City seeks opinion on abortion clinics

City seeks opinion on abortion clinics

Advertisement

Text size: small | medium | large

By Kipp Hanley

Published: March 14, 2008

The Manassas city council voted Wednesday to allow the city attorney to contract with Virginia attorney William H. Hurd for a second opinion on whether the council can regulate abortion and other clinics in the city.

The council decided to seek Hurd’s advice after an informal opinion from attorney general Robert F. McDonnell to Virginia Senator Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II-37th (R) affirmed the city’s authority to regulate clinics.

In a letter to Cuccinelli dated July 10, 2007 McDonnell states “It is my opinion that the greater weight of the law suggests that the City Council has limited authority to enact an ordinance consistent with its charter, general statutory law, and constitutional jurisprudence, regulating abortion clinics, including one similar to the health and safety provisions of Senate Bill 146.”

The initial bill, which Cuccinelli introduced in 2004 would have forced abortion clinics in Virginia to be licensed like hospitals, was defeated 9-6 at the Education and Health Committee before reaching the Senate floor.

A similar bill was passed through the House of Delegates in 2007 but died again 8-7 in Senate committee.

In the 2008 General Assembly, Delegate Matthew J. Lohr, R-Harrisonburg, introduced a bill requiring abortion clinics to be licensed and comply with requirements currently in place for ambulatory centers. After passing through the House of Delegates 60 to 37, it was shot down in the Senate Education and Health Committee.

The agreement to take another step into the abortion arena was not without some second-guessing. At the Wednesday meeting, councilman Steven Smith sought to clarify the motives of councilman Marc Aveni, who has championed the abortion regulation efforts in the city.

Aveni said he has received numerous questions from residents in regards to the health and safety of women who receive abortions at the Amethyst Health Center located off Sudley Road in Manassas.

Smith said he wanted to make sure that Aveni’s intention was not to keep women from having abortions in the city. Aveni assured the council that was not his intention.

As a reason to do it, Aveni compared regulating abortion clinics to the city’s imminent involvement with the Immigration & Customs Enforcement 287 (g) program, which allows Manassas to enforce federal immigration law at the local level.

Councilman Steven Randolph said he didn’t see the connection, stating that 287 (g) program was one initiated by the feds compared to what would be a locality-run regulatory program for abortion clinics. Currently, no Virginia locality has a similar program.

“The fundamental question [to ask] is can you or can’t you, and if you can, then what are the things that you can legally do,” Aveni said.

As part of the decision to work with Hurd, the council will be seeking an initial closed meeting with the attorney to discuss the scope of the help he will be providing. The council has capped the consultation fees it will pay Hurd at $10,000.

Hurd has argued three cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, including two cases involving the First Amendment and one involving federal special education law. He served as the State Solicitor General from 1999 to 2004, Senior Counsel to the Attorney General from 1998 to 1999 and Deputy Attorney General from 1994 to 1998.

Staff writer Kipp Hanley can be reached at 703-369-5738.

Reader Reactions

Posted by ( Jeff ) on March 18, 2008 at 11:07 am

It is surprising to me that all health services are not regulated.  They should be!!  No matter what your position on abortion is.  Whether it is a dentist office or an abortion clinic, all should be held to a standard to ensure the public’s safety.  I do not believe abortion is a morally acceptable choice. If we cannot protect the baby...at least protect the mother.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( cameron ) on March 18, 2008 at 4:45 am

Abortion is murder, it should be illegal, while it is still legal to murder your unborn child we should at least regulate the clinic as we would any doctor’s office or hospital.  Although the choice is morally wrong the women still deserve the right to properly regulated medical services.  I fully support the city regulating these murder clinics.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( Russ ) on March 18, 2008 at 12:01 am

