Nowhere in the Constitution does it say doctors have a right to treat patients in filthy, unsanitary facilities or subject clients to unethical, predatory practices.

Because abortion is such a personal and consequential decision, the government wants to enact regulations for Licensure of Abortion Facilities, to protect women from the type of unsafe and unseemly facilities that we hear of in the news. If abortion practitioners want to provide abortions, then they should have no objection to being expected to operate at the same level of professional, sanitary and safe conditions as any other surgeon. Does not a woman deserve the at least that much?

When a sector of the medical profession refuses to practice self-governance, the government has a duty to stand by women who are under their care. This is the goal of the proposed regulation. If some abortion practitioners find it is too expensive to pick up extra sanitizers on their next supply run or too inconvenient to replace outdated, rusted or inadequate instruments, then those doctors need to get out of the medical business altogether.

Making sure there are minimum standards of cleanliness and safety in abortion-providing facilities is not the same as calling for the abolition of women's rights. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

Asking for minimal sanitary conditions in a surgical facility is not the same as ending abortion. To say so is misleading and simply untrue. The proposed regulations are about safe facilities vs. unsafe facilities. Period.  If such standards end the illegal, unconscionable practices like Kermit Gosnell's or those of operated by our own local doctors, Steven Chase Brigham and LeRoy Carhart, then the regulations have served their purpose: to protect women from the worst of the worst.