that may be in their
abortion provision operations and has improperly charged the federal government
for these. It also is said to encourage abortion beyond legally permissible patient
advocacy limits, which would be prohibited under the new regulations. In short,
there’s good reason to suspect tighter regulations outside of medical practices
are necessary for the industry in Louisiana.
Finally, the new laws and the announced
regulations do not go even as far as legal changes passed in Texas last year in
terms of intensity of regulation. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld
them, reaffirming that these kind of laws reasonably regulate the practice
without any kind of unconstitutional impediment, although court challenges remain
to some of the tightening.
There are a number of reasons
that people support abortion: racism, because disproportionately minorities
undergo it; selfishness; because individually it solves for their irresponsible
behavior that creates a life with an immediate death sentence; and as a psychological
amphetamine, because they identify with a group or cause that feels empowered
by asserting its will over the victims of abortion and over those who oppose
it. But in its actual provision, greed is the main motivator, and these providers
of a potentially extraordinarily risky operation, in resistance to being
treated like any other potentially high-risk medical procedure provider, act to
put profits ahead of people.
Tellingly, many of those who
could be expected to carp about these industry regulations are the same who
caterwaul about how business in general should face heavier regulation – except
obviously when their own self-interests are being served as in this instance.
The state should ignore the hypocrisy of these folks and issue a permanent rule
that largely follows the emergency rule already promulgated.
2 comments:
It seems more obvious that the new "emergency" rule regarding abortion in Louisiana is another manifestation of so-called "TRAP" laws -- Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers. When you consider that most of the regulations in the new rule have absolutely no medical purpose, and most are near-impossible to execute, combined with the DHH having final say over all of it, with no system of appeals, and having been enacted behind closed doors with no public notice or statement of intent, it seems plainly obvious that this is a not-so-covert attempt to shut down Planned Parenthood in Louisiana.
"Given the extremely dangerous threat on some occasions, and nontrivial threat at all times, to the life of the woman intended to be saved in the process despite the death induced to one or more other humans, such abundant caution as promulgated in the regulations is more than justified..."
THAT stands the truth straight on its head. Abortion is actually a safer procedure than giving birth, when you consider that last year alone, there were 6 reported complications from abortions in the US, alongside over 600 deaths from complications due to childbirth.
Furthermore, Planned Parenthood is not a tax-exempt organization, as you assert. It's just not true.
Worse yet, you assume that "racism" is a popular motivation for supporting abortion, when most abortions are had by white women in their 30's, and a whopping 68% live below the poverty line. You then resort to the racist stereotype that the poor (read: black people, who you wrongly claim have the most abortions) are irresponsible hyper-breeders who want to live off the government.
In other words, you made a spurious charge of racism against the pro-choice crowd by invoking racist stereotypes.
There is no need to tear apart the rest of your piece, which is a chain of random misinformation.
What makes it most notable is that you can state such garbage with a perfectly straight face, when I know you know it's false.
Adding on, it was announced today that Jindal has withdrawn the new "emergency rule" concerning abortion providers in Louisiana - because he obviously knew the new regulations were unconstitutional and were going to be legally challenged (and easily defeated).
The emergency rule was anything but "reasonable," as you insist, Mr. Sadow, and I know you know that. It was a ridiculous set of regulations that served absolutely no medical purpose, and was designed entirely to shut down all abortion clinics in Louisiana, and I know you know that also; your reasoning in this piece is so dishonest it's beyond laughable.
Post a Comment