I am against Abortion. But since the procedure is legal under the law, then the clinics performing this operation should be regulated and approved to perform this operation just as any hospital surgical unit is regulated. If they can not or will not insure the safety of thier patients they should be shut down. Manassas City has an obligation to it’s residents to protect them from unsafe medical practices, as it stands now these clinics operate under a cloke of darkness and no one knows if the staf is able to handle hte emergencies that could occure during htis operation. If you can not close the clinic atleast insure it is operating in a manor to insure the safety of the women who go there for for an abortion, to lose one life is bad enough - should the mother be places at risk too for unsafe or unregulated practices?I

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( tsmith7746 ) on March 17, 2008 at 10:02 pm

I can’t believe we don’t already have health regulations on an office that supposedly does medical procedures on women and their babies. Unfortunately for the babies these kind of places do exist and if we don’t have regulations on them many of the women that go in will be at a greater risk than they even know.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( SteveA ) on March 17, 2008 at 7:04 pm

I agree completely with Angeli on March 17, 2008 at 1:17 pm.  She has it right that all medical clinics including abortion clinics should be regulated to require the same general standards to ensure safe medical care for women.  Since, at the present time, abortion clinics do not have the same general care standards as a doctor’s office or hospital, would the City be liable when a woman has a failed procedure at an abortion clinic?

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( Angeli ) on March 17, 2008 at 12:17 pm

Although I am against Abortion I am very much for medically regulating Abortion Clinics.  Abortion Clinics are performing a medical procedure on women and this procedure could lead to death if not done properly.  If a particular clinic is not a clean and sterile environment, it can pose a health threat to the women it service as well as to the surrounding communities. 

I feel that many women will not step forward to sound the alarm about their particular experience of having an abortion because they are usually traumatized; overwhelmed with feelings of guilt and that they just want the entire experience to be over. 

Medically regulating Abortion Clinics will insure that the clinic 1.  Will use proper medical procedures. 2.  Provide sanitary facilities and equipment.  3.  Board Certified Doctors who will keep accurate records of their patients from start to finish and the status of the child, if it was delivered alive or dead.  4.  Patient follow-up care as well as proper referral and emergency services if needed.

It is a proven fact that in many Abortion Clinics the women or young girls and her parents are forced to sign waivers stating that the clinic will not be held accountable for any adverse conditions of the patient as a result of the abortion.  This is a deplorable practice and this is the reason why Abortion Clinics should be medically regulated.  If Planned Parenthood really upholds a woman’s right to choose and the right of that woman to have a safe abortion than medically regulating an Abortion Clinic should not be up for debate but it should be expected and mandatory.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( zcxnissan ) on March 17, 2008 at 1:16 am

All businesses should be fairly and safely regulated. Chris Cummings

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( Chris ) on March 16, 2008 at 7:26 pm

Physical problems resulting from abortions range from hemorrhage and infection to sterility and even death.  Why would anyone in their right mind oppose regulation of abortion clinics?  Apparently some people are so fearful that abortion will no longer be tolerated in the future (for obvious reasons) that they adopt the most radical positions and abandon common sense.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( dcore ) on March 14, 2008 at 11:25 am

This makes a lot of sense and is a wise use of the City’s resources.  It is estimated that as many as 1000 women a year use the clinic and the only requirement for the clinic to operate is a business license!  If through this effort one woman’s death or injury is prevented, then good for the City.  After all the City is regulating food vendors, regulates zoning, regulates what kind of business can operate out of a home—and these are all fair and good.  Other states regulate these clinics so this isn’t new and they continue to operate.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( WSGFN ) on March 14, 2008 at 10:56 am

How about ANY professional/clinic etc. who performs ANY “intrusive” service be looked at and held to the same health standards...Why just abortion clinics? Why not EVERYONE’s health including animals!!!!  What about dermatologist, plastic surgeons, dentists, oral surgeons, nail care, animal clinics the list is endless.

I smell a RAT trying to pry into WOMEN’s health issues.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Post a Comment

The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.


Tags relating to this article:

  • No tags are associated with this article.

Can't find what you're looking for? Try our quick search:



Email This Print This AddThis Social Bookmark Button RSS Feed Add to My Yahoo!

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement