Missouri Planned Parenthood afraid new policy will put them out of business

[JaJae]

Missouri Planned Parenthood's Lawsuit Over Abortion Law Endangers Women
Basically they're filing a lawsuit over a new law that makes abortion clinics meet the same sanitary standards as a walk-in clinic. They're afraid if they have to meet those requirements they'll go out of business.

"Planned Parenthood claims that if it had to meet basic safety requirements for outpatient clinics, two of its abortion centers would go out of business," she told LifeNews.com.

"That speaks volumes not only about the conditions of those clinics, but also Planned Parenthood's concern for the well being of the women it claims to serve," Forney added.

Janet Morana, also a co-founder of the group, agreed that women's safety should come first and said Planned Parenthood's concerns about the law are "all about money."

This seems to be a piggy-back of recent abortion clinic problems.
Inspections of N.J. licensed abortion clinics are rare

Planned Parenthood does a lot of good, and they do a lot of bad as well. Regardless of anyone's personal opinion of them as a whole, I think it's important that they meet basic health and sanitary requirements.

[WickedLou9]

that sounds a little odd to me. I think there might be more to the story than is being reported, especially considering the source.

[WickedLou9]

Figures... this is legislation specificaly targeted at one particular clinic.
STLtoday - News - Missouri State News

But Scott acknowledged: "Certainly, abortion is our target here and we're trying to save the lives of our children. We feel it's a fair way to regulate them like other procedures."

Missouri already requires abortion facilities to be licensed, setting forth specific standards for their staff, operations and buildings. But because of the definition of an abortion facility -- requiring abortions to generate half its revenues or patients -- a St. Louis Planned Parenthood clinic is the only facility in Missouri actually regulated as an abortion clinic.

The new law pulls more clinics under the state's umbrella by requiring any facility that performs more than five first-trimester abortions a month, or any second- or third-trimester abortions, to meet the licensure requirements for an "ambulatory surgical center."

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

that sounds a little odd to me. I think there might be more to the story than is being reported, especially considering the source.

Here's another source:
http://www.ksdk.com/news/news_articl...storyid=127328

Basically they're saying the abortion clinics need to meet the same requirements as an ambulatory surgical center. I didn't know what this was so I wiki'd it.
Ambulatory surgery center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An example of a such a center and procedures done is a colonoscopy which seems fitting to me. I personally think an abortion clinic should be able to meet the same health standards as a colonoscopy clinic... especially when they're doing procedures on minors without parental consent. The least they can do is match health and safety standards imposed on similar clinics.

An ambulatory surgery center (ASC) is a health care facility that specializes in providing surgery, pain management and certain diagnostic (e.g., colonoscopy) services in an outpatient setting. Overall, the services provided can be generally called procedures. In simple terms ASC qualified procedures can be considered procedures that are more intensive than that done in the average doctors office but not so intensive as to require a hospital stay. An ambulatory surgery center and a specialty hospital often provide similar facilities and support similar type of procedures. The specialty hospital may provide the same procedures or slightly more complex procedures and the specialty hospital will often allow an overnight stay. Ambulatory surgery centers do not provide emergency services.

The problem is some of their clinics don't meet these requirements and they say they don't have the money or don't want to spend the money to renovate them.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Here's another source:
http://www.ksdk.com/news/news_articl...storyid=127328

Basically they're saying the abortion clinics need to meet the same requirements as an ambulatory surgical center. I didn't know what this was so I wiki'd it.
Ambulatory surgery center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An example of a such a center and procedures done is a colonoscopy which seems fitting to me. I personally think an abortion clinic should be able to meet the same health standards as a colonoscopy clinic... especially when they're doing procedures on minors without parental consent. The least they can do is match health and safety standards imposed on similar clinics.



The problem is some of their clinics don't meet these requirements and they say they don't have the money or don't want to spend the money to renovate them.

Makes sense to me.

[WickedLou9]

Why then did the government create a set of standards for these clinics to adhere to? Planned parenthood didn't set the standards. The government set them. The clinics adhered to the policies that were set forth in the law. Now an activist group convinces the government to put in place a new policy that specifically targets one business, and puts such regulations on it that act as a deterrant to doing business. It also acts in an unfair way, requireing them to immediately come into compliance or cease operation totally. There was no reasonable timeframe given to them. The law takes effect on August 28th. That's one week.

What if you owned a business and someone came to you and said that the state passed a new law that targets only your business and requires you to change the way you do business immediatly, and you have to shut down until you make the changes... would you think that it was fair?

They are making a veiled attack on abortion rights. Since they can't outlaw it , they will just put prohibitive restrictions on the practice that will have the ultimate effect of reducing or eliminating abortion clinics in the state.
This is an unconstitutional infringment on thier rights on several levels. It violates the commerce clause as well as the supreme courts ruling in roe vs wade.
under the commerce clause, states can't enact legislation that negatively impacts interstate commerce. In this case, they will be driving customers out of state for a service that could be previously obtained within the state. Since the supreme court still has not overturned Roe v wade, there is no legitamate reason to do this.
Also, given roe v wade, wether you agree with it or not, from a legal standpoint, you can't infringe on the right. If you try and do so by means of stringent regulation which has the ultimate effect of prohibiting the activity, the result is the same and as such it is infringement.

