Virginia HB 2784


A BILL to amend and reenact §§ 32.1-102.1, 32.1-102.2,

32.1-123, 32.1-125, 32.1-125.1, 32.1-126, 32.1-127, 32.1-129, 32.1-130,
32.1-131, 32.1-133, and 32.1-135 of the Code of Virginia, relating
to regulation and licensure of abortion clinics; penalties.


———-


Patrons– Reid, Black, Marshall, R.G. and Oder

———-


Referred to Committee on Health, Welfare and Institutions

———-

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. That §§ 32.1-102.1, 32.1-102.2, 32.1-123, 32.1-125,
32.1-125.1, 32.1-126, 32.1-127, 32.1-129, 32.1-130, 32.1-131, 32.1-133, and 32.1-135

of the Code of Virginia are amended and reenacted as follows:

§ 32.1-102.1. Definitions.

As used in this article, unless the context indicates
otherwise:

“Certificate” means a certificate of public need for
a project required by this article.

“Clinical health service” means a single diagnostic,
therapeutic, rehabilitative, preventive or palliative procedure or a series of
such procedures that may be separately identified for billing and accounting
purposes.

“Health planning region” means a contiguous
geographical area of the Commonwealth with a population base of at least
500,000 persons whichthat is
characterized by the availability of multiple levels of medical care services,
reasonable travel time for tertiary care, and congruence with planning
districts.

“Medical care facility,” as used in this title,
means any institution, place, building or agency, whether or not licensed or
required to be licensed by the Board or the State Mental Health, Mental
Retardation and Substance Abuse Services Board, whether operated for profit or
nonprofit and whether privately owned or privately operated or owned or
operated by a local governmental unit, (i) by or in which health services are
furnished, conducted, operated or offered for the prevention, diagnosis or
treatment of human disease, pain, injury, deformity or physical condition,
whether medical or surgical, of two or more nonrelated mentally or physically
sick or injured persons, or for the care of two or more nonrelated persons
requiring or receiving medical, surgical or nursing attention or services as
acute, chronic, convalescent, aged, physically disabled or crippled or (ii)
which is the recipient of reimbursements from third-party health insurance
programs or prepaid medical service plans. For purposes of this article, only
the following medical care facilities shall be subject to review:

1. General hospitals.

2. Sanitariums.

3. Nursing homes.

4. Intermediate care facilities, except those intermediate
care facilities established for the mentally retarded that have no more than 12
beds and are in an area identified as in need of residential services for
people with mental retardation in any plan of the Department of Mental Health,
Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services.

5. Extended care facilities.

6. Mental hospitals.

7. Mental retardation facilities.

8. Psychiatric hospitals and intermediate care facilities established
primarily for the medical, psychiatric or psychological treatment and
rehabilitation of alcoholics or drug addicts.

9. Specialized centers or clinics or that portion of a
physician’s office developed for the provision of outpatient or ambulatory
surgery, including any abortion clinic as defined in §
32.1-123,
cardiac catheterization, computed tomographic (CT)
scanning, gamma knife surgery, lithotripsy, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI),
magnetic source imaging (MSI), positron emission tomographic (PET) scanning,
radiation therapy, nuclear medicine imaging, except for the purpose of nuclear
cardiac imaging, or such other specialty services as may be designated by the
Board by regulation.

10. Rehabilitation hospitals.

11. Any facility licensed as a hospital.

12. Any abortion clinic as defined in § 32.1-123.

The term “medical care facility” shall not include
any facility of (i) the Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and
Substance Abuse Services; (ii) any nonhospital substance abuse residential
treatment program operated by or contracted primarily for the use of a
community services board under the Department of Mental Health, Mental
Retardation and Substance Abuse Services’ Comprehensive Plan; (iii) an
intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded that has no more than 12
beds and is in an area identified as in need of residential services for people
with mental retardation in any plan of the Department of Mental Health, Mental
Retardation and Substance Abuse Services; (iv) a physician’s office, except
that portion of a physician’s office described above in subdivision 9 of the
definition of “medical care facility”; or (v) the Woodrow Wilson
Rehabilitation Center of the Department of Rehabilitative Services. “Medical
care facility” shall also not include that portion of a physician’s office
dedicated to providing nuclear cardiac imaging.

“Project” means:

1. Establishment of a medical care facility;

2. An increase in the total number of beds or operating rooms
in an existing medical care facility;

3. Relocation at the same site of 10 beds or 10 percent of the
beds, whichever is less, from one existing physical facility to another in any
two-year period; however, a hospital shall not be required to obtain a
certificate for the use of 10 percent of its beds as nursing home beds as
provided in § 32.1-132;

4. Introduction into an existing medical care facility of any
new nursing home service, such as intermediate care facility services, extended
care facility services, or skilled nursing facility services, regardless of the
type of medical care facility in which those services are provided;

5. Introduction into an existing medical care facility of any
new cardiac catheterization, computed tomographic (CT) scanning, gamma knife
surgery, lithotripsy, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), magnetic source imaging
(MSI), medical rehabilitation, neonatal special care, obstetrical, open heart
surgery, positron emission tomographic (PET) scanning, psychiatric, organ or
tissue transplant service, radiation therapy, nuclear medicine imaging, except
for the purpose of nuclear cardiac imaging, substance abuse treatment, or such
other specialty clinical services as may be designated by the Board by
regulation, which the facility has never provided or has not provided in the
previous 12 months;

6. Conversion of beds in an existing medical care facility to
medical rehabilitation beds or psychiatric beds;

7. The addition by an existing medical care facility of any
medical equipment for the provision of cardiac catheterization, computed
tomographic (CT) scanning, gamma knife surgery, lithotripsy, magnetic resonance
imaging (MRI), magnetic source imaging (MSI), open heart surgery, positron
emission tomographic (PET) scanning, radiation therapy, or other specialized
service designated by the Board by regulation. Replacement of existing
equipment shall not require a certificate of public need; or

8. Any capital expenditure of $5 million or more, not defined
as reviewable in subdivisions 1 through 7 of this definition, by or in behalf
of a medical care facility. However, capital expenditures between $1 and $5
million shall be registered with the Commissioner pursuant to regulations
developed by the Board.

