That seems to be the main thought in Irin Carmon’s piece on the new California law which allows a variety of non-physicians to provide first trimester abortions.
Today, California Governor Jerry Brown didn’t mention Gosnell’s name, but by signing the Early Access to Abortion Bill into law, he did more than any of those legislators to prevent another Gosnell.Instead of attempting to get rid of unsavory abortionists, pro-choice commentators like Carmon seem to think that allowing more people to provide abortions will diminish the likelihood of women going to Gosnell-like providers.
The Early Access to Abortion Bill will enable trained nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives, and physician assistants to perform first-trimester abortions by vacuum aspiration. It’s the logic of cause and effect: If you make it easier to access an abortion, earlier, and from a legitimate provider, there will be fewer desperate customers turning to unsafe providers.
But isn’t a better solution to get rid of the Gosnell-like providers by regularly inspecting clinics? If the main goal is really keeping women safe, isn’t it a better idea to do inspections than hope women will have plenty of choices for abortion providers and not happen to choose an unsavory one?
Posts
Coming from a state with no restrictions on who may perform abortions, I'm bemused by the fuss over the California law. I wonder how many of us realize how unregulated the abortion industry is in our own states. Not only does my state have no restrictions on abortion providers, but it also has no collection of abortion statistics. As it happens, the most vociferous opponents to change are the freestanding abortion facilities like PP. So much for safety.
ReplyDelete