Agreed.
Disagree. Let’s assume the issue is certifications – how long does the new business have to obtain the certifications? Will the regulations provide grandfathering to existing employees? The answers to those questions could mean that complying can be done quite cheaply.
I agree they’re probably not lying about their finances. But I contend they’re speculating about the financial impact they will suffer.
Well, IAAL, but not this kind of lawyer, so I don’t have much in the way of special insight. But I’m fairly confident there are types of hospitals, with a Level One Trauma Center needing different things to stay open than a community hospital. So what I don’t know is: is the most generous category of “hospital” still too onerous for abortion clinics to meet?
I don’t know either. However, I’m guessing people who run abortion clinics in Virginia probably have a better idea, what with them working in that industry and having access to lawyers who do. And since you haven’t refuted my guess that 80% of the regulations are already written and in place, I don’t think it’s fair to say that the 17 abortion clinics are operating off of pure speculation. While the new 20% of requirements may have yet to be written, there’s nothing in this scenario that leads me to believe the abortion clinics haven’t had plenty of time to look at the existing regulations put in place by the Board of Health and make a determination about their feasibility.
I don’t need to refute a guess.
Or, to put it another way, MY guess is that there is insufficient information to reach a conclusion strong enough to justify the definitive statement that 17 clinics must close.
The “new 20%” seems to be a figure you derived from noting the existing regulations fall into four areas, and that this adds a fifth. But that’s a facile analysis. If the law also covered regulations for hunting, fishing, open-air fires, watercraft, and all-terrain vehicle use, we wouldn’t say that there were now 90% of the regulations written and only 10% new ones coming, because the mere fact that some sections exist is irrelevant – they don’t apply to abortion clinics. (“Ed’s Moose Hunt and D&C Extraction Service,” obviously, being an exception.)
We have no evidence at all on which to form any opinions about what percentage of regulations now apply, or what percentage of new regulations will. It’s simply unfounded speculation.
God I can only dream. If only Able Lincoln had told the Confederacy not to let the door hit its ass on the way out.
Since they’re not hospitals, they shouldn’t have to meet those requirements, period. There are numerous types of medical offices and clinics offering services of equal (and perhaps greater) medical risk which are not being required to meet any different category of requirements. There is no evidence whatsoever that there is a need for this change of requirements in order to improve patient outcomes, patient safety or anyone’s health or wellbeing.
And if said requirements involve modifications to the physical layout of the buildings, or the inclusion of additional (unnecessary) equipment, that’s absolutely going to cause some closures because, like doctors’ offices and clinics of all sorts nationwide, most abortion facilities are in leased, multi-tenant space, not in self-owned, standalone buildings, and most (every one I’ve been in, which is quite a few) are using every inch of available space already. They can’t modify their hallways or doorways and they can’t just build an addition because they’re in an office building or commercial strip. Even if they could afford to move or build a site that meets physical layout requirements of hospitals, what happens to their patients (keeping in mind that facilities that provide abortions also provide other crucial healthcare) in the time they’re closed for the move?
OK, I’ll use stronger language. Bricker, I think you’re wrong. You seem to be under the impression that this bill will mandate some new requirements for hospitals, and that for the purposes of those new requirements, abortion clinics count as hospitals. I initially thought you were right, but after reading through the bill several times, I think you’re wrong. The bill does 2 things. 1) It mandates new requirements, and 2) it reclassifies abortion clinics as hospitals. (2) applies not only to the new requirements, but also to all of the old requirements.
It doesn’t even matter that there are new requirements in there. They’re immaterial to the abortion clinic issue. Forget about them. The only percentage that matters is 100%, which is the part of the Board of Health “hospital” regulations that will apply to abortion clinics if and when this bill goes into effect.
I could very well be wrong, which is why I was trying to defer to the judgement of a lawyer. For all I know, “paragraph” doesn’t mean what I think it means. That’s why I posted the link to the bill and asked my question straight up, which you responded to without really answering the question. If I’m right, though, the 21 abortion clinics have every bit of information they need to determine if they can meet the existing regulations required for hospitals.
