Abortion ‘Safety’ Requirements Have Nothing To Do With Women’s Health

Last Wednesday marked a significant milestone for reproductive rights in Virginia. On Oct. 1, the interim state health commissioner, Marissa Levine, recommended that Virginia overhaul controversial and medically unnecessary measures regulating abortion clinics; the state Board of Health will vote on her recommendations in early December.

These measures, which were pushed through by former Gov. Bob McDonnell and championed by his Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (pictured), required that clinics be regulated as hospitals, not clinics or doctor’s offices. Under these rules, freestanding abortion clinics would be held to the same structural rules as hospitals — even rules that had nothing to do with patient safety (such as adding more parking spaces and covering entryways). Operating under the new requirements meant that existing clinics would have to retrofit their facilities or, if they could not make the costly renovations, be forced to close.

The McDonnell measures sound awfully familiar to other restrictions that states have placed on abortion clinics around the country — most notably in Texas, which reached a new milestone of its own one day after Virginia’s Levine announced her decision. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Texas in its ongoing crusade to severely restrict reproductive access in the state, agreeing that the state could force abortion clinics to adhere to the same building, equipment and staffing standards that hospital-style surgical centers must meet. Never mind that, like in Virginia, these standards have nothing to do with patient safety. Never mind that all 13 clinics were safe, reputable facilities that had been providing comprehensive health services in their communities for years. And never mind that only seven or eight clinics will remain open in an enormous state where 5.4 million women are of child-bearing age. Apparently the Fifth Circuit is more interested in seeing just how far it can push against the “undue burden” standard established in Casey v. Planned Parenthood than in keeping safe medical care accessible to the women—and men—of Texas.

The Fifth Circuit’s decision is temporary, and there is a chance that it could be reversed; indeed, reproductive rights advocates have already said that they are exploring legal options. And while I hope they prevail, I also have to confess to weariness with the constant seesaw that is reproductive health care in this country. Giving so much power to the courts and the statehouses, where the Texas law originated, means that in far too many states access to a legal medical procedure could literally be here today, gone tomorrow. It means that in far too many states far too much time, energy and money is being spent in court battles over why the state is putting itself in the middle of a private health decision, while ignoring the very real struggles faced by women, families, and actual, living children.

A report released last week by the Center for Reproductive Rights and Ibis Reproductive Health looked at just this issue, examining the correlation between abortion restrictions, women’s health, and state policies supporting women and children. And among its findings was that the more abortion restrictions a state has, the less likely that state is to also have evidence-based policies that promote the well-being and health of both women and children; and the more likely the state is to have poor health outcomes for women and children. For example, politicians in Louisiana have been spending a great deal of effort trying to advance a medically unnecessary admitting privileges law (which was recently blocked by a federal judge). Yet Louisiana also has one of the highest maternal and infant mortality rates in the country. Oklahoma currently has 14 abortion restrictions, which ties with Kansas and Mississippi for the highest number of any state. Oklahoma also has some of the worst outcomes for women’s health, including lower rates of cancer screening and higher uninsured rates. Conversely, states that had the fewest restrictions on abortion also had better outcomes for women and children’s health.

So here is yet more evidence that all the effort politicians expend trying to restrict access to abortion services isn’t about women’s health at all. And while anecdotal evidence has pointed to this for quite a while, it is the inverse correlation between abortion restrictions and children’s health that is the most troubling.

Anti-choice politicians and activists like to talk a lot about the unborn, but they rarely extend their fetus devotion to an equally fervent interest in the lives of actual children. But the children that are already here deserve to have their health and well being taken seriously. They deserve to have healthy parents that can access cancer screenings and afford health insurance. They deserve elected officials that are willing to put ideology aside and instead focus on providing the best possible supports and programs to ensure that all actual children thrive.

The current review in Virginia, which will does not directly address these issues. But it is no secret that if the McDonnell measures are allowed to stand, the majority of the state’s abortion clinics will be unable to afford the necessary renovations to meet the new regulations. Their closures would mean that women all over the state would lose access not just to safe abortion care, but also a wide range of services including health exams, contraception, prenatal care, adoption counseling, and a host of other services designed to benefit the overall health and wellness of both women and men. And that would be a devastating outcome not just for the women themselves, but also for their families.

Sarah Erdreich is the author of Generation Roe: Inside the Future of the Pro-Choice Movement. She lives with her family in Washington, D.C.