New law in Virginian is aimed to shut down abortion clinics

[insane]

In June, the board had voted 7-4 to exempt existing abortion clinics from the new construction standards, only to have Cuccinelli's office refuse to certify the regulations.

The Attorney General's Office argued that the board lacked the authority to enact provisions that, in its view, did not comply with the law passed by the General Assembly in 2011. That refusal sent the regulations back to the board for Friday's reconsideration.

"We were warned. … I could call it a threat, as individual board members, if we didn't take the advice, if we exceeded our authority," said board member James H. Edmondson Jr. of Fairfax County, one of two members of the 15-member board to vote against adoption of the stringent new requirements. Ten members of the board were appointed by Gov. Bob McDonnell, who, like Cuccinelli, opposes abortion.

"Maybe that worried some folks," Edmondson said, referring to the memo from Cuccinelli's office.

The newly approved regulations again head to the Attorney General's Office for review. If certified, they will head to McDonnell, who must sign off on them before opening a public comment period. The permanent regulations are expected to return to the board for a final vote next year.

Brian Gottstein, director of communication for the attorney general, said Cuccinelli's decision on whether to certify the regulations "will be determined solely on a legal basis — as was the decision on the prior version of the regulations — not on the basis of whether or not we agree with the policy."

After Friday's vote, the ACLU of Virginia said in a statement that the regulations, if unchanged after a 60-day public comment period, "will make abortions more expensive and more difficult to obtain particularly if some clinics are forced to close."

To stay open, clinics must present plans to comply with the new rules. They have two years to come into compliance after being licensed by the Health Department. To date, 20 clinics have applied for licensure; 12 have received licenses and eight have licenses pending.

Clinics also may appeal to the state health commissioner for a variance from the regulations if they demonstrate a unique hardship and if the variance would not negatively affect patient safety.

Anti-abortion groups hailed the vote as a victory for women's health and safety.

"Virginia's women are better off after today's vote," said Victoria Cobb, president of The Family Foundation.

"Today's decision simply requires the industry to clean up its act. These centers can continue to offer any other service they provide even it they can't meet these reasonable guidelines."

Abortion-rights advocates said the new regulations are medically unnecessary and would hurt women, denying them access to legal abortion services.

Tarina Keene, chairwoman of the Coalition to Protect Women's Health, said the board succumbed to political pressure and abandoned its medical expertise and its mission to protect the health and safety of Virginia women.

"This is a terrible day for the women of Virginia — and all of us who object to the partisan politicizing of public health," she said.

Friday's meeting attracted hundreds of advocates on both sides of the issue — including doctors, lawyers, clergy representatives and clinic operators. Many arrived at the Henrico County site several hours before the 9 a.m. meeting to promote their viewpoints with provocative signs, stickers and speeches.

"These regulations are the least women can have in place," speaker Ruby Nicdao said before the vote. She carried a sign that said: "Choice is a polite word for killing a baby."

But speakers who favored grandfathering existing clinics from the new building requirements argued that the size of hallways, parking lots and awnings is not essential to patient safety.

"No one here is opposed to oversight and to regulations," said Dr. Wendy Klein, a women's rights advocate. But she said the building regulations were "insidiously designed" to limit access.

"You are now at risk of being part of the conspiracy to effectively outlaw abortion in Virginia, against the wishes of the women of this commonwealth, against the law of the land as set out by the Supreme Court, and against the mandate as members of this board," said Shelley Abrams, executive director of A Capital Women's Health Clinic in western Henrico County.

"My clinic is now fully licensed — we have done absolutely everything you have asked us to do," Abrams continued. "The only thing we have not done is rebuild our entire facility."

Before the vote, Anna Jeng of Norfolk told fellow board members that the clinic regulations marked the first time the state was imposing new construction standards on existing health care facilities.

[sTr]

! don't see why anyone cares... it's like cigarettes, a lot of people hate them.... but they don't go to those people and tell them that they can't smoke....

[insane]

The Constitution clearly states that their should be a separation of church and state so there shouldn't be laws based on religious moral beliefs such as abortion is murder.

[Paullehh]

I think religion has no place in law. Get that shit out of here.

[TheGreenBK]

Paullehh Wrote:I think religion has no place in law. Get that shit out of here.

[John the Juggalo]

I think killing people is wrong.

[Autumn]

sTr Wrote:! don't see why anyone cares... it's like cigarettes, a lot of people hate them.... but they don't go to those people and tell them that they can't smoke....

Actually, its funny you mention this. At my job, I think its next year, they're banning smoking anywhere on company property, including INSIDE of your own car. Not sure how they'll regulate this, but they're trying to make the place completely smoke free. I don't smoke, so its not affecting me personally, but inside your car? Come on. Reminds me of that skit on the Monoxide album.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[LuckyNumbrXIII]

I am pro choice, however....

I don't see how this is entirely a separation of church and state issue. Sure, bible thumpers reference religion, but you can make just secular moral beliefs that once you're pregnant, that's your son/daughter and you shouldn't kill it.

[holagatita]

Like most "heavy" moral quandaries, I see both sides of it, and feel like it's not a black and white, cut and dry issue. Of course it's a life you are taking, any woman that has been pregnant knows that, and moral grandstanding from anti-choice people just belittles the woman that has to make that choice. But on the other side, SOME pro-choice advocates act like you are a horrible person that is hurting their "cause" when you admit that you have some guilt/reservations with your choice.
My position is that it is a very difficult and personal decision, one that should never be made lightly, but one that should remain legal and available.

[insane]

Several cases I would make exception for in the case of these women. If its for Convenience and you continue to have unprotected sex then I believe it is wrong. If the woman is on drugs heavily or drinking heavily, or she got raped or she's homeless etc. etc. you have to think what kind of life would that child have? Hos is the kid going to turn out ok if the parents were forced to keep a child they aren't able to take care of?

[LuckyNumbrXIII]

Is adoption completely unheard of in this day in age, or what?

[holagatita]

Adoption is harder to live with than abortion, sometimes, just saying.
I get what you mean, but do you know how prohibitively expensive it is to adopt a child? Also, FORCING someone to carry a pregnancy, depending on the circumstances is pretty fucked up too.

[sTr]

plus, sometimes you get stuck with a shitty kid when you adopt... they don't make it easy to return the little fuckers....

[Paullehh]

Anybody who's against abortion should meet DBM and MO. Then we can talk.

[LuckyNumbrXIII]

I mean our throw away society is bad enough, but throwing away babies is kinda cold even for me. I don't care about anyone else's kids, but I'd never do it.