“Regional health planning agency” means the regional
agency, including the regional health planning board, its staff and any
component thereof, designated by the Virginia Health Planning Board to perform
the health planning activities set forth in this chapter within a health
planning region.

“State Medical Facilities Plan” means the planning
document adopted by the Board of Health which shall include, but not be limited
to, (i) methodologies for projecting need for medical care facility beds and
services; (ii) statistical information on the availability of medical care
facilities and services; and (iii) procedures, criteria and standards for
review of applications for projects for medical care facilities and services.

“Virginia Health Planning Board” means the statewide
health planning body established pursuant to § 32.1-122.02 which that serves as the analytical and technical resource to the
Secretary of Health and Human Resources in matters requiring health analysis
and planning.

On and after July 1, 2005, all proposed and
existing abortion clinics, as defined in § 32.1-123, shall be subject to this
article as ambulatory surgery centers.

§ 32.1-102.2. Regulations.

A. The Board shall promulgate regulations whichthat
are consistent with this article and:

1. Shall establish concise procedures for the prompt review of
applications for certificates consistent with the provisions of this article whichthat
may include a structured batching process whichthat
incorporates, but is not limited to, authorization for the Commissioner to
request proposals for certain projects. In any structured batching process
established by the Board, applications, combined or separate, for computed
tomographic (CT) scanning, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission
tomographic (PET) scanning, radiation therapy or nuclear imaging shall be
considered in the radiation therapy batch. A single application may be filed
for a combination of (i) radiation therapy and (ii) any or all of the computed
tomographic (CT) scanning, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission
tomographic (PET) scanning, and nuclear medicine imaging;

2. May classify projects and may eliminate one or more or all
of the procedures prescribed in § 32.1-102.6 for different classifications;

3. May provide for exempting from the requirement of a
certificate projects determined by the Commissioner, upon application for
exemption, to be subject to the economic forces of a competitive market or to
have no discernible impact on the cost or quality of health services;

4. Shall establish specific criteria for determining need in
rural areas, giving due consideration to distinct and unique geographic,
socioeconomic, cultural, transportation, and other barriers to access to care
in such areas and providing for weighted calculations of need based on the
barriers to health care access in such rural areas in lieu of the
determinations of need used for the particular proposed project within the
relevant health systems area as a whole; and

5. May establish, on or after July 1, 1999, a schedule of fees
for applications for certificates to be applied to expenses for the
administration and operation of the certificate of public need program. Such
fees shall not be less than $1,000 nor exceed the lesser of one percent of the
proposed expenditure for the project or $20,000. Until such time as the Board
shall establish a schedule of fees, such fees shall be one percent of the
proposed expenditure for the project; however, such fees shall not be less than
$1,000 or more than $20,000.; and

6. May establish an annual application process for
abortion clinics in existence prior to July 1, 2005,
that shall include the name of the abortion clinic and the reason why such
clinic should be excluded from compliance with the provisions of this article.

B. Pursuant to subdivision A 6, the Commissioner for
Health shall determine whether an existing
abortion clinic has demonstrated sufficient cause to be excluded from the requirements set forth in
this article. In determining whether an abortion clinic has demonstrated
sufficient cause to be excluded from compliance with the provisions of this
article, the Commissioner shall consider the following factors:
(i) the costs of complying with the certificate of public need filing
requirements, (ii) the number and
types of services provided by such clinic, (iii) the status of the facility in satisfying the requirements set forth in
regulations, and (iv) any plans for future development.

C. The Board shall promulgate
regulations providing for time limitations for schedules for completion and
limitations on the exceeding of the maximum capital expenditure amount for all
reviewable projects. The Commissioner shall not approve any such extension or
excess unless it complies with the Board’s regulations.

CD. The
Board shall also promulgate regulations authorizing the Commissioner to
condition approval of a certificate on the agreement of the applicant to
provide a level of care at a reduced rate to indigents or accept patients
requiring specialized care. In addition, the Board’s licensure regulations
shall direct the Commissioner to condition the issuing or renewing of any
license for any applicant whose certificate was approved upon such condition on
whether such applicant has complied with any agreement to provide a level of
care at a reduced rate to indigents or accept patients requiring specialized
care.

§ 32.1-123. Definitions.

As used in this article unless a different meaning or
construction is clearly required by the context or otherwise:

“Abortion clinic” means any facility,
other than a hospital as defined herein
or an ambulatory surgery center as licensed by the Board, in which 25 or more
first trimester abortions are performed in any 12-month
period.

“Certified nursing facility” means any skilled
nursing facility, skilled care facility, intermediate care facility, nursing or
nursing care facility, or nursing home, whether freestanding or a portion of a
freestanding medical care facility, that is certified as a Medicare or Medicaid
provider, or both, pursuant to § 32.1-137.

