Causes for hope on ending abortion

Yesterday was the 32nd anniversary of the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion in the United States. To mark the occasion, tens of thousands of Americans marched in Washington, in the freezing cold and snow, to demand that the Supreme Court reverse their decision, and that elected officials find ways to protect life in America.

The annual March for Life is a valuable exercise in political activism and public education. But the influence of Washington political leaders on the practice of abortion in this country is limited. While it’s true, theoretically, that the Supreme Court could decide tomorrow that every state law in the country permitting abortion is unconstitutional, that is not going to happen. Nor is it likely that Congress will pass a Human Life Amendment banning abortion.

Even if Congress passed this Amendment tomorrow, it would have to go to the states for ratification. And this is where there is currently the most reason for hope for prolife Americans. As valuable as the March for Life in Washington is, 50 marches in 50 state capitals would probably produce more immediate change.

There is evidence of the value of state activism on abortion in a recent article entitled “Post-Roe Postcard,” in the ultra-liberal journal The Nation. The author writes of the successes for the prolife movement in Mississippi. That state’s experience demonstrates what works on the state level.

Mississippi has, in the author’s words, “every possible restriction [on abortion], from a mandatory twenty-four hour waiting period after counseling, to a requirement that minors obtain the consent of both parents to have an abortion.” Here in Virginia, we do not require parental consent to a minor’s abortion, although at least one parent has to be notified that his or her minor child will be having an abortion.

Virginia also has a ban on partial-birth abortions and a 24-hour waiting period, following mandatory counseling of the abortion procedure, its risks, and abortion alternatives. Virginia also requires that abortions in the second trimester be performed in a hospital or ambulatory surgical center. The commonwealth also permits health care workers to refuse to participate in abortion on the basis of conscience or religious conviction.

But what has really made the difference in Mississippi is what The Nation describes as “thirty-five pages of regulations dealing with such physical characteristics as the width of a clinic’s hallways and the size of its parking lot.” As any small business owner will tell you, 35 pages of regulations is a light regulatory burden, and restrictions on such things as hallways and parking lots are common to any business that is open to the public. Medical facilities that perform major abdominal surgery, which is what an abortion is, have to deal with even more government regulations. The one exception to this rule is abortion clinics, in most of the country. (What The Nation does not say is that the regulations apply only to clinics that perform more than 10 abortions per month and/or 100 abortions per year.)

Clinic regulation is the future of the abortion battle in the United States, and it will take place on the state and local level. The largest abortion providers in the United States make their profits largely by operating in volume. In many cases, the abortionists are only on site a few days a month. There is frequently little opportunity for even physical follow-up care, let alone for the emotional and psychological needs of the women. All of these conditions are to increase the profitability of abortion clinics. Also increasing their profitability is the extremely light regulatory regime under which most abortion clinics operate.

In the General Assembly this year, there are three noteworthy bills having to do with abortion. HB1662, introduced by Del. L. Scott Lingamfelter, R-Woodbridge, would require parental notification of any medical advice or procedure relating to sexually transmitted diseases, the provision of emergency contraception, pregnancy, illegal drug use, and the contemplation of suicide. The bill is currently in the Committee on Health, Welfare and Institutions. HB1524, patroned by Richard Black, R-Sterling, is closer to clinic regulation, in that it notes that unborn children older than 20 weeks feel pain, and requires doctors to administer anesthesia before performing an abortion.

Two bills (HB1809 and 1810), both from Del. Robert G. Marshall, R-Manassas, would prohibit the sale or other traffic of fetal body parts (a sideline that also contributes to the profitability of abortion clinics). All of this regulatory legislation is currently before the Courts of Justice Committee. Since there are also some pro-abortion bills before the General Assembly, including a bill to require health plans to pay for oral contraceptives (which have a relatively high failure rate, leading to more demand for abortions), it seems plain that abortion will be a major issue for Virginia’s legislators this year.

While Virginia will not soon join Mississippi as a fierce protector of unborn children, it could take the first steps in more tightly regulating the clinics in which abortions are performed. As Mississippi has shown, this is the way to go.