Recently there has been a controversy over whether an area abortion clinic should reopen. This clinic was closed for numerous safety and health violations. Furthermore it seems that the doctor running the clinic has had numerous malpractice charges filed against him.
Now it would seem that no matter where you stand on this issue, that if these alleged violations are true (and they must have been for it to be closed down) then closing it was a good thing. Apparently not, however.
There are those who call themselves "pro-choice" who are acknowledging that conditions were substandard but it provided a necessary service to women in need. They are in effect saying, "Yes, but . . . "
I just wonder how many of these people would use this clinic if they themselves (or someone in their family) needed the particular service it provides, knowing, as they have admitted, how this place was run--or would they go somewhere else? They are saying that it ought not to have been closed because it was the only option for poor women. But would they go there themselves? I am thinking there is a bit of a double standard here--that the lives of poor women are not as important as the lives of women who are better off and that if a woman dies in an illegal back alley abortion they rally around her but if she dies in a legal abortion at a filthy clinic run by a doctor with a known history of malpractice, well, that is just part of the risks she takes.
If this was any other type of clinic there would be no "yes, but." It would be closed and it would remain closed.
I've been following this issue since 1973 when Roe vs. Wade made abortion legal, and it seems like every time anyone from the pro-life side proposes any kind of regulation regarding these clinics, the other side screams foul. Why is it that they don't want these places regulated and inspected? If they are so concerned about women's safety then why are places like the clinic I just described allowed to stay open? Why aren't they being proactive?
Because it isn't about women's safety at all. Choice has become an idol, and idols require sacrifice. And God knows, we certainly don't need any more people running around like I saw at the homeless shelter the other night. Because those are the poor, desperate women that clinics like that serve. When you are poor and desperate you will find you will have no end of so-called friends who are out to exploit you any way they can get. On both sides of the issue.
Now, in contrast, today the FDA announced that it was proposing radically new food safety rules in regards to farmers and food companies. Even though the majority of responsible food producers are already following practices similar to the new rules, foodborne illness is still a problem. It's estimated that there are 3,000 deaths a year caused by contaminated food and the number of those sickened is probably much higher.
Can you imagine if anti-hunger advocates said, "Yes, but . . . Sure, Company X has pools of dirty water on the floor and birds flying through the facility doing what birds do, but, people need to eat. They need to have cheap food and Company X is the only one who provides it. If you shut it down for violations people will go hungry." Somehow I don't think that excuse will fly. Or--"it's the work of anti-organic farming activists (or PETA)." No, that would not go over either.
Safety is safety. Unsafe, unsanitary conditions should not be excused. They should not be defended. There should be no place for "yes, but . . ."
Now it would seem that no matter where you stand on this issue, that if these alleged violations are true (and they must have been for it to be closed down) then closing it was a good thing. Apparently not, however.
There are those who call themselves "pro-choice" who are acknowledging that conditions were substandard but it provided a necessary service to women in need. They are in effect saying, "Yes, but . . . "
I just wonder how many of these people would use this clinic if they themselves (or someone in their family) needed the particular service it provides, knowing, as they have admitted, how this place was run--or would they go somewhere else? They are saying that it ought not to have been closed because it was the only option for poor women. But would they go there themselves? I am thinking there is a bit of a double standard here--that the lives of poor women are not as important as the lives of women who are better off and that if a woman dies in an illegal back alley abortion they rally around her but if she dies in a legal abortion at a filthy clinic run by a doctor with a known history of malpractice, well, that is just part of the risks she takes.
If this was any other type of clinic there would be no "yes, but." It would be closed and it would remain closed.
I've been following this issue since 1973 when Roe vs. Wade made abortion legal, and it seems like every time anyone from the pro-life side proposes any kind of regulation regarding these clinics, the other side screams foul. Why is it that they don't want these places regulated and inspected? If they are so concerned about women's safety then why are places like the clinic I just described allowed to stay open? Why aren't they being proactive?
Because it isn't about women's safety at all. Choice has become an idol, and idols require sacrifice. And God knows, we certainly don't need any more people running around like I saw at the homeless shelter the other night. Because those are the poor, desperate women that clinics like that serve. When you are poor and desperate you will find you will have no end of so-called friends who are out to exploit you any way they can get. On both sides of the issue.
Now, in contrast, today the FDA announced that it was proposing radically new food safety rules in regards to farmers and food companies. Even though the majority of responsible food producers are already following practices similar to the new rules, foodborne illness is still a problem. It's estimated that there are 3,000 deaths a year caused by contaminated food and the number of those sickened is probably much higher.
Can you imagine if anti-hunger advocates said, "Yes, but . . . Sure, Company X has pools of dirty water on the floor and birds flying through the facility doing what birds do, but, people need to eat. They need to have cheap food and Company X is the only one who provides it. If you shut it down for violations people will go hungry." Somehow I don't think that excuse will fly. Or--"it's the work of anti-organic farming activists (or PETA)." No, that would not go over either.
Safety is safety. Unsafe, unsanitary conditions should not be excused. They should not be defended. There should be no place for "yes, but . . ."
