TRI In The News

Va. Health Board to Vote on Abortion Clinic Regs

September 15, 2011

9/15/2011

TRI IN THE NEWS: VA. HEALTH BOARD TO VOTE ON ABORTION CLINIC REGS

From My San Antonio

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — About two-thirds of the speakers at a public hearing Thursday on proposed abortion clinic regulations urged the Virginia Board of Health to reject them as unnecessary and politically motivated.

The board was scheduled to vote on the temporary regulations later in the day. If approved, they would remain in effect until permanent regulations can be adopted.

Emotions sometimes ran high as 32 people spoke during the public comment period at the board's quarterly meeting. After one woman in the audience angrily denounced remarks by a supporter of the regulations, board chairman Bruce Edwards gaveled her to silence and warned that police were on hand to quell any further outbursts.

The General Assembly last winter passed legislation requiring tougher regulation of clinics performing at least five first-trimester abortions per month. The draft regulations specify staffing levels, the types of equipment and supplies that must be maintained and other operational details and would require periodic inspections. They also would require facilities to comply with architectural standards on matters such as door widths and treatment room sizes.
Proponents of the regulations argued that they would protect women's health. Opponents argued that first-trimester abortions already are among the safest surgical procedures, and that the regulations are aimed at putting most of the state's 21 abortion clinics out of business.

"We are here today not because of a concern for women's health, we are here because of a political battle that has waged in this state for decades," said Tarina Keene, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia.

Some regulation supporters made their anti-abortion views clear. Frances Bouton of Suffolk, holding a placard picturing a healthy newborn next to an aborted fetus, said abortion is "a grave moral wrong" akin to slavery.

"The killing of a fellow human being is now legal in Virginia, but that does not make it morally right," she said.

Other supporters of the regulations said that veterinary offices are more tightly regulated than abortion clinics, which should not object to adhering to minimal health and safety standards. Jeff Caruso of the Virginia Catholic Conference said the regulations include such "reasonable, common sense measures" as requiring clinics to have life-saving equipment on hand.

Opponents of the regulations were most concerned about the construction and design provisions, which they say are adopted from guidelines intended for new construction. They contend renovations to bring existing facilities into compliance would be cost-prohibitive, and the resulting closures would endanger rather than protect women's health.

"These are architectural standards — they are not about safety," said Dr. William Nelson, a former state Health Department official.

Louantha Kerr, however, held up enlarged photos of the exterior of a Newport News abortion clinic with boarded-up windows and narrow back doors that she suggested would be inadequate in an emergency.
"There were 733 abortions performed in this facility last year," she said. "I don't know about you, but I wouldn't take my pet to a facility like this."
Several opponents of the regulations pointed out that the women's health centers do more than provide abortions. They also provide low-cost breast cancer and cervical cancer screenings, contraceptives and other services.
Tasha Yingling said the closure of such facilities "will place thousands of women who don't have health insurance at risk."

But Rita Dunaway, an attorney for the Rutherford Institute, suggested that the possible closures should not be a consideration.

"This argument would never even be attempted for medical facilities that are less politically sensitive than abortion clinics," she said.