Virginia Regulatory Town Hall
Agency
Virginia Department of Health
 
Board
State Board of Health
 
chapter
Regulations for Licensure of Abortion Facilities [12 VAC 5 ‑ 412]
Action Amend Regulations Following Periodic Review
Stage Proposed
Comment Period Ended on 7/1/2016
spacer
Previous Comment     Next Comment     Back to List of Comments
7/1/16  10:58 am
Commenter: Senator Barbara Favola, VA State Senate

Comment on Abortion Facility Regulations
 
Inline image 1

July 1, 2016

 

Mr. Erik Bodin

Director, Office of Licensure and Certification

9960 Mayland Dr.

Richmond, VA 23233

 

Mr. Bodin:

 

As co-chair of the Women’s Healthcare Caucus in the Virginia General Assembly, I ask the Board of Health to amend the targeted regulation of abortion providers (TRAP) in the Commonwealth. These targeted regulations, which require abortion providers’ offices, but not any other type of medical office, to comply with hospital and ambulatory surgical center (ASC) regulations, provide no discernible health benefit to women. Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States today. First-trimester abortion, in particular, is a safe, non-surgical, outpatient procedure that is routinely and safely practiced in doctor’s offices –not hospitals—throughout the country and in the Commonwealth. Leading medical experts, including the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, have long opposed TRAP. Moreover, no less an authority than the United States Supreme Court has ruled that similar restrictions in Texas constitute an undue burden on a woman’s ability to access an abortion, and are unconstitutional. Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U.S. __ (2016).

 

The Supreme Court, in striking down the Texas law, held that there was ample evidence in the record to support the federal district court’s conclusion that “‘[m]any of the building standards mandated by the act and its implementing rules have such a tangential relationship to patient safety in the context of abortion as to be nearly arbitrary.’” Id. at __ (quoting Whole Woman’s Health v. Lakey, 46 F. Supp. 3d 673, 684 (2014)). In addition, the Court noted there was ample evidence in the record to support the district court’s conclusion that ASC requirements “place[] a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking abortion.” Id. at __. In Virginia, as in Texas, requiring abortion providers to comply with hospital and ASC regulations is not a measure designed to advance patient health and safety – it is a sham, targeted restriction designed to cut off Virginia women’s access to safe, legal abortion.

 

I ask the Board of Health to heed the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Whole Woman’s Health, and to amend the regulations of abortion providers in the Commonwealth to reflect medical evidence, to legitimately advance patient health and safety, and to remove any undue burden on a woman’s ability to access her constitutional right to abortion.

 

Sincerely,

 

Inline image 1

 

Barbara A. Favola

 
CommentID: 50511