WhatFinger

Gosnell-style butchery will be legal in California

Gov. Moonbeam set to sign bill allowing non-physicians to perform abortions

By Dan Calabrese ——--September 16, 2013

American Politics, News | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

At first you do a double-take and think, this story doesn't really say what the headline suggests, does it?
Yeah. It does. And the main reason is this: Planned Parenthood wants it because it makes it easier for them to crank out the abortions, since non-physician staff at their "clinics" could obtain licenses to perform abortions. It's amazing to think that in the aftermath of the Gosnell story, the abortion industry is not only resisting efforts to crack down on unsafe conditions (for women, that is; obviously all abortions are unsafe by definition for the babies), but they're actually being quite aggressive in seeking to loosen the rules that already exist. Gov. Moonbeam is expected to sign the bill, of course, because what Planned Parenthood wants, Planned Parenthood gets. Via Hard Nox and Friends:
One doctor–who identified himself as pro-choice–told Breitbart News that “the bill is a disaster since it sends us back 100 years to the problems of the complications from back-steet abortions.” The bill’s critics warn that the training provided to non-physician staff is weak, that supervision by physicians in clinics will be minimal, and that there is real risk of injury or death to women who will be treated in such conditions. The California Medical Association has endorsed AB 154 because of “provisions for training in the bill and the amendments that clarify physician supervision.” Yet the training is to be provided by the Board of Registered Nursing, not by physicians, and the protocols for defining “supervision” have not been specified. There is nothing in the legislation requiring a physician to be present or on-site during an abortion. The bill permits licensed non-physicians to perform two kinds of abortion in the first trimester–by medication, and by aspiration, which requires the insertion of medical instruments into the uterus. Though many doctors agree that non-physicians could provide medications with few risks, the idea that a non-physician would perform an invasive procedure such as aspiration strikes many as rife with risks.
Isn't one of the arguments against banning abortion that you would take it outside the legal system, which at least imposes regulations to ensure it is done in a safe environment by people who have the highest possible training? Yeah, never mind, I guess. Let's git 'er done and git 'er outta here! Of course, you could argue that abortion isn't really a medical procedure at all. It's infanticide, pure and simple, and that being the case it doesn't require a qualified physician.

Support Canada Free Press

Donate
Subscribe

View Comments
Dan Calabrese——

Dan Calabrese’s column is distributed by HermanCain.com, which can be found at HermanCain

Follow all of Dan’s work, including his series of Christian spiritual warfare novels, by liking his page on Facebook.

VIEW Comments

Sponsored