Wednesday, August 14, 2013

Abortion enthusiasts who don't get it

At the web site of First Things, George Weigel discusses how some abortion advocates have trouble "getting it."

Thus a June 28 editorial in The Washington Post deplored the fact that these proposed state statutes would “require abortion clinics to meet the same standards as surgery centers, like those in hospital wings.” Moreover, “doctors who perform abortions would have to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. . . . The case that such standards are needed to protect the health of abortion patients . . . is weak.”

Say what? In many states, abortuaries are not required to meet health and safety standards required of the local McDonalds or Wendys. After testimony in the Gosnell case depicted a foul, cluttered, ghoulish “clinic” in which basic sanitary standards were massively violated, how can anyone reasonably suggest that the case for protecting women by enforcing proper sanitation and safety standards for surgical procedures is “weak”? How can anyone reasonably suggest that there is a “weak case” for requiring that those who perform those procedures have the minimal professional credentials of other surgeons and doctors? How can anyone plausibly and conscientiously claim to promote “women’s health” by resisting such regulations?