New Missouri Abortion Regs Are Insulting to Women

Earlier this week, Missouri passed
a new law mandating a 72-hour waiting period for women seeking
abortions. Advocates for the law argue that this will give women
sufficient time to make the decision with a clear head, but this
logic is insulting. Reason.com editor Elizabeth Nolan Brown

writes:

Surely many women spend ample time agonizing over the decision
to abort before actually calling a clinic. For others,
it isn’t a difficult decision at all. In either case, what
incredible arrogance and paternalism to suggest that without the
good hand of government to guide them, these women aren’t capable
of fully considering their choices and actions.  

In effect, waiting-period rules like the one Missouri
Republicans are pushing just make it logistically harder for women
to exercise their right to an abortion. Yesterday I wrote about a
Pennsylvania
woman who ordered the abortion pill illegally online because
the nearest clinic was more than 70 miles away. Some on social
media scoffed at the idea that 70 miles was too far to travel—but
because of mandatory waiting periods and other bureaucratic
nonsense, what could be a one- or two-visit procedure actually
requires three or four separate visits. 

This is why it’s such bullshit when anti-abortion types talk
about how it’s just an extra day or two wait; it’s just a
requirement that only a physician can physically hand a woman the
abortion pill; it’s just one or two clinics that will close down
due to hospitals refusing admitting-privileges to abortion
doctors… Taken individually, none of the restrictions may seem
that nefarious. But these restrictions don’t exist in a vacuum. And
the cumulative effect is absolutely to create a climate where the
time and capital required to terminate a pregnancy becomes
prohibitive for large numbers of women.

Regulations that raise costs for both abortion clinics and women
as a way to circumvent the 14th amendment are becoming all to
common. Last year, Reason TV reported on new regulations for
abortion clinics in Virgina:

“Abortion Rights vs. Women’s Safety in Virginia,”
produced by Amanda Winkler
About 4 minutes.

Original release date was December 16, 2013, and the original
writeup is below.

Last April, the Virginia Board of Health
approved strict new regulations for abortion providers.
Unlike most similar laws, the regulations cover not just new
facilities but existing ones too. Clinics have until October 2014
to comply, but a high-stakes legal challenge in the Old Dominion
may change that early next year.

Senate
Bill 924 reclassifies any health clinic that provides five
or more first trimester abortions a month as an outpatient surgical
center rather than a physician’s office, which is the current
classification. The law sets standards for the number of
parking spaces, width of hallways, size of janitor closets, and
more, all which could cost millions of dollars in renovations per
facility. Abortion clinics throughout the state have said
compliance costs will force many of them to close and
two out of 20 abortion clinics have already shut down, citing
financial burdens related to the new regs.

In a reversal of conventional positions, SB 924 has political
conservatives arguing for increasing regulations on small
businesses and liberals arguing against them. The bill initially
passed the Democratic-controlled state senate in 2011 by a vote of
20-20 (Lieutenant Gov. Bill Bolling, a pro-life Republican cast the
tie-breaking vote). Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell eventually signed
it into law after numerous rounds of political
back-and-forth. 

Supporters of abortion rights believe that pro-life legislators
in Virginia and
elsewhere around the country are using retroactive regulations
to get around constitutional guarantees to abortion on demand
during the first trimester of pregnancy. Defenders of the new
regulations say that they are simply protecting the safety of
women.

“This is really necessary to ensure that woman are treated with
care consistent with their human dignity,” says Mallory Quigley of
the Susan B. Anthony List
(SBL), a pro-life organization. A woman who chooses to have an
abortion, says Quigley, should be able to do so without fearing for
her health and safety. Quigley and other supporters point to the
deplorable conditions in abortion clinics such
as the one run by Kermit Gosnell in Philadelphia. Gosnell, who
ran an operation described as a “horror house,” was convicted of
murder and other crimes after several patients died at his
clinic.

“Physicians that are practicing in Virginia have been
outspoken about the lack of medical evidence that is deciding
[this legislation],” says Sara Wallace-Keeshen of Falls Church
Health Care Center (FCHC). Located in northern Virginia, FCHC has
filed an administrative
appeal against the new regulations, claiming that
renovations would cost the center $2 million and potentially force
them out of business. 

FCHC has had no deaths since opening in 2002, an outcome that is
similar to the generally low rate of complications related to
abortions performed in clinics. Indeed, since 1974 state data show
only three deaths during legal abortions. For first-trimester
abortions, the complication rate is 0.3
percent, throwing doubt on the safety argument.

A court date is set for April 2014.

Approx. 4 minutes. Produced by Amanda Winkler. Camera by Winkler
and Joshua Swain. 

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe
to Reason TV’s
YouTube Channelto receive automatic updates when new material
goes live.