“Class I violation” means failure of a nursing home
or certified nursing facility to comply with one or more requirements of state
or federal law or regulations which creates a situation that presents an
immediate and serious threat to patient health or safety.

“Class II violation” means a pattern of
noncompliance by a nursing home or certified nursing facility with one or more
federal conditions of participation which indicates delivery of substandard
quality of care but does not necessarily create an immediate and serious threat
to patient health and safety. Regardless of whether the facility participates
in Medicare or Medicaid, the federal conditions of participation shall be the
standards for Class II violations.

“Hospital” means any facility licensed pursuant to
this article in which the primary function is the provision of diagnosis, of
treatment, and of medical and nursing services, surgical or nonsurgical, for
two or more nonrelated individuals, including hospitals known by varying
nomenclature or designation such as sanatoriums, sanitariums and general,
acute, rehabilitation, chronic disease, short-term, long-term, outpatient
surgical, and inpatient or outpatient maternity hospitals.

“Immediate and serious threat” means a situation or
condition having a high probability that serious harm or injury to patients
could occur at any time, or already has occurred, and may occur again, if
patients are not protected effectively from the harm, or the threat is not
removed.

“Inspection” means all surveys, inspections,
investigations and other procedures necessary for the Department of Health to
perform in order to carry out various obligations imposed on the Board or
Commissioner by applicable state and federal laws and regulations.

“Nursing home” means any facility or any identifiable
component of any facility licensed pursuant to this article in which the
primary function is the provision, on a continuing basis, of nursing services
and health-related services for the treatment and inpatient care of two or more
nonrelated individuals, including facilities known by varying nomenclature or
designation such as convalescent homes, skilled nursing facilities or skilled
care facilities, intermediate care facilities, extended care facilities and
nursing or nursing care facilities.

“Nonrelated” means not related by blood or marriage,
ascending or descending or first degree full or half collateral.

“Substandard quality of care” means deficiencies in
practices of patient care, preservation of patient rights, environmental
sanitation, physical plant maintenance, or life safety whichthat,
if not corrected, will have a significant harmful effect on patient health and
safety.

§ 32.1-125. Establishment or operation of hospitals and
nursing homes prohibited without license or certification; licenses not
transferable.

A. No person shall own, establish, conduct, maintain, manage
or operate in thisthe
Commonwealth any abortion clinic, hospital or nursing
home unless such abortion clinic, hospital or nursing
home is licensed or certified as provided in this article.

B. No license issued hereunder shall be assignable or
transferable.

C. On and after July 1, 2005,
no proposed abortion clinic shall operate in the Commonwealth unless the abortion clinic is licensed by the Board. The
Board shall promulgate regulations for the licensure of abortion clinics that require every licensed abortion
clinic to comply with the
requirements for operation of ambulatory surgery centers in effect on June 30,
2005.

§ 32.1-125.1. Inspection of hospitals by state agencies
generally.

A. As used in this section unless the
context requires a different meaning, “abortion
clinic” or
“hospital” means an abortion clinic
or
a hospital as defined in § 32.1-123 or § 37.1-1.

B. State agencies shall make or cause
to be made only such inspections of hospitals as are necessary to carry out the
various obligations imposed on each agency by applicable state and federal laws
and regulations. Any on-site inspection by a state agency or a division or unit
thereof that substantially complies with the inspection requirements of any
other state agency or any other division or unit of the inspecting agency
charged with making similar inspections shall be accepted as an equivalent
inspection in lieu of an on-site inspection by said agency or by a division or
unit of the inspecting agency. A state agency shall coordinate its hospital
inspections both internally and with those required by other state agencies so
as to ensure that the requirements of this section are met.

C. Notwithstanding any provision of
law to the contrary, all hospitals licensed by the Department of Health or
Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services which that have been certified under the
provisions of Title XVIII of the Social Security Act for hospital or
psychiatric services or which that

have obtained accreditation from the Joint Commission on Accreditation of
Healthcare Organizations may be subject to inspections so long as such
certification or accreditation is maintained but only to the extent necessary
to ensure the public health and safety.

§ 32.1-126. Commissioner to inspect and to issue licenses to
or assure compliance with certification requirements for abortion clinics, hospitals,
nursing homes and certified nursing facilities; notice of denial of license;
consultative advice and assistance; notice to electric utilities; penalty.

A. Pursuant to this article, the Commissioner shall issue
licenses to, and assure compliance with certification requirements for abortion clinics, hospitals and nursing homes, and assure
compliance with certification requirements for facilities owned or operated by
agencies of the Commonwealth as defined in subdivisionclause
(vi) of § 32.1-124, which after inspection are found to be in compliance with
the provisions of this article and with all applicable state and federal
regulations. The Commissioner shall notify by certified mail or by overnight
express mail any applicant denied a license of the reasons for such denial.

B. The Commissioner shall cause each and every abortion clinic, hospital, nursing home, and certified nursing
facility to be inspected periodically, but not less often than biennially, in
accordance with the provisions of this article and regulations of the Board.

