After being passed by the Indiana House of Representatives at the beginning of February, House Bill 1080, which is a bill regulating the physical layouts of abortion clinics, has caused a recent stir. On the surface, the bill itself seems harmless - it mainly sets building standards that would suggest better accessibility and privacy. The outcry emerged when Planned Parenthood announced existing abortion clinics would probably go under financially and have to close if forced to comply with these standards, since costly remodeling would be required.
Abortion advocates have since concluded the bill is nothing more than an underhanded attempt to eliminate abortion within our state. They have gone on to suggest that Indiana lawmakers are pushing an agenda in the face of the law and must not care about women's health.
I did some research on the bill to see if any of these conspiracy theory claims were accurate. Interestingly, what I was easily able to find suggests that much of the hoopla is a little off. I spoke with people in the offices of both the bill's author, Rep. Marlin Stutzman, and a sponsor of it, Rep. Jackie Walorski, in an attempt to discover where these regulations came from. Were they part of some pro-life political agenda? Hardly. The regulations were actually developed and handed down by the Indiana State Department of Health. Speaking with the legislative director of the Department of Health only further confirmed that the bill was not part of any agenda; rather, it was a normal part of the regulation process.
When the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability and Americans with Disabilities acts were put into law, all medical facilities licensed by the states had to comply with the standards the acts set forth. No exceptions. No "grandfathering in" existing facilities. Why is it that abortion advocates are willing to conclude that lawmakers are against women's health, rather than that this bill is about complying with a standard all other medical facilities are held to? These clinics are offering a "medical procedure" after all. Why make an exception? Especially when exceptions, in the case of medical regulation, can be dangerous.
Interestingly, a similar situation to what is happening now occurred right here in Indiana several years ago. The home care medical industry underwent changes in regulation. Home care agencies were forced to comply with the same standards for Medicare payment as the rest of the medical industry. Home care service providers complained they would go under financially if compelled to abide by these new standards, and during the next two years, half of the home care agencies in the state had to close.
Was there a public outcry? No. Were there suggestions of "unconstitutional" ex post facto lawmaking? No. Were there suggestions that lawmakers didn't care about the health of the elderly because they were the primary beneficiaries of the home care industry? Certainly not. Why? Because such claims would obviously be false. So why, in light of alternate and, likely, more realistic possibilities, are these claims being made now?
So what is House Bill 1080 really about? My initial conclusion was very close: privacy, accessibility and standardization. It's not about using underhanded means to strike at abortion clinics throughout the state. To come to such a conclusion despite obvious and more realistic possibilities is sorry, and putting such nonsense into print is irresponsible at best.
Read More
Three Air Jam teams take home the win
October 12, 2012Nineteen teams shimmied, shook and flipped for a sold out John R. Emens Auditorium on Thursday night during the 25th annual Air Jam.
Bill Clinton Speaks at North Central High School
October 12, 2012Former President's Speech Could Have Effect on State Senate Race
