Abortion "Onion": Layer 3

This is a continuation of Abortion “Onion”: Layer 1 and Layer 2.

In the first part of this series, two specific points were identified.  The first point is that abortion is an industry.  The second point is that fetal tissue harvesting is a very lucrative business.

In the second part of this series, elements of the healthcare industry, primarily certification and accreditation were discussed.  The point was made that if pro-choice advocates truly wanted to keep abortion “safe” and “legal”, they would wholeheartedly be supporting accreditation of any kind.  They don’t.

This is where we will pick up on this next layer of the Abortion “Onion”.


For those who may be reading this who are somewhat skeptical in believing that pro-choice advocates, who continuously and repetitively present themselves as the champions of protecting and preserving a woman’s right to “safe” and “legal” abortion, could be against any kind of rules that require the abortion industry to be regulated by an external source, here’s the stated position of Cecil Roberts, President of Planned Parenthood Action Fund:

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. (emphasis mine)

News Bulletin for Ms. Roberts:  Conservatives aren’t all that interested in letting politicians impose their LIBERAL values on our health care either!!!

What kind of laws in specific are pro-choice advocates objecting to?  Perhaps this NARAL article on “Targeted Regulation on Abortion Providers”, commonly referred to as TRAP laws, will explain it:

The anti-choice movement has undertaken a campaign to impose unnecessary and burdensome regulations on abortion providersbut 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 care 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)

What unnecessary and burdensome regulations are they referring to?  The answer is being legally required to comply with accreditation requirements.  Accreditation establishes standards that promote patient safety and high quality health care.  The standards are high, and they can increase the costs in provision of care in comparison to an environment where no standards exist.  In addition to what I’ve already mentioned previously, the accreditation process also evaluates medical credentials of health care providers, such as having those pesky little things called licenses and being credentialed to provide health care services within a specific realm of practice.  The charge that has been made that the regulatory measures do not apply to other medical professionals is untrue to an extreme.

This is what they are complaining about??? That physicians’ are required to have the appropriate licenses?  That they have to comply with laws that promote patient safety and quality of care?

Pro-choice advocates have rallied behind the slogan that abortion is “safe, legal and rare” for years on end.  We know that it is not as “rare” as they would like to have the general public believe.  Now, they would sacrifice “legal” and “safe” as well????

They claim that it is their concern for protecting a woman’s right to receive abortions that motivates them.  Is that the ONLY reason they object so vehemently to TRAP laws?  Or could there be other reasons…reasons that they would rather the general public not think about?

Check in on Abortion “Onion”: Layer 4 to find out!! 


(Note:  I’ll be finishing this up by Monday, with Abortion “Onion” Layers 4 and 5)