Copy
California Family Minute

May 13, 2013
 
Is Abortion Really a "Primary Care" Procedure?

By Lori Arnold,
Research analyst

Decades after the opening of Disney’s Fantasyland, the Southern California themed attraction no longer holds a monopoly on make believe. Move over Mr. Toad and Dumbo, its time to share the stage with California lawmakers who increasingly act to minimize the risks and stigma of abortion.

The latest evidence comes by way of Assembly Bill (AB) 980, an amended bill that now seeks to have abortions classified as non-surgical procedures. By doing so, the bill attempts to qualify abortion clinics for the designation of a “primary care clinic.”

Using the “gut and amend” maneuver in which the language of an existing bill is nixed while a new bill is—often quietly—slipped into its place, author Richard Pan, (D-Sacramento), proposes to reduce building code requirements that would make it easier and cheaper for abortion mills like Planned Parenthood to take the life of preborn children.

Not surprisingly, Planned Parenthood is lobbying for the bill’s passage, declaring abortions “safe and common,” a comment that is mind-boggling on two fronts: How can those who have advocated for legalized abortion by referring to “back alley” butchers, now advocate for removing established safety barriers? Furthermore, how is it possible that society has devolved to the point that we’ve become so heartbreakingly callous that killing a baby in the womb is now dismissed as “common” health care?

If Pan’s AB 980 passes, abortion in California, both surgical and medical, would be designated as “primary care,” essentially placing it in the same “routine” category as immunizations and treatments for bumps and bruises.

“For medical abortions, there is no difference between taking a pill for a cold or taking one to induce an abortion,” Beth Parker, chief legal counsel for Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, wrote in her analysis supporting AB 980.

However, Parker’s analogy reveals the darkness of this agenda; there is a huge difference between the two pills. “Morning-after” pills induce bleeding and in instances when the pill malfunctions, doctors must be present in order to follow up with suction procedures. Even when the pills work, serious side affects—severe abdominal pains, blurred vision, shortness of breath, chest pains, limb numbness and severe headaches—have occurred in patients. The consequences are far more serious than taking a pill for a cold.

Parker then goes on to describe aspiration abortions—those that use suction to dismember the child in utero—as no different than the “insertion of an intrauterine device or for an endometrial biopsy.”

As absurd as the arguments are for AB 980, there is a deeper, more troubling pattern emerging as lawmakers continue to focus on reducing the standards of care for abortion, even those that seem as innocuous as building codes.

As you know, we have been closely following AB 154 (Atkins, D-San Diego), the ill-advised law to lessen the medical training required to perform surgical abortions. That bill, which has already cleared two Assembly committees, gets a hearing before the Appropriations Committee on Wednesday after not receiving a scheduled review last week. Also on the committee’s docket that day will be its companion bill, AB 980.

Please use the committee list below to tell your elected officials that decreasing the standards of care for abortion, both in the skill level of health care professionals and in the brick-and-mortar requirements for buildings, is a mammoth step in the wrong direction. As we proved last year, citizen pressure can, and does, derail misguided legislation.

If for no other reason, the more stringent building code requirements should be maintained to remind us that abortion procedures should never be viewed as “common” again.
READ MORE
 







California Family
Alliance

advocates for issues that affect innocent life, religious liberty, and the historic, traditional family.























CFA is registered with the IRS as a 501(c)(4) organization; contributions to CFA are NOT tax-deductible. We rely on the gifts of families and individuals who believe California’s public policies must be researched, analyzed and communicated to the state’s citizens, in order to motivate participation in the process of government.

Unsubscribe donna@mycpc.org from this list.

Copyright (C) 2013 California Family Council All rights reserved.

Forward this email to a friend
Update your profile