Unless expressly prohibited by federal statute or regulation,
the findings of the Commissioner, with respect to periodic surveys of nursing
facilities conducted pursuant to the Survey, Certification, and Enforcement
Procedures set forth in 42 C.F.R. Part 488, shall be considered case decisions
pursuant to the Administrative Process Act (§ 2.2-4000 et seq.) and shall be
subject to the Department’s informal dispute resolution procedures, or, at the
option of the Department or the nursing facility, the formal fact-finding
procedures under § 2.2-4020. The Commonwealth shall be deemed the proponent for
purposes of § 2.2-4020. Further, notwithstanding the provisions of clause (iii)
of § 2.2-4025, such case decisions shall also be subject to the right to court
review pursuant to Article 5 (§ 2.2-4025 et seq.) of Chapter 40 of Title 2.2.

C. The Commissioner may, in accordance with regulations of the
Board, provide for consultative advice and assistance, with such limitations
and restrictions as he deems proper, to any person who intends to apply for an abortion clinic, a hospital or nursing home license or nursing
facility certification.

D. Upon determining that any abortion clinic is in
violation of this chapter, any other Virginia law or any regulation promulgated
by an agency of the Commonwealth or any federal law or regulation, the
Commissioner may, upon proper notice, deny, suspend, or revoke
its license or pursue one or more of the civil or criminal penalties provided
in § 32.1-27. Appeals of such actions may be made in accordance with the
Administrative Process Act (§ 2.2-400 et seq.).

E. For the purpose of facilitating the
prompt restoration of electrical service and prioritization of customers during
widespread power outages, the Commissioner shall notify on a quarterly basis
all electric utilities serving customers in Virginia as to the location of all
nursing homes licensed in the Commonwealth. The requirements of this subsection
shall be met if the Commissioner maintains such information on an electronic
database accessible by electric utilities serving customers in Virginia.

§ 32.1-127. Regulations.

A. The regulations promulgated by the Board to carry out the
provisions of this article shall be in substantial conformity to the standards
of health, hygiene, sanitation, construction and safety as established and
recognized by medical and health care professionals and by specialists in
matters of public health and safety, including health and safety standards
established under provisions of Title XVIII and Title XIX of the Social Security
Act, and to the provisions of Article 2 (§ 32.1-138 et seq.) of this chapter. Further,
the Board’s regulations for licensure of abortion clinics
shall require that such clinics comply with the requirements for ambulatory
surgery centers in effect on June 30, 2005.

B. Such regulations:

1. Shall include minimum standards for (i) the construction
and maintenance of abortion clinics,
hospitals, nursing homes and certified nursing facilities to assure the
environmental protection and the life safety of its patients and employees and
the public; (ii) the operation, staffing and equipping of abortion clinics,
hospitals, nursing homes and certified nursing facilities; (iii) qualifications
and training of staff of abortion clinics, hospitals, nursing
homes and certified nursing facilities, except those professionals licensed or
certified by a health regulatory board within the
Department of Health Professions; and (iv) conditions under which an abortion clinic, a hospital or nursing home may provide medical
and nursing services to patients in their places of residence;

2. Shall provide that at least one physician who is licensed
to practice medicine in thisthe
Commonwealth shall be on call at all times, though not necessarily physically
present on the premises, at each hospital whichthat
operates or holds itself out as operating an emergency service;

3. May classify hospitals and nursing homes by type of
specialty or service and may provide for licensing hospitals and nursing homes
by bed capacity and by type of specialty or service;

4. Shall also require that each hospital establish a protocol
for organ donation, in compliance with federal law and the regulations of the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), particularly 42 C.F.R. §
482.45. Each hospital shall have an agreement with an organ procurement
organization designated in CMS regulations for routine contact, whereby the
provider’s designated organ procurement organization certified by CMS (i) is
notified in a timely manner of all deaths or imminent deaths of patients in the
hospital and (ii) is authorized to determine the suitability of the decedent or
patient for organ donation and, in the absence of a similar arrangement with
any eye bank or tissue bank in Virginia certified by the Eye Bank Association
of America or the American Association of Tissue Banks, the suitability for
tissue and eye donation. The hospital shall also have an agreement with at
least one tissue bank and at least one eye bank to cooperate in the retrieval,
processing, preservation, storage, and distribution of tissues and eyes to
ensure that all usable tissues and eyes are obtained from potential donors and
to avoid interference with organ procurement. The protocol shall ensure that
the hospital collaborates with the designated organ procurement organization to
inform the family of each potential donor of the option to donate organs,
tissues, or eyes or to decline to donate. The individual making contact with
the family shall have completed a course in the methodology for approaching
potential donor families and requesting organ or tissue donation that (i) is
offered or approved by the organ procurement organization and designed in
conjunction with the tissue and eye bank community and (ii) encourages
discretion and sensitivity according to the specific circumstances, views, and
beliefs of the relevant family. In addition, the hospital shall work
cooperatively with the designated organ procurement organization in educating
the staff responsible for contacting the organ procurement organization’s
personnel on donation issues, the proper review of death records to improve
identification of potential donors, and the proper procedures for maintaining
potential donors while necessary testing and placement of potential donated organs,
tissues, and eyes takes place. This process shall be followed, without
exception, unless the family of the relevant decedent or patient has expressed
opposition to organ donation, the chief administrative officer of the hospital
or his designee knows of such opposition, and no donor card or other relevant
document, such as an advance directive, can be found;

5. Shall require that each hospital that provides obstetrical
services establish a protocol for admission or transfer of any pregnant woman
who presents herself while in labor;

