It has been a long time since I took college level logic and philosophy, but the following argument occurs to me where regulation of medical facilities is concerned:

1.  Some hospitals are 'legally' deemed older hospital strucures  (as refers to architectural standards/ code)

2.  All hospitals (new and old) serve women

3.  Some of these women are pregnant, and in need of emergency services, some of which may include abortive services and DNC's.

This is a logical argument.  And through application of logic, old and new hospitals should be regulated with the same standard of safety, including architectural requirements. 

The Attorney General, Governor and religious right cannot claim to put women's safety first if they only desire selective application of safety and architectural standards.   Which is exactly what they did with trap. 

I urge the Board of Health to rectify this safety disparity by applying the same safety standards required of new hospitals to older hospital structures.  As we have been told countless times by proponents of trap, "Women are worth it.'  (the expense and time required to come into compliance with architectural code.)  If women are worth it, I hope the Board of Health will apply new hospital standards to older hospitals. 

The other option would be to grandfather abortion clinics from these standards.