WEATHER »

Jackson Argues For New Abortion Measure

Would Allow Non-Physicians To Perform Specific Procedure


Friday, August 30, 2013
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Share Article

The State Senate approved a measure on Monday that would allow nurses, physicians’ assistants, and certified midwives — with specialized training — to preform early aspiration abortions. If signed into law, Assembly Bill 154, carried by Assemblymember Toni Atkins (D-San Diego), would greatly increase the number of available health care providers able to legally perform these abortions within the first trimester of a woman’s pregnancy.

Aspiration abortions terminate a pregnancy through a suction procedure. Existing law only allows non-physicians to perform medication abortions.

Currently, about half of the state’s 58 counties have abortion facilities. This measure seeks to allow women in rural areas access to procedures in their own communities. Santa Barbara State Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson — who co-authored the bill — is one of its key advocates. “Given the number of these procedures that are sought, there just aren’t enough physicians that can do them all,” Jackson said. “This will expand the availability.”

Further, the bill’s advocates base their argument on a five-year study led by UC San Francisco in which thousands of non-physicians performed aspiration abortions with less than a two percent complication rate. Jackson said the 98 percent success rate by non-physicians matches that of physicians.

“The earlier it is done, the safer it is,” Jackson said. “If we can get these women the services that they seek at the earliest possible time, then that is the safest.” The California Medical Association also supports the bill, Jackson added. Currently, four other states allow nurse practitioners to perform these types of abortions.

The Senate passed AB 154 with a vote of 25-11, mostly on party lines. Opponents argued that non-physicians would not have adequate backup if complications arose. “I don’t support abortion and furthermore I couldn’t support this bill because it puts women’s lives at risk,” said State Senator Joel Anderson (R-San Diego). “I believe women who live in rural communities deserve the same level of health care as women who live in the cities.”

Jackson argued opponents based their opinion on ideological grounds. “They are anti-choice,” she said. “Fortunately, the legislature is a reflection of the pro-choice attitude in the state of California.” AB 154 is on its way back to the Assembly with Senate amendments. Proponents expect the bill to be on the governor’s desk within the next few weeks. If signed into law, it will be effective January 1.

Comments

Independent Discussion Guidelines

Instead of bragging about making it easier to kill more unborn babies, Ms Jackson needs to explain why she let Prop 63 billions of dollars get wasted while doing nothing for the mentally challenged vagrants with substance abuse which she leaves on the streets.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
August 30, 2013 at 11:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

“Given the number of these procedures that are sought, there just aren’t enough physicians that can do them all,” Jackson said. “This will expand the availability.”

Let's look beyond abortion for a minute: The bigger picture here is that there are not enough physicians---period! Eventually the already disparate doctor-to-patient ratio will grow to the point where people will die not from lack of insurance, but from having to wait for an available doctor. I speak through experience.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
August 31, 2013 at 3:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Spend your efforts on choice and abstinence if you want to make a difference, instead of killing babies after the fact.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
August 31, 2013 at 5:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jackson argued opponents based their opinion on ideological grounds. “They are anti-choice,” she said.
What a typical Democrat; the ONLY reason someone can disagree is because they hate women?
I'm pro choice and I disagree with this legislation. We do have too few physicians in key areas and this legislation will only exacerbate the fallout from that problem AND potentially put more women at risk when they have the inevitable percentage of complications per capita.

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
September 1, 2013 at 6:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Italiansurg: Jackson is obsessed with abortion to the extent that it bleeds over into other issues. Even back in 1990 when she opposed proposition 115 (which dealt with criminal appeals process) she weaved abortion into the issue. Also, there was her unfettered support of Hilary Clinton over Dennis Kucinich all the while she was saying she was against the war in Iraq. (Kucinich was %100 against it while Clinton was ambivalent about it) She stated that "all things being equal" we needed a woman president.

I don't know if someone she knew died of a back-alley abortion or she had some direct issue with this pre-Roe vs. Wade but her illogical approach to gender is quite disturbing.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
September 1, 2013 at 3:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Like all progressives, they pick a fig leaf issue to cover their main occupation: handing out benefits to their union supporters and other free-spending cronies.

Don't look for logic or substance in their fig leaf issues: women's rights, environmental regulations, etc.

The action is what they deliver behind those false fronts when they think no one is looking. Look at their campaign donations and you will see where their real interests are 100% of the time: Unions, indian casinos and pot.

Oh yes, and re-election.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
September 1, 2013 at 10:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Foofighter: I'm not sure it applies in Jackson's case; I think she may well be a True Believer.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
September 2, 2013 at 4:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jackson is an east coast elitist, foisting her uber-liberal agenda on locals ,who have no idea what she is really doing. One more red diaper baby holding court in our midst, at our expense. Voters here are nuts as they continue to vote against their own self-interests while politicians like Jackson joining others of the same kind with no emotional history with this state, carve out goodies for themselves, their cronies and even their spouses.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
September 2, 2013 at 8:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow, you've really gone off the rails today, foo. Your posts on Jackson's alleged extremism makes this a pot/kettle situation. For example, it's a fetus NOT a baby. It's hard to listen to your opinion when you don't even know the proper words to use.

"Eventually the already disparate doctor-to-patient ratio will grow to the point where people will die not from lack of insurance, but from having to wait for an available doctor. I speak through experience."
-- billclausen

I'm sorry to read of your demise, billclausen. Who's your typist?

"... potentially put more women at risk when they have the inevitable percentage of complications per capita."
-- italiansurg

You missed the part of the article where studies have shown that the risk is no greater under this bill than at present where only doctors can perform the procedure. Since now rural women don't have to travel to get an abortion, it will be able to be done earlier and safer and at less cost. I'm hard pressed to see a down side.

SezMe (anonymous profile)
September 2, 2013 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

SezMe: My mother died because of lack of proper care. Feel better now?

billclausen (anonymous profile)
September 2, 2013 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Every woman should have the unabridged right to hire someone to kill the living human inside her for any reason she pleases (including the 93% of abortions that Planned Parenthood self-reports are for reasons of convenience) and at any time during her pregnancy without the father or sex-partner's knowledge or permission up to 24 weeks. After all, her up to 24 week terminated pregnancy is only an organ/tissue/seed/bodypart/unfeeling and doesn't have a heart/unique genes/nervous system and there are no waiting adoption parents, charities to help her through her pregancy and definitely zero government services and benefits if she chooses to keep the "tissue" since "tissue" doesn't qualify for WIC, food stamps, EITC, free state health care, etc.

It's also really, really, really tough to raise a child when you are poor (everyone agrees this is a perfectly acceptable reason to kill a living human inside you) and no woman who has sex and is poor knows that she is poor before or during intercourse and subsequent pregnancies. She only knows this after waiting 24 weeks (6 months) to decide to get an abortion - she needs *at least 6 months* to make the decision. Anyone who disagrees with me is clearly a woman-hating radical that is waging a war on women.

willy88 (anonymous profile)
September 3, 2013 at 7:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: