« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The Abortion Industry’s Greatest Fear: TRAP Laws

Preface:  As a Christian, I believe that life begins at conception and abortion is an act that takes the life of a human being.  As an American citizen, I do not agree that taxpayers should be required to support funding for elective abortions.  All in all, I would prefer to see some type of intervention that stems the tide of abortion in our country.  With that being said, if such intervention is lacking, the need for greater regulatory measures within the abortion industry as a whole to protect the patient’s right to receive the best quality of care is very quickly reaching a point where it must be addressed.

Generally speaking, conservatives are anti-regulatory.  We want limited government, not expanded government.  We want government to stay out of our lives as much as possible.  That’s how most of us respond when we consider regulatory measures, isn’t it?  But not all regulatory measures are “bad”.  There can be and are times when regulations serve a very positive purpose, with a prime example being the abortion industry.

Planned Parenthood is on the proverbial war path against any type of restriction or regulation that will limit their ability to continue to operate within their self-regulating status quo.

Cecile Richards: “Stopping the Assault on Women’s Health and Rights”

The onslaught of new laws threatens more than our rights. It also threatens women’s health, by forcing them to delay needed care while they navigate a bureaucratic and political gauntlet. Studies show that when abortion care is delayed in pregnancy, risk of complication increases. By requiring women to take time away from work, arrange child care, and travel hundreds of miles to hear lectures and sit out mandatory waiting periods, the new laws won’t reduce the need for abortion. But they will surely push it later into many women’s pregnancies. This is the cost of letting politicians impose their values on our health care. Women who once received safe, timely care will now experience needless delays and avoidable medical complications

Also see:

“Planned Parenthood Fights Defunding Laws”

“Planned Parenthood Juggles Multiple Lawsuits”

Ms. Richards and the Planned Parenthood pro-choice gang may find legal recourse to prevent states from defunding Planned Parenthood facilities.  They are currently in the process of stalling or undoing what individual states have managed to accomplish and achieve regarding abortion industry reform even as we speak.  Abortion is an element of the health care industry, and a very lucrative portion of the industry at that.  It is an element of the health care industry that has not faced regulatory oversight regarding any safety or quality of care measures other than those that the leader of the industry, i.e. Planned Parenthood, chooses to pursue.

Our court system seems to be judging in favor of the current status quo within the abortion industry, with the latest blow being a federal court decision to block portions of the sonogram requirement put into place by the Texas legislature.

On each front where the abortion industry has been challenged, pro-choices forces have managed to bend the will of our legal system to conform to their own demands.   Yet the single greatest fear of the abortion industry as a whole continues to be regulation via what pro-choice advocates define as TRAP (Target Regulation of Abortion Providers) laws.

What are TRAP laws, and how do they impede women’s access to health-care services?

The anti-choice movement has undertaken a campaign to impose unnecessary and burdensome regulations on abortion providers—but not other medical professionals—in an obvious attempt to drive doctors out of practice and make abortion care more expensive and difficult to obtain. Such proposals are known as TRAP laws: Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers. Common TRAP regulations include those that restrict where abortion care may be provided. Regulations limiting abortion services to hospitals or other specialized facilities, rather than physicians’ offices, require doctors to obtain medically unnecessary additional licenses, needlessly convert their practices into mini-hospitals at a great expense, or provide abortion services only at hospitals, an impossibility in many parts of the country. (emphasis mine)

Think for a moment about what they protesting against:

(1)    Regulatory measures that stipulate an abortion should be provided in a facility with the equipment needed to address any and all adverse effects that may occur during the abortion process.

(2)    Regulatory measure that require facilities be licensed

(3)    Regulatory measures that require physicians have valid training and licensing for abortion procedures

They do not want any type of regulatory measures that would interfere in any way with their ability to provide abortions at will.  Neither do they want to see any type of oversight activity that would require those regulations to be enforced.  They make no pretense at all to cover up their resentment of any efforts to regulate the industry, stating very plainly that an increase in regulatory measures would increase operating costs for providers and thus become an obstacle that gets in the way of abortion access.  TRAP Laws are their greatest fear, above and beyond loss of funding.

Not only are they calloused to the termination of an unborn child, they are ruthlessly calculating to the mother’s right to safe and quality care as well.  If this type of gross negligence existed in any other area of the health care industry, it would generate an outrage of huge proportions.  In the abortion industry…all we hear are the cries of pro-choice advocates about how regulatory measures would hinder “women’s rights” and interfere with a woman’s “right to choice”.

