At the Supreme Court

Greater Columbus Right to Life Issues Press Release

Oral arguments related to Ohio's law which requires all ambulatory surgical facilities, including those which provide abortions, to obtain a transfer agreement or enter into a variance agreement were held on September 12, 2017. The lawsuit was filed after a Toledo area abortion clinic operated by T&S Management had its license revoked for failing to have a local transfer agreement. The clinic argued that its agreement with a Michigan hospital was sufficient under the law and filed suit against the state. Documents related to the case, Capital Care Network of Toledo v. State of Ohio Dept. of Health, can be read on the Ohio Supreme Court's docket. Greater Columbus Right to Life issued the following statement following oral arguments before the Court.

GCRTL Urges Court to Uphold Health & Safety Regulation
 
COLUMBUS – Greater Columbus Right to Life joined other pro-life organizations today in support of Ohio’s law requiring ambulatory surgical facilities, including those ambulatory surgical facilities which provide surgical abortions, to have in place a basic agreement and protocol to ensure patients undergoing surgical procedures can be provided with seamless intervention in emergencies. Ohio law requires that every ambulatory surgical facility, including those which provide surgical abortions, meet this standard by either entering into a transfer agreement with a local hospital or by obtaining a variance – an agreement that arranges for a back-up physician with admitting privileges at a local hospital who can take over the care of the patient in an emergency.
 
While abortion advocates and those who profit from abortion attempt to argue that this is an unnecessary burden and unfairly targets abortion clinics, we are confident that the Justices of the Ohio Supreme Court, journalists, and unbiased members of the public will see through this specious claim for at least three reasons: 1) Every other ambulatory surgical facility is able to meet the requirement, 2) The law’s variance provision serves the health and safety purpose of the law for those who are unable to meet the primary requirement if a local hospital chooses not to participate in the abortion business, and 3) This particular clinic isn’t suffering because of an unfair, unreasonable, unjust, or vague law targeting abortion clinics, but because of its own shameful reputation.
 
Woefully missing from the public discussion related to this case has been the degree to which the clinic suffers from its own reputation and business practices. We have firmly established that Capital Care Network and its related clinics have a history of unwise, dangerous, and illegal actions. From hiring known (and repeat) child sex offenders to operating filthy clinics and from injuring patients to neglecting to pay taxes or file business registrations, the clinics owned and operated by T&S Management, including Capital Care Network of Toledo, have cut corners at every level – defrauding taxpayers and endangering women. One need look no further than here in Columbus where a local hospital agreed to a transfer agreement with another abortion clinic but has refused to renew its agreement with Founder’s Women’s Health, which is managed by T&S Management. That no one wants to work with a tax-cheating, patient-endangering, pedophile-hiring, lawsuit-creating abortion clinic is no reason to create a special carve-out for abortion clinics from Ohio’s ambulatory surgical facility law. This is not a witch-hunt; it is the reasonable regulation of a business that operates with the scruples of the back alley under the pretense of legality.
 
Let there be no doubt: Greater Columbus Right to Life does not oppose the work done by Capital Care Network because they have shoddy business practices or frequently injure women. We object, without exception, to any act which intentionally destroys innocent human life, including unborn children. We also understand that not everyone shares that view, and we will continue to engage those who disagree with us in the marketplace of ideas. However, no one benefits when allegiance to pro-abortion ideology trumps patient safety and contributes to a cover-up for dangerous clinics.