By CAMILLE GIGLIO
April 12, 2012 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org - California Democrats have proposed a bill, SB1338, which is fatally flawed, morally, professionally and politically.
The bill, authored by Sen. Christine Kehoe, was amended this week and sent back to the Business and Professions Committee. A hearing date has been set, April 16, before the Senate Business and Professions Committee [chaired by Curren Price [D] and vice chaired by Bill Emmerson [R].
As worded now, the proposed legislation boldly confirms and acknowledges what opponents of laissez-faire abortion have claimed all along as being the bill's agenda - downgrading the [now] illegal act of first trimester abortions being performed by anyone other than a licensed physician/surgeon, to the status of a simple legal health care procedure performed as a routine health care service by midwives. Additionally, it seems to confirm that midwives, nurse assistants and nurse practitioners have already been performing first trimester abortions in a clandestine manner without a specific license and with a minimal amount of training.
An interested party in this matter is the California Nursing Association. The Association has a history of support for "democratizing" abortion. For example the CNA aligned itself with a 2003 measure entitled the California's Reproductive Privacy Act [Health and Safety Code 123460] which expanded the "Scope Of Practice" of this sub-group of medical workers. The Board of Registered Nursing also endorsed this legislation.
In general, it's CNA's view this bill is unnecessary because the aforementioned California's Reproductive Privacy Act [Health and Safety Code had already substantially expanded the "Scope Of Practice" - as defined by law - of these practitioners.
In an April 11 telephone conversation, a spokesman for the group told us that it had preliminarily endorsed SB 1338 but had some reservations which were yet to be worked out. In a late arriving April 12 email, the spokesman provided the group's now official written statement, "We now support the bill."
The Reproductive Privacy Act opened the door for midwives to be trained as abortionists. What SB 1338 does - and it's a major change - is to decriminalize the act of killing a first trimester baby by "medical or aspiration abortion" by "mid-level providers," which is now clearly stated in the new bill.
One of the methods of abortion is the use of a manual aspirator, basically a syringe sized vacuum cleaner. In the 1980's feminists began touting the benefits to women of private, in-home do-it-yourself abortions by manual aspiration. Women were encouraged to hold little training sessions in their own neighborhood to train other women or assist other women in aborting themselves. This they opined was the epitome of control. Unbelievably, this is now one of the training methods offered to the midwife classes in this pretend "workforce training" program [pogrom?]. This is, of course, illegal even under the current RPA, absent a license.
Feminists are claiming that this legislation is merely a recognition of what Roe v Wade sanctified - the act of killing babies as a mere natural part of the reproductive process. It is, in their minds, strictly a rite of female sisterhood - control of the process of life and death in the hands of the female.
Other states are considering similar legislation [Alabama for example] so this isn't just another craven act by wing-nut CA Democrats.
The entire medical profession/industry is apparently supportive of this move. Some through their silence, like the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, headquartered in Washington, D.C. A spokesman, Sean Tipton, speaking for this organization of fertility practice physicians, claims that it will remain neutral until and unless it hears from California associates in the CMA or CNA asking it to take a position either way.
The California Medical Association - CMA, has been stalling regarding its position on allowing nurses and midwives to move into an area of medicine currently held within the province of physicians and surgeons. Could this stall be an indication of their own ambivalence regarding doctors killing rather than birthing babies?
Will this heretofore highly regarded profession stand up for women and their well-being or will they capitulate to the harridan cult of the feminists?
We note the absence of the Catholic Physicians Guild in this matter, a major failing for a faith already in serious trouble. What skewed view of morality would cause UCSF to lend its name and prestige as a teaching hospital, to apply for a workforce development waiver, HWP171, so that Planned Parenthood can be given legal protection in training these midwives?
Every year for the last 4 years they have submitted a request for a waiver because the training is illegal without the blessing of the government waiver.
These waivers are surprisingly seen by some physician groups as being necessary simply to determine the risk factors associated with providing what are currently classified as surgical abortions in an environment which lacks the presence of a physician. A knowledgeable source who requested anonymity, indicated as much, stressing the experimental nature of such programs and the need for data.
A January 17, 2012 piece on this issue published by CalCatholic.com stated, "...more than 8,000 such abortions have already been performed by nurse practitioners, physicians-assistants and certified midwives in California as part of a University of California-San Francisco study approved by the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development..." [source, Redefining a crime out of existence, http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=3fc7dfc2-73a4-4731-b575-671f8529559f]
Were these women informed that non-doctors were aborting them with as little as 3-6 days of training in suction abortions or prescribing medications?