Unless they can cite some medical research which shows that these clinics pose a health risk as they are currently operating, there is no basis for the new regulation, making it even clearer that it's unconstitutional.

[DosEquis]

I guess my question would be if these regulations had honest intent in maintaining a sanitary environment, or it was was geared to put planned parenthood in a bind because of a political agenda regarding abortion.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I guess my question would be if these regulations had honest intent in maintaining a sanitary environment, or it was was geared to put planned parenthood in a bind because of a political agenda regarding abortion.

Gee I wonder. They stopped short of outright admitting that they were trying to attack abortion.

"Certainly, abortion is our target here and we're trying to save the lives of our children"

Seems pretty clear to me that it has nothing to do with them being unsanitary.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I guess my question would be if these regulations had honest intent in maintaining a sanitary environment, or it was was geared to put planned parenthood in a bind because of a political agenda regarding abortion.

That is a fair "question."

But I think it is equally fair to question the motives of an organization that promotes and makes a profit on abortion. That goes well beyond pure activism for womens rights, but that is how the media portrays them most of the time.

[JaJae]

I think what's equally as important is why this hasn't already been done. Are the pro-choice activists that powerful to where they managed to skate by health regulations which appears they should have been held to all along.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Why then did the government create a set of standards for these clinics to adhere to? Planned parenthood didn't set the standards. The government set them.

Oh dear, now we don't like government regulation.

From the article:

"Planned Parenthood claims that if it had to meet basic safety requirements for outpatient clinics, two of its abortion centers would go out of business," she told LifeNews.com.

While this may be a "new" law it does not sound like some special standard to me. If anything they got away with a medical practice not set to the same government regulated standards as everyone else. I don't recall anything in the Constitution about unregulated abortion practice. If health and safty of the mother is the driving concern that would be rather dumb don't you think?

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

That is a fair "question."

But I think it is equally fair to question the motives of an organization that promotes and makes a profit on abortion. That goes well beyond pure activism for womens rights, but that is how the media portrays them most of the time.

I didn't think planned parenthood was a for profit business. I always thought they were non-profit. Obviously they have to clear a little money to open more clinics where needed (they do more than just abortions), but I know they give help for free to those who can't afford it.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I think what's equally as important is why this hasn't already been done. Are the pro-choice activists that powerful to where they managed to skate by health regulations which appears they should have been held to all along.

That's a pretty big assumption. Why are these new standards necesary? On what data are they basing this decision? Has there been a spike of infections transmitted during abortion procedures? Consumer complaints about unsafe conditions? Health code violations? They cite nothing to imply any of this. I imagine that if such data existed they would be eager to talk about it as it would make thier case that much stronger.

My guess is that this is something that they thought they could get away with. On it's surface it seems legitamate so they figured they could slide it through and have a victory in thier fight against abortion. Only when you stop and ask questions does it start to look fishy.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I didn't think planned parenthood was a for profit business.

This is an old report by now..
Abortions and Profits Up at Planned Parenthood -- 12/12/2003

In its 2002-2003 annual report, Planned Parenthood reported a profit of $36.6 million, a 300-percent increase over the $12.2 million profit reported the year earlier, STOPP International said. (In its press release, STOPP did not account for the huge year-to-year increase in Planned Parenthood's profit. It said it would release a detailed analysis in early 2004.)

Planned Parenthood Annual Report

"For the 18th year in a row, Planned Parenthood turned a net profit. This year's $35.2 million brings its total profits over the 18 years to $538 million," he indicated.

They're a 501c3, but they constantly turn a rather large profit.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Oh dear, now we don't like government regulation.

From the article:

"Planned Parenthood claims that if it had to meet basic safety requirements for outpatient clinics, two of its abortion centers would go out of business," she told LifeNews.com.

While this may be a "new" law it does not sound like some special standard to me. If anything they got away with a medical practice not set to the same government regulated standards as everyone else. I don't recall anything in the Constitution about unregulated abortion practice. If health and safty of the mother is the driving concern that would be rather dumb don't you think?

The first quote isn't anything to cite. it's a statement of opinion from the people trying to shut down the clinics. The phrase "basic safety requirements' is misleading at best and an outright lie at worst. They already do meet all of the stafety standards set forth by the state.
It most definately is a special standard if it has the effect of targeting only one clinic in the state.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by JaJae

This is an old report by now..
Abortions and Profits Up at Planned Parenthood -- 12/12/2003


Planned Parenthood Annual Report

non-profit organization
An incorporated organization which exists for educational or charitable reasons, and from which its shareholders or trustees do not benefit financially. also called not-for-profit organization.



nonprofit corporation - legal definition
Nonprofit corporations, despite the name, can make a profit, but the business cannot be designed primarily for profit-making purposes, and the profits must be used for the benefit of the organization or purpose the corporation was created to help. When a nonprofit corporation dissolves, any remaining assets must be distributed to another nonprofit, not to board members

[motivez]

If they gave them a reasonable time frame to comply with the standards I wouldn't have much of a problem with it, however it's pathetic that the legislature is obviously doing this to target 1 business for political reasons and failing to give them a fair amount of time to comply.

Something tells me if something similar was done in a liberal state aimed at faith based organizations we'd be hearing the usual suspects cry foul

[Stylerod]

Why would these places not be held to the same health standards as other outpatient clinics though? Who gave them that right? It makes no sense.