Pro-life activist, Ryan Orr, 17, of Manassas, Va, waits holds a silent vigil as he waits for rulings in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on June 27, 2016 in Washington, DC. (Pete Marovich/Getty Image
Today, the Supreme Court made a landmark ruling against
women in our country with striking down the Texas law, HB 2, requiring abortion
providers have admitting privileges to a hospital within 30 miles of their
facility and that abortion clinics have the same health and safety standards as
an outpatient surgical facility. The law has several other components that were
held up, significantly, acknowledging that a pre-born child can feel pain after
22 weeks from LMP and an elective abortion cannot be obtained due to this
reason.
As you probably know, I am unequivocally, unapologetically pro-life,
pro-woman, pro-baby, mostly in that order. Yes, I identify myself as having
conservative values, both politically and socially, although with the recent
things going on in the Republican Party with the presumptive nominee, I no
longer consider myself Republican and will not claim that party.
With all that said, this is not a political post. This has
nothing to do with conservative v. progressive ideals. This post has nothing to
do with my feeling that abortion, in general, especially elective abortion,
should be illegal. I will not be discussing this aspect of my pro-life beliefs.
If you are reading this and are liberal, please hear me out as someone who
probably knows a little more about this subject than you do. I work in a Crisis
Pregnancy Center. I speak to women on a weekly basis who are considering
abortion and/or are post-abortive. I hear their stories, both about their
current pregnancies and past decisions. I hear their trauma, both currently and
it the past. I don’t know stats right off the bat but if someone had questions,
I would do my best to find that information, but I have firsthand accounts of
what abortion is like, of what the doctors and facilities are like because I
listen to women who have been there.
I’m going to start with the second part of the ruling,allowing health and safety standards to be sub-standard (see section 4). I use that term, “sub-standard”
for a reason. Outpatient surgical clinics have standards for a reason. They
perform sterile procedures in sterile environments where, if those standards
aren’t followed, their patients could end up with life threatening infections.
They may not be regulated by The Joint Commission, who regulates standards for
hospitals, but they follow basic health regulations based on Evidence Based
Practice for the safety of their patients. (Even CPCs do that, and we’re not
ambulatory surgical facilities). Why then, would we want to do less for the
women in our country? Why would it be ok to allow the women in our country to
obtain a surgical procedure in a place that cannot follow basic health and
safety regulations to prevent infection and possibly death for these patients?
I know I sound crazy talking about women dying. I do understand that is a rare
thing, but please also understand that it does happen.
Whether it’s from the direct procedure, bleeding out after the procedure, or
from an infection incurred during the procedure. Not following these basic
health and safety standards leads to situations like we experienced a few years
ago in the Kermit Gosnell trial where his
clinic was described as a “house of horrors”, he used unlicensed personnel to
dispense medications, he use non-sterile technique and non-sterile equipment,
there were blood stains on the walls and patients were given blood stained
sheets, to name a few of the offenses. This man was allowed to practice in this
way for over 30 years because the state of Pennsylvania did not have basic
health and safety regulations for abortion facilities. Women died in his care.
Live babies were killed by using scissors to snip their spinal column. There are other former abortion workers who have come out saying the same thing happens intheir facilities. Why is this ok? Why do we not want the absolute best
care for women? I completely understand these basic health and safety regulations
would close over half of the abortion facilities in the state of Texas. Am I
sad about that? No. But a big reason I’m not sad about that is because these
facilities who are not willing to change their health and safety standards to
meet the minimal requirements are willing to harm women by giving substandard
care rather than make the necessary changes and continue operating. So they
should close down if they cannot operate under basic regulations. If they want
to be considered medical clinics performing surgical procedures, they should operate by the same surgical standards that Texas has other ambulatory surgical facilities operating under. That
only makes sense to preserve the health of the mother in question.
The other issue, regarding the requirements of a physician (see section 2) makes perfect sense. First off, he or she
should be a licensed physician. But most importantly, he should have admitting privileges
at a nearby hospital because unforeseen things happen. Like I’ve already said,
uncontrolled bleeding is a risk from having a surgical abortion, especially in
the 2nd trimester. If this happens, the woman needs to go to a
hospital and the physician who is overseeing her care needs to be able to admit
her and give her history and details of the procedure; that should not be the
patient's job who may have to drive an hour to get to an ER that has a specialty
in OB-GYN. Again, this is basic care for the woman seeking an abortion.
Women deserve better than what these 5 justices have given
her. Abortion should not just be accessible. If it absolutely has to happen, the
state should take every possible precaution to make sure her life is not in
danger.