6. Shall also require that each licensed hospital develop and
implement a protocol requiring written discharge plans for identified,
substance-abusing, postpartum women and their infants. The protocol shall
require that the discharge plan be discussed with the patient and that
appropriate referrals for the mother and the infant be made and documented.
Appropriate referrals may include, but need not be limited to, treatment
services, comprehensive early intervention services for infants and toddlers
with disabilities and their families pursuant to Part H of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1471 et seq., and family-oriented
prevention services. The discharge planning process shall involve, to the extent
possible, the father of the infant and any members of the patient’s extended
family who may participate in the follow-up care for the mother and the infant.
Immediately upon identification, pursuant to § 54.1-2403.1, of any
substance-abusing, postpartum woman, the hospital shall notify, subject to
federal law restrictions, the community services board of the jurisdiction in
which the woman resides to appoint a discharge plan manager. The community
services board shall implement and manage the discharge plan;

7. Shall require that each nursing home and certified nursing
facility fully disclose to the applicant for admission the home’s or facility’s
admissions policies, including any preferences given;

8. Shall require that each licensed abortion
clinic and each
licensed hospital establish a protocol relating to
the rights and responsibilities of patients which that shall include a process reasonably designed to inform
patients of such rights and responsibilities. Such rights and responsibilities
of patients, a copy of which shall be given to patients on admission, shall be
based on Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations’
standards;

9. Shall establish standards and maintain a process for
designation of levels or categories of care in neonatal services according to
an applicable national or state-developed evaluation system. Such standards may
be differentiated for various levels or categories of care and may include, but
need not be limited to, requirements for staffing credentials, staff/patient
ratios, equipment, and medical protocols;

10. Shall require that each nursing home and certified nursing
facility train all employees who are mandated to report adult abuse, neglect,
or exploitation pursuant to § 63.2-1606 on such reporting procedures and the
consequences for failing to make a required report;

11. Shall permit hospital personnel, as designated in medical
staff bylaws, rules and regulations, or hospital policies and procedures, to
accept emergency telephone and other verbal orders for medication or treatment
for hospital patients from physicians, and other persons lawfully authorized by
state statute to give patient orders, subject to a requirement that such verbal
order be signed, within a reasonable period of time not to exceed 72 hours as
specified in the hospital’s medical staff bylaws, rules and regulations or
hospital policies and procedures, by the person giving the order, or, when such
person is not available within the period of time specified, co-signed by
another physician or other person authorized to give the order; and

12. Shall require, unless the vaccination is medically
contraindicated or the resident declines the offer of the vaccination, that
each certified nursing facility and nursing home provide or arrange for the
administration to its residents of (i) an annual vaccination against influenza
and (ii) a pneumococcal vaccination, in accordance with the most recent
recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

C. Upon obtaining the appropriate license, if applicable,
licensed hospitals, nursing homes, and certified nursing facilities may operate
adult day care centers.

D. All facilities licensed by the Board pursuant to this
article which that
provide treatment or care for hemophiliacs and, in the course of such
treatment, stock clotting factors, shall maintain records of all lot numbers or
other unique identifiers for such clotting factors in order that, in the event
the lot is found to be contaminated with an infectious agent, those
hemophiliacs who have received units of this contaminated clotting factor may
be apprised of this contamination. Facilities whichthat
have identified a lot whichthat is
known to be contaminated shall notify the recipient’s attending physician and
request that he notify the recipient of the contamination. If the physician is
unavailable, the facility shall notify by mail, return receipt requested, each
recipient who received treatment from a known contaminated lot at the
individual’s last known address.

§ 32.1-129. Application for license.

Each application for an abortion clinic, a
hospital, or nursing home license shall be
made on a form prescribed by the Board. The application shall specify the abortion clinic’s, hospital’s, or nursing home’s official name and
the kind of hospital or nursing home, the
, its

location thereof,
the name of the person in charge, and
such additional relevant information as the Board requires.

§ 32.1-130. Service charges.

A. A service charge of $1.50 per patient bed for which the
hospital or nursing home is licensed, but not less than $75 nor more than $500,
shall be paid for each license upon issuance and renewal. The service charge
for a license for a hospital or nursing home whichthat

does not provide overnight inpatient care shall be $75.

B. All service charges received under the provisions of this article subsection A shall be paid into a
special fund of the Department and are
appropriated to the Department for the operation of the hospital and nursing
home licensure and inspection program.

C. All abortion clinics shall submit, in accordance
with the Board’s regulations, such licensure fees as may be required to support
the costs of the abortion clinic licensure and inspection program.

§ 32.1-131. Expiration and renewal of licenses.

All licenses for abortion
clinics, hospitals, and nursing homes
shall expire at midnight
December 31 of the year issued, or as otherwise specified, and shall be
required to be renewed annually.

§ 32.1-133. Display of license.

The current license for all abortion clinics, hospitals, and nursing homes
shall at all times be posted in each abortion clinic,
hospital or nursing home in a place readily visible and accessible to the
public.

§ 32.1-135. Revocation or suspension of license or
certification; restriction or prohibition of new admissions to nursing home or
on the operation of an abortion clinic; civil penalty.