What's next, back yard hysterectomies and tubal ligations?
There is a thoroughly racist haze surrounding this entire matter, as the group of women which will serve as [possibly unknowing] guinea pigs will be drawn from what is euphemistically called under-served communities.
This legislation then clearly has its sights set, targeting poor Latina and Afro-American women mostly. Will they be denied the opportunity for informed consent? Will they know that non professionals will be using them as the equivalent of crash test dummies?
If past practices can serve as any kind of guide, these so called feminists who scream the "right to choice" at the drop of a condom aren't going to let these women decide anything.
Under the flimsy guise of expanding women's access to reproductive care and the jobs market for health care workers, the promoters of SB 1338 claim that women in rural or "under-served" communities don't have access to clinics, or enough doctors to supervise their health. So, pretend train more workers and ask for increased funding.
A 31 page 2012 report entitled, California's Rural Health Clinics: Obstacles and Opportunities, published by the California HealthCare Foundation praises the work of rural health clinics, declaring that the overwhelming majority of services provided are already government funded, "Medi-Cal paid for 42% of visits and Medicare paid for 22% of visits to RHCs in the last fiscal years of the RHCs surveyed." [source, http://www.chcf.org/~/media/MEDIA%20LIBRARY%20Files/PDF/C/PDF%20CARuralHealthClinics.pdf, pg. 2]
As an addendum, there are a number of bills keyed at "expanding the health care jobs market," all with special interests in mind:
AB 70, Bill Monning,[D] Department of Public Health: Funding. This has gone through the Assembly and is awaiting assignment in the Senate.
AB 232, V. Manual Perez, [D], Community Development Block Grants. This is a Work force development program, ala the PPACA/Obama jobs program.
AB 714, Toni Atkins, [D], Health Care Coverage.
AB 916, V. Manuel Perez, Health: Under-served Communities. This promotes hiring Community Health Care Workers, i.e. Promotores, to be assigned to communities to seek out patients in "under-served" health care communities.
It's these minority communities where the new midwife abortionists will be unleashed.
There is a pro life pregnancy assistance clinic in a very poor segment of Los Angeles surrounded by 9 abortion clinics. The abortion clinics have been known to send volunteers out into the streets with flyers announcing abortions for sale. They follow cars, stop people on the streets, selling abortions at half price or free. Will this become common? Will every pregnant women be stalked by a midwife hungry for employment?
There is an online article carrying the emblem of the University of California entitled, Increasing Access to Health Care inCalifornia with Nurse Practitioners, CertifiedNurse-Midwives, and Physician Assistants: ADemonstration Project in Early Abortion Care, August, 2011, authored by Tracy A. Weitz, PhD, MPA. In the document, Ms. Weitz states, "Expanding access to health care is an important public health goal. One way to achieve this goal is to increase the number of health care providers offering services by advancing their "scope of practice." [definition: activities that an individual health care practitioner is permitted to perform within a specific profession]
Wetiz continues, suggesting an argument for broadening the scope of services which non-physicians can perform, "In California, the State Legislature enacts scope of practice laws and major changes to those laws...From this scope of practice perspective, a compelling argument can be made that early aspiration abortion care is within the scope of Nurse Practitioners [NPs], Certified Nurse Midwives [CNMs] and Physician Assistants, [PAs] Abortion is a common healthcare need for women which lacks a sufficient provider workforce." [source, Increasing Access to Health Care in California with Nurse Practitioners, Certified Nurse-Midwives, and Physician Assistants: Demonstration Project in Early Abortion Care.
Placing midwives in clinics, licensed to abort, removes the need for any doctor to be present either in person or on the phone. Midwives make far less in income than doctors so, for the clinics, abortions will become less expensive. For the taxpayer, undoubtedly, there will be no decrease in cost since clinics are pretty much allowed to charge whatever the traffic will bear.
Below, the members of the Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee and contact information:
Curren Price, [D-LA], Chair. 916-651-4026
Bill Emmerson, [R-Riverside]. 916-651-4037
Ellen Corbet, [D-San Leandro] 916-651-4010
Lou Correa [D-Santa Ana], 916-651-4034
Ed Hernandez, [D-W. Covina] 916-651-4024
Gloria Negrete McLeod, [D-Montclair] 916-651-4032
Juan Vargas, [D-Chula vista], 916-651-4040
Mimi Walters, [R-Laguna Hills], 916-651-4033
Mark Wyland, [R-Carlsbad] 916-651-4038
© 2012 Camille Giglio. All rights reserved.