These people, who claim to care about women’s health and women’s right, are more than willing to leave the door of opportunity for our nation to see more doctors like Dr. Kermit Gosnell.

They do not stand for health and rights of women…they are pro-abortion.  Nothing more and nothing less.

 

COMMENTS

  • lineholder

    • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

      NT

  • rightwingmom52

    back alley abortions. Aren’t anti-life liberals supposed to be fighting against those? Don’t they claim to want all abortions to be safe, legal and rare? Ironic they list safe first when in actuality that appears to be the least of their concerns. Perhaps they meant to say profitable, legal and prolific.

    Thank you for the information, especially the video. I have several friends that need to see it.

    • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

      safe, legal, rare

      How many of these planned parenthood litigants would actually have their abortions done at these institutions that fail to meet community standards of medical care?

      Another example of liberal atonement and searing of their consciences at the cost of the poor and minorities.

      • lineholder

        It’s like the situation with education. Access to an education doesn’t always equal access to a high quality education.

        Same applies with healthcare.

        The left doesn’t want any standards to have to meet, period. And they are content with offering the American public sub-par quality services. Yet constantly scream about needing more money!!!

    • lineholder

      This is primarily a black website, but it has more videos and some valuable information you can share.

      http://www.toomanyaborted.com/?p=3756

      Also, here’s a study that was done presenting the theory that PP locations are racially targeted.

      http://www.lifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/LifeDynamicsRacialReport.pdf

      And here’s a study that was done by Guttmacher Institute, which is pro-abortion, BTW, with data that proves access to birth control isn’t reducing the number of abortions.

      http://www.lifenews.com/2011/08/25/study-birth-control-not-stopping-unplanned-pregnancies-abortions/

      http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2011/08/24/index.html

      Take it and use it in good health!

  • conservativecurmudgeon

    The number of reported deaths by illegal abortion in 1972 was 34 or 35.

    The number of reported deaths by LEGAL abortion in 2007 was 35.

    Dismissing the 40,000,000 precious souls (and future societal contributors, such as doctors, artists, mechanics, carpenters, scientists, musicians, and on and on and on) this statistic shows we’ve not improved things much Health-Of-The-Mother Wise in the last 40 years since Roe.

    If the US Government cares more about killing trees in India (see all the related stories about the raid against Gibson Guitars) or the death of a stupid rat in the Imperial Valley, at least to the extent that they are all skittish about regulating the safety of abortion mills, then our society is very probably terminal.

    • rightwingmom52

    • aesthete

      The population of women who had “back-alley abortions” in the 70s was a much smaller population than the women who have undertaken a legal abortion. The ratio of 35:(population of women who had abortion in ’72) is almost certainly larger than 35:(population of women who had legal abortions in 2007). This is especially true if one considers the population growth we’ve experienced (through births and immigration) since ’72. Maternal healthcare has improved dramatically, if the number of women dying from abortions is remaining steady as the population of women who are having abortions has increased dramatically.

      Of course, the significantly larger number of women who have had abortions today also implies that either a) the abortion laws on the books were effective, or b) social mores were effective at limiting abortion, since population growth alone cannot account for the number of women aborting their children today. This in turn means that government action *could* potentially mitigate abortion, even if it won’t ever fully eliminate it.

      • Menlo

        Planned Parenthood International advises women in countries where abortion is illegal to take a dangerous ulcer drug that often causes miscarriage (among other serious complications).

        Apparently it’s not just the abortionists though. One woman is suing the state because she doesn’t like having to travel so far for an abortion and wants to be able to order illegal abortion pills online. I wonder if that logic will work for Obamacare as legitimate doctors become harder to reach?

        • Menlo

          I think something is wrong with the comment displays on this site.

        • lineholder

          meaning that it hasn’t been approved by the FDA, then under normal circumstances, the patient has to pay for it out of their own pocket.

          I put the qualifier “under normal circumstances” in that sentence because the abortion industry has been left to regulate itself for the most part, OUTSIDE our standard system.

          But it doesn’t surprise me in the least that PP would support obtaining illegal drugs that might be dangerous to the mother’s health. Abortion is their goal, not quality of care or safety for the mother.

          • Menlo

            I was referring to Planned Parenthood’s activity in other countries where the ulcer drug is legal but abortion is not, emphasizing their commitment to “safety.”

            Yet even here, it is not legal to buy the Chinese-made abortion drug online with one’s own money. They are only dispensed at abortion centers. Obviously, many drugs cannot even be purchased on one’s own.