A. In accordance with applicable regulations of the Board, the
Commissioner (i) may restrict or prohibit new admissions to any nursing home or
certified nursing facility or the operation of any abortion clinic,;

or (ii) may petition the court to impose a civil penalty against any nursing
home or,
certified nursing facility, or abortion clinic
or to appoint a receiver for sucha
nursing home or certified nursing facility, or, in the case of a
nursing home or certified nursing facility,
both the appointment of a receiver and a civil penalty,;

or (iii) may revoke the certification or may revoke or suspend the license of an abortion clinic, a hospital,
or nursing home or the certification of any certified nursing facility for
violation of any provision of this article or Article 2 (§ 32.1-138 et seq.) of
this chapter or of any applicable regulation promulgated under this chapter or
for permitting, aiding, or abetting the commission of any illegal act in the abortion clinic, hospital, or
nursing home.

All appeals from notice of imposition of administrative
sanctions shall be received in writing within fifteen15
days of the date of receipt of such notice. The provisions of the
Administrative Process Act (§ 2.2-4000 et seq.) shall be applicable to such
appeals.

B. If a license or certification is revoked as herein
provided, a new license or certification may be issued by the Commissioner
after satisfactory evidence is submitted to him that the conditions upon which
revocation was based have been corrected and after proper inspection has been
made and compliance with all provisions of this article and applicable state
and federal law and regulations hereunder has been obtained.

C. Suspension of a license shall in all cases be for an
indefinite time. The Commissioner may completely or partially restore a
suspended license or certificate when he determines that the conditions upon
which suspension was based have been completely or partially corrected and that
the interests of the public will not be jeopardized by resumption of operation.
No additional service charges shall be required for restoring such license.

Share

Solicit A Murder, Spend Two Years In Jail

Johnnie and Melissa Blankinship’s 2003 marriage apparently wasn’t working. In 2004, Johnnie told Melissa that he wanted a divorce. Melissa, in turn, told her ex-husband that she wanted to have Johnnie murdered so she could collect on his $500,000 life insurance policy.

The ex-husband contacted police who set Melissa up with an undercover agent. Melissa gave the undercover agent $10,000, a sawed-off shotgun and a color picture of her husband.

Given the evidence, Melissa plead guilty to soliciting murder. She might as well have plead guilty to embezzlement as the judge in the case sentenced her to just two years in jail and eight years probation.

Melissa’s attorney claimed that Johnnie had physically abused her. Which, of course, would explain why she wanted to kill him when he tried to divorce her. A court-appointed psychologist testified that Melissa was suffering from postpartum depression, a personality disorder and battered woman’s syndrome from her previous marriage. All of which, of course, are universally recognized as excuses for coolly planning a murder-for-hire.

According to the Atlanta-Journal Constitution, when the judge announced the verdict,

Johnnie Blankinship looked to his family and said, “You’re kidding me.”

Indeed.

Sources:

Wife confesses in murder plot. Eric Stirgus, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, February 2, 2005.

Share

Villanova University Backs Down on Honoring Baby Killer

Villanova University found itself the focus of controversy in February over its plans to honor a professor who killed her 6-month old baby and then committed suicide in jail in August 2003.

Mine Ener had been a professor of history at Villanova and director of the school’s Center for Arab American Studies. In 2003 she gave birth to a baby girl who suffered from Down’s syndrome. According to police, Ener suffered from postpartum depression, for which she received medication, and did not want her daughter to “go through life suffering.”

So she slashed the baby’s throat. Later, while in jail awaiting 2nd degree murder charges, she killed herself by reportedly placing a plastic bag over her head and suffocating herself to death.

In 2004, a Villanova committee decided to honor Ener by creating the Mine Ener Memorial Study Space in the school’s Falvey Library. The space was designed to “commemorate Ener’s life and work” according to Villanova’s history department. A plaque was to be erected in the library, but before it could be put up, the national media got hold of the story.

The main problem with the plaque was that the university and Ener’s colleagues seemed to be skipping over the whole episode of Ener murdering her infant as if it was all but irrelevant. For example, here’s the text of the invitation that Villanova sent out for the ceremony at which the plaque was to be unveiled,

Villanova students are cordially invited to attend a brief ceremony to dedicate the Mine Ener Memorial in the Study Lounge on the first floor of Falvey Library, to take place on Thursday, January 20, at 9:30 am in the Library. Refreshments will be served.

A popular teacher and widely published specialist on the history of the modern Middle East, Dr. Ener joined the History Department faculty in 1996, and was associate professor and Director of the Center for Arab and Islamic Studies from 2002 until her death in August 2003.

The Memorial has been funded by donations from her many friends, family and colleagues to the Mine Ener Memorial Fund Committee, consisting of Rev. Kail C. Ellis, O.S.A., Dean, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences;Dr. Barbara Wall, Special Assistant to the President for Mission Effectiveness; Dr. Adele Lindenmeyr, Professor and Chair of History; and Dr. Seth Koven, Associate Professor of History. The funds have been used to purchase furnishings for the new student lounge in the Library.

Many of the people who knew Ener defended the plaque claiming that the idea was to honor and remember the Ener they knew and worked with, not the person whose mental faculties progressively slipped to the point where she could murder her infant. As Dom Giordano told Cybercast News Service, however, the circumstances surrounding the murder and suicide certainly make sympathy toward her and her family understandable, but celebrating such a person is simply unacceptable.

In fact, Villanova University itself has taken the same stance in the past. In 1997, a major donor to Villanvoa — John du Pont — was convicted of the 1996 murder of Olympic wrestler David Schultz. Like Ener, du Pont was found guilty but mentally ill (he suffered from schizophrenia).

Did Villanova prefer to remember DuPont the way he was before his mental problems drove him to kill? Not exactly. Instead it quickly stripped his surname off of the basketball court/gymnasium which until then had been named after DuPont in gratitude for all the money he gave them.

