Pursuing Answers to Questions of Faith & Life

Sunday, July 21, 2013

Wading in --Analogies, Restaurants & Regulations

In our country there are many types of restaurants.  Some cater to the wealthy, some to the frugal.  But all are free to go to and eat from these establishments provided they can pay the price.

To ensure public health, whether for rich or poor, each of these restaurants are required to meet basic health guidelines for cleanliness, preparation of their product, proper disposal of waste and other conditions.  They are routinely inspected and verified to be in compliance.   
There is also a mechanism for a restaurant to be reported by customers.  Should any restaurant repeatedly fail, they can ultimately be closed.

Is this a legitimate role for government?  Of course it is.  Ensuring public health by regulating the food industry is necessary and warranted.

But imagine with me that there was an exception to the aforementioned standards.  One chain of restaurants, a fast food place that is most commonly found in poorer and minority communities, does not have to meet these criteria.  It is not required to meet basic health standards for cleanliness—no requirement to wash or sterilize their dishes.  This restaurant can serve cat, horse, kangaroo or any other kind of meat they want and call it beef.  They don’t have to dispose of their waste like all the other restaurants but can leave it sitting around for as long as they want.   Of course if anyone asks, they say they’re doing it right, but since there are no inspections allowed, it’s hard to say what is going on.  All it does is provide cheap, affordable and tasty food.

Would there be any public outcry?  Would there be any charges of racism, discrimination or economic targeting?  There should be.

More at home, however, would you want to eat there?  What if your daughter wanted to go there for her birthday because they have the best fries or playground?  Would you take her?  When she moves away to go to college and she has limited money, would you want her going to this place on her own?

What if there are numerous customer complaints, health incidents, employee whistleblowers who come forward decrying what’s going on in the food chain and even people dying?   

Should the government step in and require health standards and inspections?  Surely, that should be a no brainer.

Then you find out that this restaurant chain donates big money to politicians for protection from any regulation.  Whenever anyone proposes regulation legislation, these politicians are right there to defend the chain’s exemption.  Would you be outraged?  Would you demand action from your government and want the exemption revoked?  Would you believe the charges against regulation from politicians on their payroll?

Even though you would never take your daughter there, does that mean other’s health and safety are not important?

You’re probably reading this thinking I’m kidding, that such a restaurant doesn’t really exist.  Well you’re right… kind of.  It’s not a restaurant.

The name of the chain, you ask?  Planned Parenthood and other Abortion Clinics which are not held to the basic health and safety standards for surgical procedures.  These clinics have largely gone unregulated, uninspected due to political pressure and money since 1973.  The Gosnell trial in Philadelphia and the similar trial in Houston, TX are only recent highlights of just how much of a threat to women’s health unregulated abortion clinics can be.  Sadly, these are only recent examples.   

The full number of women who have died, been sterilized, contracted a disease or injured in other ways is unknown because the government turns a political blind eye to what goes on in such clinics.  Because the right to an abortion (and the money generated from it—never forget that) in the name of women’s health is really more important the actual health practice of the facility in terms of standards of sterilization of equipment and emergency protocols required of all similar surgical facilities.

According to this article, 37 of 42 abortion clinics in Texas may close; due to the new law just signed by Gov. Rick Perry.  Abortion funded politicians decry this as an assault on women.  I look at that number and cringe, thinking that 37 clinics that are supposed to serve women’s “health” do not meet basic health standards for clinic and doctor related care.  The fact that the government allowed such places to stay open so long should scare you and infuriate you, certainly more than you were getting upset over a fast food chain.

If your love for abortion prevents you from seeing this truth, then you are the one truly unconcerned with women’s health.

Opponents charge:
“Proponents of this bill are not really concerned about women’s health,” Carla Holeva, CEO of Planned Parenthood of West Texas, said in a statement. “This bill places onerous requirements on health centers, requirements that do nothing to improve the health or safety of women.”

What are some of those “onerous requirements?”
  • (1)  the construction and design, including plumbing, heating, lighting, ventilation, and other design standards  necessary to ensure the health and safety of patients;--

    (This is truly a terrible and unreasonable expectation)

  • (2)  the qualifications of the professional staff and other personnel;

    (you mean they can no longer use volunteers with no medical training to assist with medical procedures?  How offensive)

  • (3)  the equipment essential to the health and welfare  of the patients;

    (they have to have proper medical equipment—how could politicians demand something so outrageous?)

  • (4)  the sanitary and hygienic conditions within the  center and its surroundings;  and

    (they’re making them wash and sanitize things—they must hate women)

  • (5)  a quality assurance program for patient care.

    (follow up to make sure the women have been well cared for and are truly recovered from the procedure and not left to bleed out on a table—that’s too much to ask of any clinic isn’t it?)
These laws are not only for abortion clinics, they are for all medical facilities—abortion clinics are merely being included in existing law.
I am thankful this new law has gone into effect—the lives of many innocent children will be saved.  The lives of many women will be saved as well.

This article shows that the only reason these clinics are open is to perform abortion.  All of the other “services” they provide are not important to stay open—mostly because they are not money makers.  It’s not like the organization doesn’t have the money, they’re just more interested in abortion than “women’s health”

No comments: