This is a continuation of Abortion “Onion”: Layer 1, Layer 2 , and Layer 3.
In the first part of this series, two specific points were identified. The first point is that abortion is industry. The second point is that fetal tissue harvesting is a very lucrative business.
In the second part of this series, elements of the healthcare industry, primarily certification and accreditation were discussed. The point was made that if pro-choice advocates truly wanted to keep abortion “safe” and “legal”, they would wholeheartedly be supporting accreditation of any kind. They don’t.
In the third part of this series, the position of pro-choice advocates in opposition to accreditation and other legal measures (which they call TRAP laws) that would promote patient safety and quality of care was discussed.
Where we left off is why pro-choice advocates are so adamant in their opposition to these kinds of laws?
Here’s the secret…they are adamantly against practices such as accreditation when they are conducted by external organizations!!!
As it stands at the present, accreditation requirements vary from state to state. There is a list provided at The Joint Commission (TJC) website that provides detailed information pertaining to accreditation requirements for each state. For example, in the state of NY, it states this:
“Accredited status” means the full accreditation by nationally-recognized accrediting agency(ies) determined by the commissioner.
(Note: the Joint Commission has been designated as an approved accrediting body)
- Licensee practices in which office-based surgery is performed shall obtain and maintain full accredited status.
- A licensee may only perform office-based surgery in a setting that has obtained and maintains full accredited status.
The context of the law in New York defines office based surgery as
Any surgical or other invasive procedure performed outside of a hospital, diagnostic and treatment center or other Article 28 facility in which moderate sedation or deep sedation or general anesthesia is utilized to provide comfort to the patient in order to perform the procedure. Only one surgical procedure is specifically included in the definition of OBS – liposuction of greater than 500cc’s of fat.
Based on the law in NY, this would mean that any and all abortions that (1) use conscious sedation/general anesthesia and (2) involve performing a D&C or D&E would have to be performed in a TJC accredited facility. If the provider fails to do so, then they are violating the law and should be held accountable for it. (Question…I wonder if any pro-life advocates are following up on this to check the status of abortion providers under the office-based surgery law in New York???)
Within this context, if the state assigns an organization such as The Joint Commission to be the accrediting body in the state, this ensures that there is external oversight on provision of abortions and the abortion industry as a whole. The external accrediting body is required by law to report any violations or failures to meet the standards. These reports could conceivably close down these office-based surgery facilities or greatly limit the scope of practice until such time as the facility meets the required standards.
This is the threat that pro-choice advocates recognize. This is why Planned Parenthood Federation of America is in the process of legally obtaining the right to act as an accrediting institution in various states.
Here’s what is provided for office based surgery centers in the state of Washington:
Accreditation or certification. Within three hundred sixty-five calendar days of the effective date of this rule, a physician who performs a procedure under this rule must ensure that the procedure is performed in a facility that is appropriately equipped and maintained to ensure patient safety through accreditation or certification and in good standing from one of the following:
(a) The Joint Commission;
(b) The Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care;
(c) The American Association for Accreditation of Ambulatory Surgery Facilities;
(d) The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; or
(e) Planned Parenthood Federation of America or the National Abortion Federation, for facilities limited to office-based surgery for abortion or abortion-related services.
That’s correct! In the state of Washington, PPFA is the accrediting agency for abortion providers, many of whom obtain their patient referrals AND their livelihood via local Planned Parenthood offices.
Furthermore, Planned Parenthood is putting themselves in a position to establish their own procedural guidelines in defining what is to be reviewed under audit, how it is to be reviewed, and when it would become necessary to report any and all violations.
For the purpose of putting this into a realistic context, let’s go back to the situation of Dr. Gosnell. Dr. Gosnell was a licensed M.D., so he could be approved under the credentialing standards. However, he had numerous complaints of medical negligence that had been filed against him over the years. In an audit conducted by external accrediting body, it would be required to take these reports into consideration to determine if credentialing status should or should not be allowed. Within the scope of having PPFA act as self-accrediting entity, if they know that reporting these types of complaints could either close the facility or place the facility in a position of providing greatly reduced access to abortion services, would they be honest and uphold the law by providing accurate information?
The person performing anesthesiology in Dr. Gosnell’s practice was a 15-year-old with no education or training of any sort that qualified them to administer anesthesia. If such a case occurred under a PPFA audit, and reporting the discrepancy might mean that the facility would be either closed or placed on limited status, would they report the discrepancy?
Another possible scenario…the law specifically states that the person administering anesthesia and the person performing the office-based surgery can not be the same person. Yet there have been numerous reports and law suits that have occurred when anesthesiologists have been allowed to perform both functions in Planned Parenthood facilities. If PPFA is a self-accrediting body, would they report these violations or would they establish some procedural means written into their accreditation and auditing process that allows them to bypass this requirement?
By establishing self-accrediting status and setting themselves up to become the regulatory body for abortion services, PPFA is also putting themselves in a position to obtain almost complete and total control over the abortion industry as a whole! And this is being done primarily at the expense of American taxpayers!
From the funds provided for fetal tissue research via NIH to funds provided via Medicaid, it is the American taxpayers who pay for the sustenance of the abortion industry.
This isn’t the end, folks. Tell me again how many years Roe vs. Wade has been the law of the land in this nation? We’ve fought the fight over the years, but there’s still much more to do.
That’s what Abortion “Onion”: Layer 5 is all about.