And they were right. Despite what DuPont may or may not have been like before his mental illness drove him to murder, killing another human being is not just something you can cast off to the side over refreshments at a ceremony honoring someone.

Villanova eventually caved, and removed the plaque honoring Ener.

Sources:

Catholic University honors popular teacher who killed her baby. Kathleen Rhodes, CNSNews.Com, January 27, 2005.

Villanova Removes Plaque. WPVI.Com, January 31, 2005.

Silent reminders in Villanova halls. John Grogan, Philadelphia Inquirer, February 18, 2005.

Mom Kills Infant Daughter With Down Syndrome, Then Kills Self. Dave Reynolds, Inclusion Daily Express, September 3, 2003.

John du Pont Convicted of Murder. Ginny and John Dover, Schizophrenia.Com, 1997.

Share

Oregon Researcher Finds Young Women More Likely to Engage in Interpersonal Aggression than Men

Research involving domestic violence has suggested that men and women tend to be equally likely to engage in acts of violence, though due to size and other differences women are more likely to sustain a serious injury from such violence. Deborah Capaldi, a researcher at the Oregon Social Learning Center wanted to study interpersonal violence in a controlled setting and was surprised by the results — young women in her study were four times more likely to initiate physical aggression such as slapping, poking and kicking.

Capaldi brought young couples in to her lab and gave them problem-solving exercises they had to work together to solve. Capaldi then recorded their behavior and analyzed who initiated physical aggression. She found that women aged 18 years old were four times more likely to initiate aggression than men. This effect gradually went away with age, until 26 when women initiated aggression only slightly more often then men.

Capaldi told The Register-Guard (Oregon),

Who were the primary initiators of such slaps, pokes and kicks? The women. . . . Women engage in aggression and we’re not doing them any favors by denying they have any part in it.

According to The Register-Guard, Capaldi was surprised at some of the acts of physical aggression they observed in a laboratory setting,

Capaldi said she and her colleagues expect some verbal arguments but were surprised by the extent of slaps, pokes and kicks as partners discussed such assigned topics as planning a party, where to go on a date, or how to deal with such issues as jealousy and lack of money.

If hit or poked, the men and women were about equally as likely to respond in kind. None of the physical aggression was severe, which researchers would have halted, Capaldi said.

Capaldi’s research is scheduled for publication in the Journal of Family Violence.

Finally, The Register-Guard interviewed for its story Margo Schaefer, who runs Womenspace which is a domestic violence shelter. Schaefer told The Register-Guard that there is a difference between men and women when it comes to violence,

The most common cause of injury for women between the ages of 15 and 44 is domestic violence — you don’t see that for men.

The claim that domestic violence is the number one cause of injury for women or some subset of women is one of those myths that simply won’t go away. In fact, the number one cause of injury for both men and women are accidental falls. Domestic violence doesn’t occupy the second spot either, with that being claimed by automobile accidents. In fact, only about 1 percent of women’s injury-related visits to the emergency rooms appear related to assault by a male intimate.

It doesn’t benefit anyone to either downplay or exaggerate the extent of domestic violence as Ms. Schaefer and other domestic violence advocates routinely do.

Source:

Fingering the aggressor. Jeff Wright, The Register-Guard, January 29, 2005.

Share

Blaming the Victim in a Domestic Violence Case

When is it okay to blame the victim in a case of domestic violence that leads to murder? When the victim is male.

Consider the case of Ruth Anne Willis and her ex-husband Russell Bailey. Willis and Bailey were divorced in 1996 and Willis was granted sole custody of their two daughters, and Bailey was granted visitation every other week and one evening per week. Ms. Willis later relocated her daughters in the Summer of 2001 over Bailey’s objections.

As divorce lawyer Larissa Fedak told the Dundas Star News, the family law process worked very well for Willis until recently when a dispute arose about where her youngest daughter would attend the Canadian equivalent of high school.

The daughter wanted to attend a private school near Bailey’s residence. Willis apparently was vehemently opposed to any sort of private education. After discussing with his daughter her desire to attend the private school, Bailey decided to file for sole custody of his younger daughter in order to allow her to attend the school. Apparently Willis believed that he was likely to succeed.

So on one of the weekends in which Bailey’s younger daughter was visiting him, Willis drove with her 15-month old baby to confront him. While Bailey was on the phone with a 911 operator, Willis put the baby down in its seat, picked up a semi-automatic gun, and shot Bailey 8 times, including once in the head while he was on the ground. Willis tried to continue shooting, but the gun failed to fire on the 9th shot.

Willis was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for the first 13 years of her life sentence. She is considering appealing the sentence.

Anyway, what caught my eye was this assessment from Sally Palmer, professor emeritus of McMaster University’s social work program, who told the Dundas Star News,

The seeds for the murder are in the violent relationship that started long before the custody issue, and it’s really impossible for us to know whether one parent contributed more to this than the other. But they were both guilty of putting their own needs before those of their two daughters by engaging in mutual violence.

Color me skeptical, but I can’t imagine Palmer making the ludicrous claim above if Bailey had murdered Willis rather than vice versa. It’s amazing how there’s no excuse for interpersonal violence . . . except, of course, when there is.

Source:

Dundas shooting highlights emotion of custody battles. Craig Campbell, Dundas Star News, January 28, 2005.

