Pa. House passes bill that would tighten abortion-clinic rules

I get frustrated by news stories that cover a “controversy” without telling us anything of the specifics. The Philadelphia Inquirer article reports on a “controversial” law just passed in the PA House that would require abortion clinics to have the designation of “Ambulatory Surgical facility”. Is that controversial? I thought any abortion clinic which can legally perform abortions up to six months after conception would have had that designation from the beginning. What should the standard be? What are the standards now? The article does not say.

The legislation is a direct result of the horrific conditions at a Philadelphia “Family Clinic” that existed for many, many years and regularly performed abortions into the 7th and 8th month of pregnancy, charging higher rates the longer the gestation period. Powerful controlled medications, including anesthetics, were administered by people without any medical credentials and while no doctor was present. The furniture and fixtures were filthy. Emergency exits were blocked and ambulance crews could not get a gurney in and out of the place.

The grand Jury report is 281 pages and if this paper would like a copy I would be happy to send it to NewsLanc in order to make it make it available to your readers

The reason for this document’s importance is that it shows very, very, clearly that it was not a lack of appropriate laws that was at fault but a lack of will to enforce the laws that should have shut this facility down 25 years ago. Many complaints were filed with the PA department of Health which were ignored. Several complaints were filed (and ignored) with the PA department of State that licenses doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals. The Philadelphia department of health was notified several times and never investigated.

There is even testimony by the PA dept of Health officials that a political decision made during the administration of Tom Ridge, (Pro-Choice Republican), that the health department should give a pass to these clinics in order not to put undue burden on abortion access.

“Instead, the Pennsylvania Department of Health abruptly decided, for political reasons, to stop inspecting abortion clinics at all. The politics in question were not anti-abortion, but pro. With the change of administration from Governor Casey to Governor Ridge, officials concluded that inspections would be “putting a barrier up to women” seeking abortions” (Grand Jury report page 9 Overview)

There were also prestigious university hospitals near the clinic who violated their own policies (and the law) by not reporting botched late term abortions that arrived via ambulance. An out of state (Del) abortion advocacy and abortion provider group regularly funded abortions at the clinic but never bothered to inspect their facilities.

After reading the entire document I believe the motivation, for such universal neglect of clear responsibilities, was both racist and eugenic. The truth seems to be that we want abortion for “certain people” and will tolerate whatever horrors are necessary or convenient to get rid of them. In a middle class neighborhood, such a clinic would not have lasted a month.

So, now the PA House of Representatives passes a bill to set a standard for abortion clinics at “Ambulatory Surgical Facility” and there is a big controversy. It does matter, I suppose, but what would be better is if there was some indication of a will to enforce the law. But even better than setting standards for abortion clinics would be a government policy to eradicate the horrific conditions that exist in our inner cities which “breed and give birth to” so many forms of violence, including the violence of abortion.