Any clinic that performs any type of surgical procedure should be held accountable to the operating standards and safety practices that are required in this state.

It should not matter what the stated surgical procedure is-dentistry,podiatry,cosmetic,lasik eye surgery,etc. There should be no double standard for an invasive procedure that has a potential for infection,risk of adverse reaction to anesthetic or drug,and where at anytime patients could suffer possible life threatening consequences (however rare or unforeseen).

These clinics accept payment whether cash or billable insurance,therefore they must comply with all laws set forth by the State of Missouri,should they wish to practice in our fair State!

Why would there be any exceptions or any clinic "grandfathered" in to subvert minimal standards of care,no matter the type of clinic?

Also,with any public health facility you have an issue of making your clinic up to the Americans with Disabilities acceptable safety codes.Long gone are the days of the barber pulling teeth-it's only fair if all clinics are under compliance!

Am I missing something? What does the width of the hall and doors have to do with the issue?

There are numerous "alphabet" agency's (their names are long and confusing so they use their acronym's- thus they are referred to as alphabet agencys)that oversee all aspects of medical clinics and hospitals. To receive government payments, or to be able to bill private insurance, there are certain standards of care that you must meet.

These standards are judged by these independent alphabet agencys,such as CLIA,who oversees laboratory standards.

To be able to bill or get insurance you need to be accredited by different agency's. To bring a clinic up to these standards can be costly,especially to smaller practices,but it really is necessary to keep improving medicine and keep "quacks" from endangering patients.Yes LeTruth,all surgical clinics must meet the standards set forth for their services, and you are also correct sir that the width of the hallways and doors has to do with moving emergency eqipment, such as a gurney, and crash carts easily into a room,or God forbid, in case of a fire(or firebomb).

Why should an abortion clinic get a pass on patient safety when a LASIK eye center does not? Overhead is costly for any medical practice!

Sacha is right, although she doesn't mention that men of means can, and I know some that have paid for an abortion to undo an unwanted pregnancy.

Sacha is also right that the purpose of this legislation is to reduce the accessibility of a woman to an abortion -- not safety. This same tactic has been used by other states. A 15-second Google search turned up a September 2001 article in Mother Jones magazine "The Quiet War on Abortion," that mentions Louisiana used the width of hallways, etc., as a political tactic to try and shut down abortion clinics.

You really hit a nerve with me on this blog. I hesitate to comment because I know it will not be popular. However, I feel that not doing so is a betrayal of a younger generation of sisters. Here it is:

I remember. I remember what it was like before Roe vs. Wade when it was illegal to get an abortion in this country even in the event of rape or incest.

I remember knowing a 13 year old girl who was forced to bear her older brother's incestuous child because abortion was not an option.

I remember when I was in a dorm in college, a scared young freshman who tried to abort herself in a bathroom with a coat hanger. The theory was that one put a curved end of a coat hanger into one's uterus, hooked the fetus and pulled it out. The theory didn't work for her. She inadvertently pushed the coat hanger through the wall of her uterus and pulled out an artery. We summoned emergency help (pre-911), but she bled to death before they could get her to the hospital. I remember another girl and I cleaning up the bathroom so the other girls wouldn't find the blood in the morning. I remember how strange it felt to sponge up blood that only recently was flowing in a pretty girl's veins. She said she was too scared to tell her father, a minister, that a date had raped her. I remember that there WAS no term "date rape."

I remember the girls joining together to post the names and pictures of known rapists on the walls of the women's dorms and student union in the hopes that other girls would be spared the same fate. I remember getting in trouble with the dean (himself an ordained minister) because if the girls had been raped, they must have done something to deserve it.

I remember that the police and other authorities had the same opinion. Prosecutions were rare. After all, boys will be boys and everyone knows that good girls don't get raped. I remember a judge that dismissed a rape charge because the woman had been "dressed seductively." She was a runner and had on tennis shoes, sweats and a scarf over her hair. Besides, dressing "seductively" was apparent justification for rape.

I remember that the police didn't get involved in domestic disputes even if the wife ended up in the hospital. Once again, prosecutions were rare. Women were often trapped in abusive relationships because there was no help or support from the authorities. If a woman's abusive husband kept her barefoot and pregnant, she had no recourse.

I remember that a woman with a 6-figure income could only get a credit card in her husband's name although he made half that much income. I remember a woman couldn't get a loan to start a business unless her husband got the loan. I remember that prejudice against women pervaded just about every aspect of society.

You younger women have no concept of how hard we had to fight for women's rights and just how terribly far we had to come. You take those rights for granted because you've always known them. A woman's right to choose whether or not to have a baby is just one small part of that fight. That's why those of us who were "women's libbers" and proud of it fight so strongly against any attempt to reduce those hard won rights.

I never had to choose, but I will defend to my dying breath my younger sisters' right to make that choice.

Oh, my gosh! Ducky, you brought back so many memories!! I remember reading all these horror stories, though I never had to mop up a dorm mate's blood in the bathroom!! Even their deaths were hushed up, forbidden knowledge!

I remember that most rapes went unreported, because the girl was put on trial herself, and her name and reputation were destroyed - because some creep raped her! And the guys all knew it! And the cops all knew it!

Thank you SO MUCH for having the courage to remind us of the past! I pray to God that no girl ever has to go through that era again!

I often read these blogs but haven't felt compelled to comment until now. I like to know if the anti-abortionists are adopting the unwanted children produced by mothers who would have otherwise had an abortion. Pro-lifers are so adamant to defend the rights of unborn children, but so few people adopt that these unwanted children are just left to be raised by the system. I think if you're pro-life and you decide to have children, at least one (if not all) of your children should be adopted rather than biological.

