According to one of the democrats who championed this bit of idiocy, Senator Christine Kehoe (Dipshit, San Diego) this lowering of standards is necessary because "there aren't enough people performing abortions in California".
Now, I happen to agree with the Senator on this point: there should be more people in California performing abortions, and they should be concentrating on the highly-lucrative, retroactive sort that targets Democratic State Senators.
Now, if that doesn't shock you, consider this: the original proposal was stuck in, as a last-minute amendment, to a bill that was to regulate the sale of boat paint. Apparently, Senator Kehoe thought no one would notice.
This is a troubling development on many fronts:
a. It reverses long-standing, democratic (small 'd' intentional) boilerplate that deregulation of anything is dangerous to the general public. This is, after all, the party that has been trying to make the case for the last four years that a deregulated banking system destroyed the American Economy, and damned-near killed children, the elderly, and kittens, to judge by the shrillness of some of the champions of this view. According to this mindset, every incremental loss of government controls over any aspect of American Life brings us thismuch closer to a world where chaos rules and children are allowed to run with scissors, sans safety helmet, eye protection and school-provided condoms.
Unless, of course, you happen to want to deregulate something that libtards like so that there's more of it, or it gains them a political advantage. Medical marijuana, welfare work requirements, abortions, gay marriage, these are the only topics the dems really care about -- and they are the only topics the dems can't make political hay out of, as much as they'd like to -- so why not suddenly switch course and get all federalist about these things?
At least if you make sure that midwives can perform abortions, no matter how you got there, you can get a gold star from NARAl, which equates to a couple of million bucks in re-election funds, right?
That's the great thing about being a liberal democrat (contradiction in terms) in America: you never need to stay on the same side of the street for more than five seconds. Consistency and honesty don't matter to those who vote democrat.
b) You know how this ends, if it passes: one day, probably soon, some poor woman (and if the dems are lucky, it'll be a minority woman, or maybe even a teenaged girl) will die a painful, bloody death in some third rate JiffyLube-like facility, run by an unlicensed, non-doctor, under near-third-world conditions, mostly likely in the inner-city, thus ironically manifesting the Feminist's worst nightmare:
The botched, back-alley abortion that kills a woman.
Only with this twist: a democratic-controlled state legislature would have made it legal.
And then you know what the predictable response will be? Right: more regulation, greater government control, and a requirement that now four doctors will be needed to perform an abortion. So the law will have backfired on the Pro-Choice folks who pushed it, and made it even tougher to get an abortion. That's usually the effect of libtard-inspired legislation that sprouts from emotion rather than reason; whatever the intention, the opposite occurs every single time.
c) One wonders how the legal system will fare. If anything, the law, if passed, has just made a malpractice suit in at least one area of medicine so much easier. Someone is injured during a botched abortion, and what's the first thing any trial attorney worth his salt is going to want to know? Was the abortionist a licensed doctor? And in some of these future cases the answer is going to be a resounding "Hell NO!", and the legal system, as it is currently constructed, will suck the financial incentive right out of the "non-licensed abortion provider" field.
Which leads, of course, to fewer people doing it. Which leads, again, to greater government interference in order to keep abortion alive and well under yet another excuse, and it also keeps lawyers streaming into the courtroom for big malpractice scores.
And once insurance companies stop covering non-licensed providers, the California legislature will just pass another law demanding that they do. Enough regulation, red tape, big punitive damage awards, cowed and bullied corporations, and abortions for everyone!
There, everyone in democratic land will be truly happy.
d) If it is true that there "aren't enough" abortion providers in California, perhaps this is because it has been liberal abortion policy, itself, that has created the shortage.
In one of those delicious ironies, dems have pushed for greater sexual education and handing out of birth control in public schools, which probably has contributed to a lowering of (unwanted) pregnancy rates.
Democratic welfare policies have made keeping your out-of-wedlock child a rather lucrative financial proposition. Why abort when your unwanted bundle of joy can generate cash and benefits for you, especially when it's father has skipped out and the government prefers that he not be there?
Democratic-inspired efforts to regulate the medical industry, to allow trial attorneys to swim about like hungry sharks, failure to reform tort systems. The overheated, often overbearing, rhetoric used by Pro-Choice elements contributes to protests, threats and actual violence (which we do not condone here at the Asylum) against doctors. This causes many who would gladly perform abortions for money to decide that the consequences are simply not worth the bad publicity or a gunshot wound, regardless of their personal feelings or ideals on the subject.
Doctors have left the business because it no longer pays to be in it. That’s another irony: abortion on demand is being killed by the forces of both the Free Market and it's supporters' fervor. Doctors no longer want to deal with the trouble of being in the abortion business, because the rate of return hardly justifies it. They’d rather specialize in other, more lucrative areas of medicine. Primarily, this is because of lawsuits, because many insurance companies won’t cover the procedure as state governments expand the boundaries of 'reproductive health benefits', bad press, protests outside their clinics; the Market, both monetarily and politically, has spoken.
Networks for disabled/challenged children have grown, and are subsidized, causing some few to forgo their abortion because there is taxpayer money in it. Likewise, the State has taken the place of a husband/father in many places through the welfare system and so the need to financially support a child by her own wits and industry has been removed for many women. Libtards can pat themselves n the back for that, too.
The cradle-to-grave patchwork that Libtards have crafted have, in many cases, eliminated or lessened the need for an abortion. The Welfare State now supports a country wherein 50% of all children are born out of wedlock to poor mothers, and the culture is such that in many cases they are thought of as heroines and shining examples of American womanhood (thank you, Feminists), rather than what they typically are: stupid women who just couldn’t say no, demand that their partner wrap that rascal, or manage to take a pill on a schedule.
The country is also becoming more Pro-Life, and conservatives are, on this point at least, winning the culture war. Maybe because the Pro-life message is resonating, and this is more likely because the media coverage of the more graphic and dangerous parts of the abortion issue (primarily late-term abortions) and admissions/eyewitness accounts from providers of what happens inside abortion mills is generally more available to the public.
Conversely, there is also a new cult of fame that has sprung up around pregnancy, particularly pregnancy in teens and young women, what with shows like 16 and Pregnant, Teen Mom, and the antics of your favorite Hollywood celebrities who seemingly run around having/adopting babies all the time, mostly so that they can make money selling the baby pictures to your favorite low-brow entertainment magazine. In many ways, single motherhood has been glorified to such an extent that it has had to have had an effect on the abortion business. Why lose that “extraneous clump of cells” when you have a chance – however remote – of being on reality TV and becoming ‘famous’?
In any case, this is a stupid idea, but indicative of the extent to which this sort of mindset will go in order to prove a point which, frankly, no longer makes much sense. The original intent of the feminists (so far as one can make sense of their twisted and convoluted ideology) vis-à-vis abortion was to make the case that no woman could be free while she was saddled with the responsibility (burden of a vagina) of bearing children. Nowadays, the childbearers more often want the kid (but not necessarily the responsibility) because there’s money, cultural rewards, and potentially show business fame, in it.
Well, they -- democrats -- helped create this mess, didn’t they?
And their response to it is to stick a last-minute amendment that deregulates the industry, and puts more women at risk, into a bill that was supposed to protect the public against the toxic effects of boat paint and regulate it's sale? Just to keep an industry that has probably seen better days alive for a political point and pay off political supporters...just like when the Obamatards 'saved' GM, right?
Yeah, that makes total sense.