The debate on women’s health care
By Kathy J. Byron
The Virginia Board of Health acted responsibly and reasonably when it voted to require that abortion clinics comply with medical and safety standards. Yet that decision, along with Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s ruling that the board’s previous actions did not conform to the law as written, has been derided by the editors of The Roanoke Times (“Who writes the rules?,” Sept. 13 editorial).
I am the legislative sponsor of the amendment that required abortion clinics in Virginia to meet medical safety and health standards. The board’s decision to regulate all clinics equally fulfilled the intent of the law. Exempting, or “grandfathering,” existing clinics from requirements related to the physical facilities occupied by these clinics was never the intent of the legislation.
Byron is a member of the Virginia House of Delegates, representing the 22nd District.
October 2, 2012 - 8:14 AM
Thank you for the write up.
See, the Roanoke Times editorial staff only takes what it’s given and rewrites it. They also have their backs turned the majority of the time with their hands over their ears.
Ms. Byron, I don’t believe you.
I do believe you’ve fooled yourself enough that you can say these things with a straight face but let’s be honest. This is not about women’s health care or health care for a fetus/zygote/baby, etc. This is about reducing access to abortion services.
No matter the public rationale behind your decisions and votes, to say otherwise is a lie.
I’m not entirely clear what you mean, Uptheriver, but we do indeed provide a forum for views that are in conflict with the position of the Roanoke Times Editorial Board. We allow those we criticize to respond. We didn’t rewrite Del. Byron’s column. We printed it as it was submitted with minor edits for space and style issues. We also fact-check guest columns, but her statement about the intent of legislators is her opinion, based on her own intent.
@2 – reducing access to killing babies you mean?
Why were the regulations put in place at odds with those proposed by the expert panel of doctors appointed by the Health Department?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/14/virginia-abortion-clinic-_n_1597229.html
‘ “We developed a product based on our expert opinions, in terms of what should be included and also based on a review of other guidelines and regulations of different groups, such as the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists — folks that are pretty knowledgeable and well established in that area of care,” Ferguson told The Huffington Post. “We developed a product, it then went away, but when it was returned to us, it was, I think, in very important ways different than what we had submitted and recommended.”
Ferguson said the regulations he approved were “just plain good medicine, in terms of follow-ups for patients, establishing gestational ages and ensuring patients get appropriate care.” But he said the set of regulations that came back to him from Cuccinelli’s office were “much more restrictive” and included “a variety of different requirements that were unneeded for clinics providing first-trimester abortions,” including a set of building requirements that were intended to apply to hospitals and surgical centers built in 2010. ‘
What a load of partisan hooey and how unexpected that it was warmly received as the only truth there is.
The Roanoke Times Editorial Board and anyone else who had the courage to see through this abortion banning effort, should be applauded for trying to uphold the right to privacy and safe, effective health care for those who are in the position to need it.
Abortions are not, by any measure, the only thing this effort will curtail. It never ceases to amaze me that those who rail loudest and harshest over the safety nets and the aid that families get, are also the loudest and most dishonest about their motives to remove reproductive choices from those same people.
When these invasive and ridiculous hoops are jumped through, people like the blindly partisan Byron will find more to put in their way.
I will believe that “killing babies” matters to you people when you support the safety net programs that help a woman choose to carry her pregnancy/raise a child, and support comprehensive education with widely available prophylactics. Until then, you are meddling where you do not belong.
“meddling where you do not belong”
Protecting the innocent.
This is the same lady that introduced a bill that required transvaginal ultrasounds for women seeking an abortion. Do you really think that a lady that requires a vaginal probe that is medically unecessary, abhorrently invasive and most likely unwanted by 100% of its recipients (sounds a bit like rape) is worried about the ‘health and safety’ of women. She should be embarrassed of this op-ed. Instead, her lies about her to intent to ‘protect women’ are so convincing, she believes them herself. While I might disagree intensely with her opinion and tactics, I would have much more respect for her (or less disgust, at least) if she would admit, at least to herself, the real intent of her bogus positions.
#4 “killing babies”
The overwhelming majority of abortions take place during the first trimester of pregnancy. During that time, the fetus hasn’t developed the ability to feel pain; it has no thoughts or feelings, so it’s not a “baby”, it’s just a teeny-tiny blob of meat that has the POTENTIAL to become a human being. So the overwhelming majority of the time it’s NOT “killing babies”, Uptheriver.
#7 “Protecting the innocent” See above.