Virginia Regulatory Town Hall
Agency
Virginia Department of Health
 
Board
State Board of Health
 
chapter
Regulations for the Licensure of Hospitals in Virginia [12 VAC 5 ‑ 410]
Previous Comment     Next Comment     Back to List of Comments
5/22/13  11:42 am
Commenter: Chris Farmer

Trap
 

 

The VA Board of health, whose purpose it is to recommend health policy, originally voted 7 to 4 against imposing TRAP regulations on existing facilities. Only after Attorney General Cuccinelli threatened to withhold legal representation
did the board reverse their vote.  We have seen in other areas much concern over government involvement in healthcare decisions and it is troubling that someone with no expertise in such matters should be able to coerce the board into changing its vote by abusing his powers, the primary purpose of which are to provide defend legal representation to government agencies. Cuccinelli's views on abortion are well known; lacking a position to legitimately legislate these views, Cuccinelli has abused his office to achieve them through a "back door" and in so doing has subverted the separation of powers in state government. Only the very naive will see this as anything other that a brazen political maneuver, and those who are opposed to abortion will welcome the move no matter how 
flagrantly it violates basic democratic principles. Few, however, will do so without referring to the ostensible purpose of the new regulations, which are, allegedly, to protect the health and safety of the citizens. Without stating this alleged reason for the regulations, the brute cynicism of the move is even more glaringly obvious. This being the case, the logic of this decision must be taken to its own conclusion - if the issue is that healthcare facilities that don't meet the proposed conditions endanger the heath and well being of their users, all facilities must be required to meet these same conditions, not only abortion clinics. This would likely result in the closing of many healthcare facilities throughout the state, most notably in rural and inner city areas where funds are scarce and such facilities are most needed. This is a consequence that few would accept, no matter their position on the abortion debate, and it is the precise consequence that follows from Cuccinelli's interpretation of the proposed law. If, on the other hand, these existing facilities are exempted from the new regulations, existing abortion clinics must also be exempted. History is littered with with injustice enabled by selective application of  law. It is a corruption of the worst type and one that absolutely must not be allowed.
CommentID: 28183