IMAGINE, if you will, that all of a sudden, tabling on the Lawn was illegal. Why? Well, it certainly has nothing to do with anyone disliking the practice; it is simply a new safety measure -- the sidewalks need to be as unobstructed as those in front of a hospital.
You might protest these regulations as utterly ludicrous, saying tabling helps a lot of student groups and the sidewalks are already quite safe. You might point out that the authors of the new rule are on record against tabling. You might start screaming that this ploy is about as complex as "your shoelace is untied." Then you might realize this isn't tabling on the Lawn, and this isn't the University administration -- this is the Virginia House of Delegates passing new regulations for abortion clinics that, if signed into law, would close down all but one clinic in the Commonwealth.
The new bill, HB116, would "require that every licensed abortion clinic comply with the requirements for operation of ambulatory surgery centers" (legis.state.va.us) -- in lay speak, abortion clinics will be held to the same standards as centers for amputation. The regulations will require, for example, that the abortion clinics' hallways be wide enough to allow two gurneys to pass through and that clinics have certain amounts of janitorial space.
Abortion clinics, it needs to be pointed out, are just that: clinics.They more closely resemble physicians' offices than hospitals. Thanks to this, the Virginia Department of Health estimates that upgrades necessary to come into compliance with the new law will cost each clinic between $500,000 and $1 million ("House advances controversial abortion clinic bill," www.timesdispatch.com, Jan. 22). Any facility not in compliance will be shut down.
Lest you think these regulations are reasonable, consider that dentists, plastic surgeons and the majority of outpatient surgeons are not held to standards anywhere near as high as are ambulatory surgery centers; this law discriminates by singling out abortion clinics.
This is not an argument about whether abortion should be legal-- until the Supreme Court says otherwise, it is. This is an argument about whether legislators will be allowed to get away with skirting the spirit of Roe v. Wade by de facto outlawing abortion. After all, if this bill goes into effect, Roanoke will be home to the only abortion clinic for a state of 12 million people.
The implications in this law are dangerous. When the legislature begins to violate the spirit of the law, the law loses its ability to protect the rights of the minority. During the civil rights movement, state legislatures constantly found subtle, devious ways to chip away at black freedoms despite progressive missives issuing from Washington. Blacks can vote, certainly -- they just have to pay a poll tax and pass this literacy test.
Here, the principle is strikingly similar: You can have your abortion, but good luck finding a clinic to administer it. Such a back-handed attempt to circumvent the law is unacceptable.
If this bill is signed into force, it will pose a grave health risk for women -- the very risk the authors ostensibly set out to address. Clearly, shutting down all the clinics will not completely reduce the demand for abortions, so where will women turn? Virginians will either be crossing state borders or seeking out unsafe, underground procedures. At least existing abortion clinics can be regulated and inspected and kept safe and secure. No one is arguing that the state can't keep a close eye on the clinics -- they just should not impose unreasonable restrictions that will force mass closure.
Hope now lies in the state Senate chamber and the governor's mansion. The House of Delegates has passed a version of this bill before, but it was struck down in Senate committee. This time around, however, there is intense pressure coming from the right, and the bill will likely get through to the floor.
If indeed the legislature is acting in good faith and in the interest of public safety, it should offer to help the abortion clinics. Let the state subsidize architectural upgrades and renovate clinics in phases so that plenty of options always remain available. Anything less, after all, is simply creating another unfunded mandate. History has taught us a difficult lesson, and now it needs to be heeded: The legislature should spend its energies working within the confines of the law, not finding ways around it.
(Elliot Haspel is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at ehaspel@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PARTING SHOT: When it comes to art, it pays to pay attention
By Delaney Hammond | 10 hours agoEven among people who value the arts, carving out space for critical engagement with — rather than just passive consumption of — art has been an endeavor I have treasured.
PARTING SHOT: You only get what you give
By Delores Cyrus | YesterdayThe people at this place have taught me that letting others in, while not always easy, is always worth it.
PARTING SHOT: Life lessons
By Miriella Jiffar | YesterdayThroughout my time on the Life Desk, I’ve wondered what breathes life into this University.