      • lineholder

        “lessen” rather than “appease”, I agree. I’ve thought about it from that viewpoint, but even beyond that, we need to see some regulatory measures in place that would hold the abortion industry accountable for patient safety and quality of care.

        Take the legislation that is being considered by VA. Do you know what pro-choice advocates are most upset about regarding the regulatory measures in the legislation? That is requires that rooms be at least a certain size, and that building meets local and state electrical codes, ventilation codes…things like that.

        If they’re crying about things like electrical and ventilation codes…just exactly what kind of conditions really exist in the offices of these abortion providers anyway?

        That’s what causes me to think that this is definitely one situation where regulation is badly needed. If it mitigates abortion in the process, then so be it.

        • aesthete

          but let me be honest: that the dimension of the rooms where children are being slaughtered might displease a bureaucrat really doesn’t matter to me. Whether the rooms are well-lit and well-ventilated matters as much to me as whether the gas chambers used in the holocaust conformed to the Third Reich’s fire codes.

          Personally, I see no particular reason to believe that abortion mills are providing their services in third-world or generally sub-par conditions — they are still operating in a free market, after all, and have to meet the standard imposed by their customers. It is a ghastly thought, since the vast majority of capitalist societies restrict the sale of products and services that directly harm others, but it makes sense that a free market in abortions will tend towards providing cheaper, safer and more painless abortions for the mother in question — and that’s exactly what the stats confirm.

          I agree with using regulation to choke up and harass abortion providers — it’s a stopgap measure, but it’ll do until we can criminalize abortion. However, I’m under no illusions that the regulation in question is pretty much about 1) hoisting leftists on their own petard, and 2) restricting access to abortion, and really don’t see their inherent utility in saving women’s lives. If it turns out that some of the regulations included help save women’s lives, that’s great! I certainly don’t want women to die. I just don’t see it as the primary goal, nor do I see regulation as a particularly useful force in making this happen as opposed to market processes.

          • aesthete

            nt

          • The_Gadfly

            We need to get them conforming to building codes before we can start to work on the issues that will really do them in. The typical moderate can’t argue that abortion mills shouldn’t be subject to the same regulations as your local fast food joint. Once we’ve established that a judicially created right to abortion is still subject to normal laws we can move on to the reporting regs. I for one have NEVER believed that abortions are safer for the mother than getting a tooth filled, but that’s what the mills self-report. Move that to real reporting of the sort hospitals do, and you’ll see things start to change rather quickly.

    • lineholder

      is that just about every other sector of health care that receives any type of public funding HAS to maintain specific standards defined by CMS in order to meet Conditions of Participation.

      https://www.cms.gov/CFCsAndCOPs/

      Providers are classified into different categories in order to determine what scope of standards they have to meet. If they meet the standards, they become a qualified provider who can receive payments via Medicare and Medicaid. If they fail to meet the standards, then they are disqualified to receive any payments via public funds. It’s that simple.

      Why should the abortion industry be any different?

      • Locked and Loaded

        Sounds like to me there are many COMMUNITIES of medical providers who just need to be ORGANIZED into CLASSES for legal ACTION against the various agencies who have enacted DISCRIMINATORY regulatory regimes.

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    powerplant regulations recently handed down? They probably don’t feel that sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose.

    • lineholder

      I’ve put myself in the role of patient’s advocate on this one, for more reasons than one. But the abortion industry has managed to get away with regulating itself for the most part. There really isn’t any accountability, because they aren’t held to any standards that they have to be accountable to. This lets them bypass the law and get away with acts of medical negligence that wouldn’t be likely to take place otherwise.

      As long as the judicial system continues to side with abortion industry in allowing public funds to be used for abortions, shouldn’t we the taxpayers at least care enough to demand that they be held accountable for patient safety and quality of care?

      • lineholder

        they just produced a segment on this topic today on Fox News. Glad to see it getting some air time.

      • Menlo

        A couple years ago, the state’s “health” department had released a new set of regulations and standards that all doctors and clinics would have to follow subject to state inspection. Among the regulations was one stating that facilities providing abortions could instead choose to be inspected by Planned Parenthood or the National Abortion Federation.

        To make matters worse, Washington is among the minority of states that directly funds abortions.

  • http://www.redstate.com/tnjim TNJim

    Didn’t know there was such a thing. But anything that might “interfere” with a pet cause, even if it makes it safer, is bad to them I suppose.

    But I really think it exposes the lie that libs want abortions to be “safe, legal, and rare.” It seems they really want them to be “legal, often, and safety be damned, we’ll settle for 2 out of 3″.

  • griffinelection

    Lineholder, this is a very well thought out article. Good job.