California enacts law allowing non-doctor abortionists
Last week, I went to a CVS MinuteClinic to have a funny-looking mole checked out. MinuteClinics are staffed by nurse practitioners and physician’s assistants, rather than doctors, which makes them a relatively inexpensive way for patients to take care of minor health issues like a cold or pink eye. Unfortunately for me, the nurse practitioner on duty was not allowed to scalpel off my mole; that was beyond her expertise. But she didn’t charge me for the visit, so I can’t complain.
In light of that recent experience, I was floored when I read about a law that abortion supporters in California just enacted:
California Governor Jerry Brown has signed a bill into law that makes it so nurses in California can do abortions, even though they do not have a valid medical license certifying them as a physician. [. . .] Senate Bill 623, by Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, was supported by Planned Parenthood and opposed by pro-life groups. Introduced by Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego), it extends a program run by the University of California, San Francisco, in which nurse practitioners, midwives and physicians assistants are trained to perform abortions.
Remove a tiny bit of skin from a patient’s arm: not okay for a nurse practitioner or physician’s assistant. Remove an unborn child from the womb? Be my guest.
California has officially gone off the deep end.
Everyday I'm baffled at how we have such a double standards for these kinds of things.
Actually, the bill allows them to *EVALUATE the safety and efficiency* of allowing them to do NON-SURGICAL abortions. It does NOT allow them to do abortions. The quoted portion above is false. (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0601-0650/sb_623_bill_20120905_enrolled.html)
I thought there must be a reason that only "lifenews.com" thought this was big news. Now I know why: because they're wrong.
While I have little confidence in LifeNews (LifeSiteNews is better), I came to a different conclusion after reviewing the statute.
Your link is broken.
My source indicates that, under the program that was reauthorized and extended, "[nurse practitioners, certified nurse-midwives, and physician assistants]…perform first trimester aspiration abortions…" Aspiration abortions are surgical abortions.
While I have little confidence in LifeNews (LifeSiteNews is better), my review of the statute derived a different conclusion.
Your link is broken.
According to my source, in the program that was reauthorized and extended, "[nurse practitioners, certified nurse-midwives, and physician assistants]…perform first trimester aspiration abortions…"
Sorry for the double post.
So to the OP I would ask if they have any knowledge as to places like CVS being specifically barred from performing on site surgery of the kind they described or if CVS opts not to perform such things voluntarily for insurance and / or zoning reasons, for example. Their whole analogy depends on that information, it seems to me.
To all those making comparisons to back alley abortions and other such comments about this procedure being inherently unsafe or "anti women", what exactly are you basing this on? It says right in the bill that there is research to indicate such a practice is perfectly safe. Do you have research to suggest otherwise?