Louisiana State Rep. Katrina Jackson debunks spurious “rumors” about H.B. 388

 

By Dave Andrusko

Louisiana State Representative Katrina Jackson

Louisiana State Representative Katrina Jackson

Pro-lifers would be surprised if opponents of commonsense abortion limitations didn’t distort every jot and title. But what some pro-abortionists in Louisiana are attempting to do to H.B. 388 is whacky even by their standards.

What’s the objective of the Unsafe Abortion Protection Act? Let me borrow from State Rep. Katrina Jackson (D) who issued a lengthy explanation yesterday to clear up misinformation.

One aspect is common to a wave of pro-life legislation: Require “abortion providers” to have admitting privileges to a hospital within 30 miles to handle the inevitable complications.

Given that the number of chemical abortions is soaring, H.B. 388 simply requires the same anonymous statistical reports sent to the Department of Health and Hospitals for RU-486-induced abortions that is required of surgical abortions. Emphasis on the word “anonymous.”

Finally, as Rep. Jackson notes, under current Louisiana law an abortionist may “perform up to 60 abortions a year before being subject to the health and safety inspections that are required of ‘licensed outpatient abortion facilities.’ Because every woman is entitled to the protection of regulated safety standards, this bill will require licensure for physicians who perform five or more abortions per year.”

But in the hands of opponents, “rumors” have circulated that are so preposterous that even some opponents had to admit to New Orleans Times-Picayune reporter Julia O’Donoghue that they agree with Jackson’s “assessment.” In other words they (no doubt reluctantly) admit that H.B, 388 would NOT create a database of women who take emergency contraceptives or create a state database of women who have had abortions or used the morning after pill.

Their point is the “truth” of the H.B. 388 is bad enough. By that they mean, abortionists who provide fewer than 60 abortions would be “scared off” if they were subject to the kind of health and safety inspections that clinics that perform a larger volume of abortions must already meet.

Or if women have to wait 24 hours to have a chemical abortion and the clinics are required to report these abortions to the Department of Health and Hospitals, then…well, the stories I’ve read don’t spell out why that is so onerous. Presumably, it’s the same complaint they have about slowing down the rush to abort for even 24 hours.

It would be interesting to know how many of the same people who told O’Donoghue they agreed the “rumors” are false help start them.

Please join those who are following me on Twitter at twitter.com/daveha. Send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com.