You don’t have to be pro-life to be pro-medical-standards

The U.S. House of Representatives voted last week to eliminate federal funding for Planned Parenthood, which provides abortions, along with … Continued

The U.S. House of Representatives voted last week to eliminate federal funding for Planned Parenthood, which provides abortions, along with a variety of health care services for women. The Virginia General Assembly last week approved legislation that requires abortion clinics to be regulated as hospitals, and providers say the stricter regulations will force many of them out of business. Both measures were pushed by anti-abortion activists. Should personal and religious views be allowed to prevent women from having access to a legal medical procedure?

This question is a red herring; the issue is not about accessibility but accountability and oversight.

Why wouldn’t anyone be in favor of holding abortion clinics to the same medical standards as we do hospitals? We have a moral obligation to do so. What’s unfolding within the Virginia legislature has nothing to do with limiting abortion, but instead putting in some minimum safeguards. There is a difference, and regardless of one’s religious perspective (or none at all), one would think that on this matter our humanity would demand that we find common ground.

In recent days it’s become more and more apparent that abuse within the abortion industry is rampant and likely rising, which is saying something given its long and sordid history. From cooperating with individuals posing as underage sex traffickers to performing illegal abortions on minors, corruption is escalating. To be clear, abortion is no simple medical procedure. It is tragic beyond words and deeply troubling to many, including me.

Supporters of abortion rights often argue that those of us who frame our objections in moral terms do so subjectively, suggesting that our personal morality is no basis for law. The reality, of course, is that all laws are, at root, based in morality. As a Christian, I believe the same moral considerations that make murder illegal ought to make abortion illegal. Justifying killing based on locale — inside or outside the womb — is both illogical and immoral to me.

But one doesn’t have to share my convictions about the immorality of abortion to view the Virginia legislation as a way to reduce the possibility of abuse by doctors toward women. The horror found inside Kermit Gosnell’s Philadelphia abortion clinic is but one heartbreaking example of the many rogue abortionists who operate facilities in clear violation of the law.

When babies are murdered with scissors after birth, and women die as a result of botched abortions, as allegedly occurred inside Gosnell’s clinic, justice demands that we act in response to such evil. If it were any other medical “procedure,” everyone would be clamoring for regulation.


  • WmarkW

    There’ve been a couple of other panelist posts along these same lines. The above looks like “let’s insure the highest standards, and if that just so happens to make it expensive or inaccessible, that’s just the marketplace re-allocating resources.”It doesn’t seem like anyone is truly on board with “safe, legal, available and rare,” except some as a pipe dream.

  • ritaJ2

    It seems ironic that the general outrage against this abortionist, Gosnell, has concentrated chiefly on the unhygienic conditions in which he carried out his grisly business of killing these tiny defenceless human beings. It is more than just financial greed that drives late-term abortionists to cut corners. It is blind prejudice that allowed these ‘doctors’ to refuse to even acknowledge the humanity of the small defenceless lives they deliberately truncate. The saddest aspect of every late term abortion is that this second patient, a little boy-child or girl-child, is lethally attacked by ‘doctors’ who treat him or her as a piece of problematical rubbish, of no value, as ‘a problem’ to be removed and disposed of. Even in the most pristine medical settings, abortion remains a psuedo-medical procedure that harms both the mother and her child.

  • ITs-TIME


Read More Articles

Top 10 Reasons We’re Glad A Catholic Colbert Is Taking Over Letterman’s “Late Show”

How might we love Stephen Colbert as the “Late Show” host? Let us count the ways.

God’s Not Dead? Why the Good News Is Better than That

The resurrection of Jesus is not a matter of private faith — it’s a proclamation for the whole world.

An Untold Story of Bondage to Freedom: Passover 1943

How a foxhole that led to a 77-mile cave system saved the lives of 38 Ukrainian Jews during the Holocaust.

Friend or Foe? Learning from Judas About Friendship with Jesus

We call Judas a betrayer. Jesus called him “friend.”

Fundamentalist Arguments Against Fundamentalism

The all-or-nothing approach to the Bible used by skeptics and fundamentalists alike is flawed.

Mary Magdalene, the Closest Friend of Jesus

She’s been ignored, dismissed, and misunderstood. But the story of Easter makes it clear that Mary was Jesus’ most faithful friend.

The Three Most Surprising Things Jesus Said

Think you know Jesus? Some of his sayings may surprise you.

How to Debate Christians: Five Ways to Behave and Ten Questions to Answer

Advice for atheists taking on Christian critics.

Heaven Hits the Big Screen

How “Heaven is for Real” went from being an unsellable idea to a bestselling book and the inspiration for a Hollywood movie.

This God’s For You: Jesus and the Good News of Beer

How Jesus partied with a purpose.

Jesus, Bunnies, and Colored Eggs: An Explanation of Holy Week and Easter

So, Easter is a one-day celebration of Jesus rising from the dead and turning into a bunny, right? Not exactly.

Dear Evangelicals, Please Reconsider Your Fight Against Gay Rights

A journalist and longtime observer of American religious culture offers some advice to his evangelical friends.