I am writing to express my concern over regulations that would directly impact women's access to reproductive health care, specifically, their right to safe and legal abortions--a right so important that the U.S. Supreme Court voted to ensure it in Roe v. Wade.

The regulations in question do nothing to increase the safety of women's health care, and supporters of these burdensome regulations can offer no valid evidence to show how such regulations will have a tangible effect on the safety and quality of care women receive. Indeed, if these regulations are so vital to the safety of patient care, why apply them to existing abortion providers but not to existing hospitals? What do architectural standards have to do with quality of care? Other out-patient care providers who provide health care services of a similiar level of invasiveness (think colonoscopies, for example) are not subject to these rules. Even existing hospitals, where the most complex, high-risk procedures are performed, will not be subject to these regulations. Why, if safety is so vital, are these other facilities excluded?

If these regulations are so important to patient safety, they should be enforced across all health care facilities, not simply those providing abortions. Otherwise, these regulations won't keep women safe; instead, we will run the risk of restricting access to safe reproductive health care--putting women's lives in jeopardy. Burdensome regulations that do nothing to improve citizens' health and safety are unfair, plain and simple. I ask you look beyond political agendas and toward fairness in treatment of health care facilities and patient rights--whether or not you agree with the service being provided.