Abortion conflict sees new strategy

Tighter regulation of clinics decried as denial of access

March 19, 2001|By Susan Baer | Susan Baer,SUN NATIONAL STAFF

WASHINGTON - In the small, historic port city of Beaufort, S.C. - a sort of Charleston in miniature - the old homes with their narrow hallways and small rooms have always made adequate office suites for the physicians clustered by the downtown waterfront.

But one those doctors, William Lynn, who runs clinics that provide abortions, recently closed his down.

Among his reasons for not renewing his lease: the specter of new regulations for abortion clinics in South Carolina - requiring such safety measures as extra-wide hallways and doorways for the movement of stretchers and wheelchairs - which would have made it impossible to continue his practice in one of those old restored buildings without costly renovations.

The 27 pages of abortion facility regulations, which had been challenged in the courts since the mid-1990s and were recently allowed to stand by the U.S. Supreme Court, have been quietly rippling across the country as the latest complicated, volatile and legally entangled skirmish in the abortion rights battle.

The anti-abortion community has seized on this regulatory approach in recent years, arguing that abortion is riskier than much of the public believes and must be held to higher medical standards. This year, seven states have introduced bills to regulate abortion clinics.

Says Mary Spaulding Balch, state legislation director for the National Right to Life Committee: "This indicates to the American public that abortion is not as safe as some people would have you think it is."

On the other side is much of the abortion rights community, which argues that abortion is one of the safest procedures performed in the United States - fewer than 1 in 100 women suffer major complications and there is fewer than 1 death in 100,000 associated with the procedure, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - and therefore not in need of additional regulation.

TRAP laws

They see the new wave of regulations, which they call TRAP laws, for Targeted Restrictions on Abortion Providers, as an attempt by opponents to put more obstacles in the way of abortion providers and women seeking abortions, especially poor women, by driving up the cost of the procedure and decreasing accessibility.

They have argued in court - in South Carolina and in Texas and Arizona, where similar laws are being challenged - that the regulations violate equal protection rights by singling out abortion providers and place an "undue burden" on the right to an abortion, which the Supreme Court has said states cannot do.

"This is part of the strategy to try to regulate abortion out of existence and fly below the radar screen," says Elizabeth Cavendish, legal director for the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League.

Edward P. Richards, executive director of the Center for Public Health Law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, says both sides have legitimate points.

He believes the regulations are "perfectly appropriate health protections." But he also says that, because most other outpatient facilities are not subject to regulation, abortion providers are being unfairly singled out.

"The scandal here," says Richards, "is that we don't have much regulation of any free-standing outpatient surgical centers."

Regulations for abortion clinics are on the books in a variety of forms in 16 states - Maryland is not among them - some dating to 1973, when the Supreme Court ruled that the criminalization of abortion was unconstitutional, and many springing up in the early and mid-1990s after the high court gave states more leeway in restricting abortion.

The South Carolina requirements, challenged by Lynn and three other doctors who provide abortions as well as by the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, are among the most sweeping of any set of abortion regulations in the country. They are similar to requirements for a new outpatient surgical center where more varied and extensive sorts of procedures - from face lifts to hernia operations - would be performed.

The regulations were passed by the South Carolina Legislature in 1995 after two employees of a now-closed Charleston abortion clinic complained of unsanitary conditions. The law was struck down as unconstitutional by a federal district court in 1999, revived last year by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and recently allowed to stand by the Supreme Court, which elected not to hear the case.

Stringent requirements

Baltimore Sun Articles
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.