By Michael Motes

A public hearing held July 26 on proposed rules and regulations for ambulatory surgical treatment centers (primarily abortion clinics) drew comment from almost 40 representatives of various pro-life groups, local abortion clinics, medical personnel and private citizens.

The hearing, held before the Georgia Department of Human Resources (DHR), author of the in-depth and complex guidelines, was conducted by Robert O. Van Norte, Director of the DHR Office of Administrative Appeals, who several times reminded those scheduled to speak that the hearing was not an open forum on the abortion issue.

In offering recommended changes in the DHR proposal, Cheatham E. Hodges, Jr., of Augusta, Executive Director of the Georgia Catholic Conference and member of the Governor’s Special Council on Family Planning, prefaced his statement by saying, “My presence and presentation does not in any way imply or give cause for belief that I personally through my position condone or support any acts permitted in the proposed Rules and Regulations which allow the commission of any act of abortion.”

Hodges’ comments primarily concerned wording of the lengthy document. He requested that the DHR delete the phrase “termination of pregnancy” from throughout the rules and substitute “induced abortion.” He also called for a waiting period of no less than 48 hours from the time a patient contracts for an abortion until the time the abortion is performed, a suggestion that was made by several of those appearing before Van Norte.

Pointing out opposition to the existence of abortion clinics, Kathryn Buckley Smith, Director of the Atlanta Archdiocesan Pro-Life Action Committee said, “Recognizing as fact that (abortion clinics) exist and, under the present state of law, will continue to exist, we support the effort to regulate their activities.”

Mrs. Smith stated that the DHR regulations “are seriously deficient in a number of critical areas, such as terminology, appropriate supervision of counselors, adequate provisions for aftercare of patients and those children who survive abortions, adequate disposal of the fetal remains, and the like, and makes no reference to the compliance with the requirements of fetal death registration established in the Georgia Code.”

She sharply criticized the wording of the regulations, stating, “Terminology used throughout the proposed rules and regulations pertaining to the action of abortion, for example, ‘pregnancy and termination,’ is euphemistic and masks the reality of what happens in this procedure. Use of such terms can be seen only as an official endorsement of an attempt to hide the brutal reality of destroying human life on an organized scale and in a sanitary fashion.”

Recommendations from the Pro-Life Action Committee included incorporating into the rules “stringent provisions against the payment of referral fees and to provide strict penalties for the violation of such provisions” and “that there be established in these rules and regulations a mandatory waiting period between the time the required counseling takes place and the time the ‘informed consent form’ is signed by the patient, a period of not less than 48 hours.”

Mrs. Smith also said that the Pro-Life Action Committee would submit to the DHR a detailed critique of the regulations.

Testifying on behalf of the Georgia Right to Life Committee, Inc., Mrs. Cherie Bowman, chairman, submitted several additions to the regulations in areas not included by the DHR. These included inspection of all ambulatory surgical treatment centers at least every six weeks and frequent “spot checks” by a medical team, proper record keeping and accountability, agreement with a nearby licensed hospital to provide for emergency admission, and the registration of a fetal death certificate for every abortion performed.

Mrs. Bowman also requested that physicians performing abortions inform the woman “in a manner not to be misleading and to be easily understood... the biological fact that her unborn child is human life from the moment of conception and the probable anatomical and physiological characteristics of the unborn child at the time the abortion is to be performed.”

She also pointed out, as did several other speakers, that physicians are not allowed to advertise their services and requested that abortion clinics not be allowed to advertise.

The strongest comment from Georgia Right to Life concerned the statement in the rules and regulations, “If the product of a pregnancy termination procedure is capable of meaningful or sustained life, medical aid then available must be rendered.”

“This is particularly repugnant,” Mrs. Bowman said, “Who shall decide what is ‘meaningful’ life? Should it be someone who makes their living from killing unborn babies? We think not. We think that no one has the right to determine if another person’s life is meaningful. Any baby that survives an abortion must be given resuscitation and all means of life support.”

Michael Brunning, a parishioner of Prince of Peace in Buford and Chairman of the 9th U.S. Congressional District Action Committee (CDAC), called for addition to the rules to show proper care for an aborted child “to show respect for human life.”

IHM parishioner Bill Nursey, 4th CDAC, suggested that provisions for a follow-up report on a woman who has had an abortion be part of the DHR regulations.

William Stanford of the 5th CDAC, a parishioner of Immaculate Conception, stated that he hoped the DHR would expedite procedures to adopt rules and regulations and not “scandalize the country into a state of paralysis before rules are enforced.”

Several speakers stressed the need of counseling pregnant women and suggested that abortion clinics be required to explain abortion alternatives, including adoption, to their patients.

Lynn Thogersen, Director of Feminist Women’s Health Center, stated that her organization was prepared to “challenge the constitutionality of these regulations” if they were adopted. She said that the DHR does not have the right to regulate clinics performing first trimester abortions.

Father Edward Dillon of the Atlanta Archdiocesan Pro-Life Office, told the BULLETIN following the hearing that he feels Ms. Thogersen’s statement was “a scare tactic” against DHR.

“The issue of the constitutionality is appropriately left to the Attorney General,” Father Dillon said. “To threaten legal action is a scare tactic. Such a case would probably end up in the Supreme Court and no State agency wants to get involved in this type of lengthy battle.”