Which is why I qualified it with “any meaningful sense”. A fetus is only alive in the sense that a tumor is alive. True, unlike a tumor it may develop into a human being. The same can also be said about a sperm cell or an unfertilized egg, yet no sane person would argue each of them is a person.
For what it’s worth, I agree with this statement.
But I don’t agree that you’re right in the first place. However, I’ll admit that my disagreement is not particularly strong, or arising from a careful analysis of the extant regulations, because I haven’t done that.
Fascinating.
But not remotely relevant to the point I was making.
This is tangentially relevant. IF said requirements involve physical modifications, you’re quite right.
I’m saying that I don’t know if they will, and neither does anyone else. Yet.
Several years after the same-sex marriage amendment became part of the Virginia constitution, I posted a thread asking opponents about the failure of any unprosecuted domestic violence cases to appear.
The overall reaction from that thread were comments like, “Wow - get a life!” and “How long have you been holding this grudge?” and “Obsessive, much?”
So let me ask this up front: when would be an appropriate time to revisit this issue and point out that none, or only a few, clinics have closed their doors? If in two years, of these seventeen clinics only two have closed, would it be appropriate to point out that their claims now were alarmist?
Maybe. It would depend on where those 15 obtained the funds to stay open. If they obtained them by receiving heavily discounted equipment from the two that closed, or additional business due to the closing of two clinics* or from outside donations from someone who wanted them to remain open but hadn’t previously donated in large amounts I’d say no, they weren’t alarmist. Their financial situation changed due to outside factors that couldn’t be planned around. As far as those 15 clinics knew at the time they were indeed going to be forced out of business.
Now if those 17 clinics are owned by the same group then yes, it’s alarmist because they made it sound like they were going under completely when they really meant they were going to have to scale back. But if those 17 clinics are all or almost all independant of each other they don’t have that shared pool of resources.
Alternately if those 15 clinics stay open because they were able to budget around the new regulations then you’re correct and they were alarmist. Although staying open due to raising the cost of the procedure to a level that excludes many of the people who would use it would certainly be a bad situation forced on them by Virginia.
*If they stay open solely because of increased business due to closings it’s bordeline alarmist in my opinion. The problem then wasn’t the new regulations but that there were simply too many clinics and some deserved to go under. It’s not really something you can plan around so it isn’t quite alarmist, but in this case it’s a problem of the clinics’ own making. However I haven’t seen anything to suggest that the problem is having too many abortion providers in Virginia. Excepting, of course, the people who think one is too many.
It would be a more balanced revisit if you (future Bricker) brought along some statistics about some tangible good the legislation has brought to the Commonwealth. Infections lowered by X amount, death and disease reduced by Y per 1000 procedures preformed. That sort of thing. Proving that some guy was sort of alarmist two years in the past about the limited “17 out 21” statement isn’t worthy of the future you.
But why? I’m not claiming the legislation will do any good. I’m not even claiming the clinics won’t ultimately have to close. I’m claiming that since the relevant regulations have nor yet been written, no one can say with any certainty what the results will be.
Which is incorrect.
Do you at least acknowledge that granting the government the power to do something can have an impact on behavior even if they don’t actually do it? And that simply viewing the number of open clinics might not be a sufficient indicator to determine whether this new piece of government action has had an impact on the ability of women in the Commonwealth to exercise their constitutional rights to terminate a pregnancy?
Yes.
Yes.
Good. That said, I can then pretty much agree with you - there is always a lot of alarmism with this sort of thing that isn’t helpful. I don’t think the purpose is to close the clinics down. Just scare the crap out of them that they could be closed down to make them compliant in other ways.
Maybe.
And of course maybe, since the Board of Health is appointed by the governor, they WILL impose onerous restrictions and regulations. If your janitorial staff has to have PhDs, obviously your costs will go up.
I’m just saying… don’t know. When the Board issues the new regs, THEN we can discuss this with some degree of informed speculation. I’m open to the possibility of onerous regs; I’m just saying it’s too soon to say definitively one way or the other.
I think the current board is a Kaine holdover.