In section 230(B), after “authorized person”, the Governor proposes striking “which shall be notarized as required by sec. 16.1-241 of the Code of Virginia.”  There are two problems with this:

1. The proposal is technically flawed.  There is no word “which” following the words “authorized person” in the document containing the Board’s proposed amendments.  After “authorized person”, another sentence begins. It says, “The informed written consent shall be notarized as required by sec. 16.1-241 of the Code of Virginia.”
2. The requirement in the Code of Virginia that the written consent of the minor’s parent, guardian or other authorized person be notarized should be reflected in this regulation as well. Code sections are referenced throughout these regulations.  The Code section for the notarization requirement should certainly be referenced too.  That requirement is no less important than others.

In addition, differentiating between safety requirements for facilities that perform surgical abortions and safety requirements for facilities that perform chemical abortions, as the proposed amendments do, is overly simplistic and misguided.  RU-486 is not just “writing a prescription.” Sometimes it does not result in a complete abortion, and the patient comes back for a surgical procedure. 

Abortion ends lives and is not health care.  But as long as abortion centers are permitted to operate, they must not be allowed to self-regulate. The recent suspension of abortions at a Fairfax facility due to 26 health and safety violations shows this all too well.  Strong abortion center regulations are essential for the health and safety of Virginia women and must be maintained, not weakened.