Well, here goes. I'll be sorry for voicing this opinion, but since when have I ever done the prudent thing?

I still think that the width of the halls is a cop out. Ducky said it all when she reminded us old folks that the conditions of the seedy, back-room abortion "clinics" of the past make 6-foot wide hall regulations seem pretty ridiculous.

Since when were the pro-choicers worried about the health of a mother who would dare to have an abortion?

And, as for your concern about the unborn child, why are you not also concerned about the child after it's born? I don't notice the pro-lifers working to promote better conditions for the nation's poor and neglected children.

Isn't it a little hypocritical to care so much for the unborn and not the born?

But would you insist on 6-foot wide walls? That is the issue here, you know!

Sacha- Just to inform you...

On the original blog you said "In this day and age, abortion has become a form of birth control, not an alternative for someone who has been raped or is a victim of incest. Too lazy to take care of birth control with a pill or a condom? Don't worry, there's always abortion."

What you might not realize, is that while you are condemning abortion, which is good, you are also condoning the use of the birth control pill. What you, and many other women might not know, is that one of the ways the birth control pill works is by aborting the fertilized egg in the womans body. Birth control pills work in three ways, and I'll just copy and paste from the website "www.pureloveclub.com" to explain it:

"In order to prevent pregnancy, birth control pills employ several mechanisms. First, the synthetic hormones may convince a woman's body that she is pregnant. This can stop the ovaries from releasing an egg. The Pill also makes it difficult for the sperm to reach the egg, because the hormones thicken the cervical mucus. Normally, on the days of each month when a woman is fertile, her cervical mucus has microscopic channels in it that make it easier for the sperm to travel to the egg. The mucus also nourishes the sperm, allowing them to live longer. However, when a woman is infertile (which is true for the greater part of each month) her cervical mucus changes. It looks more like a lattice or mesh at the microscopic level. The Pill causes the woman's body to produce this type of cervical mucus on a continual basis, thus making it difficult for the sperm to live and move. The Pill also creates changes in the uterus and fallopian tubes that can interfere with the transport of sperm.[8]

Despite the hormones' ability to prevent the release of eggs, sometimes a "breakthrough ovulation" takes place. How often this happens depends upon several factors, such as which kind of pill the woman is taking, how consistently she takes her pills, and even how much she weighs. Even with correct and consistent use of the Pill, some formulas allow ovulation in less than 2 percent of cycles, while others allow a woman to ovulate during 65 percent of her cycles.[9]

When a woman ovulates, she can become pregnant. However, the Pill has mechanisms that can cause an abortion, before a woman knows that she has conceived. If a sperm does fertilize the egg, the newly conceived baby (zygote) may be transported more slowly through the fallopian tubes because of how they have been altered by the Pill. Thus, the child may not reach the uterus, where he or she needs to implant and receive nourishment for the next nine months. Because the fallopian tubes are changed, the baby may accidentally implant there, causing an ectopic or "tubal" pregnancy, which is fatal to the baby, and can also be life-threatening for the mother.

If the baby is able to travel safely to the uterus, he or she may not be well received. One reason for this is that the chemicals in the Pill thin out the lining of the woman's uterus (the endometrium).[10] As a result, the baby may not be able to implant. At other times the child will attach to the wall, but he or she will be unable to survive because the normally thick and healthy uterine wall has shriveled and is therefore unable to nourish the baby. The Pill also impacts the woman's progesterone level. This causes the lining of the uterus to break down and eventually shed as it would in a menstrual cycle, further denying the baby's attempt to implant."

This leads to the question: How many children have been aborted because doctors are not informing their patients of the way the pill actually works? Just a thought.

Also you said: "Believe me, I know of several women who have had more than one abortion simply because they didn't use birth control."

Now you know of hundreds of women who have had abortions because they DID use birth control.

This was not to argue for you or against you, just to present a fact. References are listed on the website for where the info came from.

Sacha,

I guess it all depends on when people think life begins. It makes me wonder how many brothers and sisters I'll never have the chance to meet because my mom was on birth control.

I'm not meaning to get personal with you, but if you are at a time in your life that you absolutely cannot have another child in the picture, Natural Family Planning is 99.9% effective when the user does it properly. This is not the old "rhythm method" but a more scientifically developed approach. Plus there are no side effects and many other benefits. I mention this because you said "rely on" and NFP is the most reliable thing available.

You don't need to comment on any of that, just wanted to also throw the NFP phrase out there for anyone who cares.

What a wonderful discussion. We probably won't change each other's minds, but that's ok. It's nice to see an open, frank discussion with so many well-reasoned points of view.

Sacha, you're to be commended for having the courage of your convictions. Bravo.

I'm a little saddened that you don't make the connection between women's rights and a womans right to choose what happens to her body, but that's ok too. We'll just agree to disagree. From your blogs it appears that we agree more often than disagree. The fact that we can calmly and respectfully discuss and still disagree is pretty darned signficant.

Sacha,

Not trying to be too nitpicky, but the Pill as the oldest form of birth control? Not hardly. It was only made available to the public in the early '60s. Condoms and diaphrams no doubt predate birth control pills. Where's Dr. Ruth when you need her? I'll bet she'd know all about the history of birth control.

Great blog, by the way. Some suprisingly interesting, thought provoking comments. Brava for your courage in tackling this subject!

I.B., I'm missing something. Does the "it" refer to the pill, condoms, or the diaphram? I suspect the latter, but not sure if you meant that?

The History Channel rocks! (Except out on my isolated hill, where I get two channels...)