Share

British Prison Service Settles Complaint with Lesbian Guards

Great Britain’s Prison Service reached a settlement with nine lesbian prison guards who had accused the Prison Service of sexual discrimination.

Back in March 2002, the nine prison guards were transferred out of Holloway Prison after a five-month investigation claimed they were part of an organized group that was sexually harassing female staff at the prison.

At the time, the women were accused of harassing heterosexual female staff and trying to pressure them to become lesbians. Martin Narey, then director general of the Prison Service, said at the time,

The findings of the investigation report into bullying and intimidation of staff at Holloway have deeply concerned me. The findings reveal that sexual harassment, bullying and intimidation of staff have taken place, and have not, until now, been properly challenged. Behavior of this kind will not be tolerated in the prison service. Management should be tough. It should be robust. But it should never be intimidating. Bullying and sexual harassment are totally unacceptable. These staff who have been there some time effectively established themselves as an alternative management structure. They turned Holloway into an unhealthy place in which to be going to work.

Former Holloway staff member Terry White went further, telling The Observer,

They wanted the challenge of turning straight women. They would target the best looking and most feminine of the new recruits, especially the young ones from outside London.

The women responded with a complaint calling the allegations unfounded. In January, the Prison Service reached a settlement that explicitly stated the sexual harassment claims were in fact unfounded. The Prison Service also agreed to a six-figure settlement with the nine women and allowed them to apply for jobs at Holloway Prison in the future.

Sources:

Damages for lesbian prison guards. The BBC, January 28, 2005.

Lesbian Prison Officers Disciplined. The Observer, March 18, 2002.

Lesbian prison officers claim sexual discrimination. Dan Thomas, Personnel Today, January 13, 2005.

Share

Monkeys Will Pay for Porn

Just like members of a certain other species, researchers at Duke University Medical Center discovered that male monkeys will pay for pornography.

According to a press release describing the research,

In the new work, researchers Robert Deaner, Amit Khera and Michael Pitt . . . tested this hypotheses by measuring how much fruit juice monkeys would accept or forgo to see photographs of familiar monkeys, permitting the researchers to compare monkey’s valuation of different types of social information. Male monkeys “paid” in juice to view female hindquarters or high-ranking monkey’s faces, but required “overpayment” to view low-ranking monkeys’ faces. Despite living in a captive colony, the value monkeys placed on information about potential sexual partners and powerful individuals matched the relative importance of these individuals for behavioral success in the wild. This study demonstrates that monkeys assess visual information by its social value and provides the first evidence that they spontaneously discriminate between images of others based on the social rank or classification of individuals.

The monkeys in this case were rhesus macaques. Apparently no one told the researchers that monkey pornography is just like terrorism.

Sources:

Monkeys pay per view. Press Release Cell Press, January 27, 2005.

Monkeys pay to view porn. BetterHumans.Com, January 28, 2005.

Share

Pauline Nyiramasuhuko Denies Rwandan Genocide Charges

Lawyers for Pauline Nyiramasuhuko, the first woman to be charged with genocide by the international tribune prosecuting those alleged to have participated in the Rwandan genocide, maintained their clients innocence as the defense began its part of the trial.

Nyiramasuhuko and her son, Arsene Shalom Ntahobali, are accused of organizing and inciting troops in the Rwandan town of Butare to carry out genocide. According to the prosecution, Butare was a town in which Hutu-Tutsi relations were generally good before the genocide, so the government sent Nyiramasuhuko and her son to the town to ensure that soldiers their followed through on the genocide plan.

Witnesses have testified at her trial that she instructed soldiers to rape the best looking Tutsi women before killing them. Ntahobali is accused of participating in the raping and killing of Tutsi women.

Source:

Rwandan denies genocide charges. The BBC, January 31, 2005.

Share

Affairs Major Reason for Divorce in UK, Where Women Initiate Almost all Divorces

In January, the BBC reported on a UK survey of divorce lawyers that asked the lawyers to provide statistics on the causes of the divorces they handled.

According to the survey, adultery was the number one cause of divorce in Great Britain, with 27 percent of divorces being initiated because one of the partners had an affair. In 75 percent of those cases, the adulterous spouse was the husband.

After adultery, 11 percent of marriages ended due to family-related strains, and 17 percent from emotional or physical abuse.

The study also reported that women were overwhelmingly the initiators of divorces, petitioning for divorce in 93 percent of the cases handled by the lawyers in the survey.

Source:

Affairs ‘main reason for divorce’ The BBC, January 23, 2005.

Share

Woman Accused of Faking Internet Harassment

Bess Carney, 27, made national news in January after being accused of a strange fake Internet harassment scheme.

The Vermont woman is accused of setting up an e-mail account in the name of a former co-worker after said co-worker began dating one of Carney’s friends. Carney allegedly then used the e-mail account to send herself harassing and bizarre e-mails. She then forwarded the e-mails on to other associates to make it look like her former co-worker was unstable and harassing her.

Carney apparently also reported to police that the former co-worker was harassing her via e-mail.

As a result of all this, she was arrested in January and charged with charged with one felony county of identity theft for allegedly pretending to be the former co-worker in the e-mails, along with misdemeanor charges of filing a false police report and unauthorized computer access. She faces up to 3 years in jail and a $5,000 fine on the felon identity theft charge, and up to six months in jail and a $500 fine on each of the misdemeanor charges.

Carney plead not guilty to all charges.

Source:

Woman said to have using co-worker’s e-mail to make fake threats. Associated Press, January 28, 2005.

Share