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.

Virginia HB 2784 is a post from: EquityFeminism

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Caplan condemned Iliescu giving birth saying,

“. . . [reproductive decisions] are too driven by the desires of couples and not enough by the interests of children.”

. . .

Caplan called it [Iliescu giving birth] “completely unethical and immoral,” noting that average life expectancy for Romanian women is 73 years. The fact she is single makes it worse because it raises the odds the child would have no one to care for her if the mother dies, he said.

Now the reason I can’t stand ethicists like Caplan is that they apply moral principles in dealing with medical issues that we would never tolerate in other areas.

As I mentioned in my previous post on this issue, the claim that reproductive decisions are driven by selfish interests of parents is silly — almost all children who are intentionally conceived are done for the selfish interests of parents. I doubt there are many women who sit down with counselors and go into detail about all the advantages and disadvantages of having children and decide whether or not it truly makes sense from a purely altruistic point of view. We have children in large measure to fulfill the overwhelming biological drive to do so and the emotional fulfillment that being a parent brings.

So why should we then complain that people seeking fertility treatment are just like the rest of us? Why should they be held to some ridiculous altruistic standard?

The complaint about Iliescu’s age and unmarried status also could broadly apply to large numbers of women who regularly have children (in fact in some countries providing fertility treatment to single women of any age is very controversial and in some areas banned).

There is nothing at all objectionable about Iliescu’s decision to have a child, even at 66. Caplan simply repackages a noxious disrespect for the reproductive rights of individuals and repackages it as “medical ethics.”

Source:

Study finds wide range of ethics at fertility clinics. Marilynn Marchione, Associated Press, January 25, 2005.

Medical Ethicists on Fertility Treatment is a post from: EquityFeminism

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The law is a bit complex. If two fit parents sign an affidavit opposing grandparent visitation, then a judge is required to abide by that decision — but parents shouldn’t have to go through such a silly process, and what if the parent is a single mother or father, or there is a divorce and the non-custodial and custodial parents disagree about grandparent visitation?

Then it all goes to court where the threshhold is pretty low. Basically the grandparents have to demonstrate the child would suffer mental, physical or emotional harm if deprived of regular visits with their grandchildren. Unless the parents can counter that the visits would not be in the best interests of the child, the court can order visitation against the wishes of the custodial parent.

Now my wife and I have very good relationships with my children’s grandparents, but I can imagine a lot of situations where this wouldn’t obtain. One of my grandmothers was a real piece of work whom I wouldn’t let anywhere near my kids. On the other thand, I’m not sure I could put together a case that it wasn’t in the best interests of the child to see such an individual.

Consider the following case — suppose one of my daughter’s grandparents was a vile racist, and my wife and I both agreed that we’d prefer he not have contact with my daughter. Under Michigan law, we could do that today, but we’d have to go both sign an affidavit and get lawyers involved. We can still do it, but its going to cost us.

Imagine a slightly different scenario. We have almost no contact with the grandparent, until he resurfaces after my wife dies an untimely death. In this scenario, I have to go to court and a judge has to weigh the emotional needs of the child to know her grandfather compared to my desire not to have this person associated with my child.

Under the law, this would be pretty straightforward — I’d win every time. But he can refile very two years, and I have to keep hiring attorneys and dealing with this crap on a regular basis.

And what if the example isn’t so straightforward. What if, for example, I convert to a religion that doesn’t believe in contact with people who are not members of my faith? What if I become a right wing religious nut and I no longer want my child to have contact with one of my parent who happens to be a homosexual?

The point is not that any of these reasons are very good or very bad, but that courts should not be making these decisions at all.

A judge ruled unconstitutional Michigan’s previous grandparents visitation law in 2003. Hopefully they’ll do the same thing to this one.

Sources:

ENROLLED SENATE BILL No. 727. Michigan Legislature, January 3, 2005.

Highlights of the past week’s action at the Capitol. Associated Press, January 8, 2005.

State Senate approves grandparent visitation law. Associated Press, December 8, 2004.

Further Eroding Parents’ Rights in Michigan is a post from: EquityFeminism

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The German Federal Court of Justice earlier this month ruled that paternity tests carried out in secret are inadmissible in a lawsuit, strengthening the case of the SDP to ban such paternity tests outright.

Deutsche Welle quoted Dr. Karin Jackel puncturing the idiocy in this position,

It cannot be that, as a woman, I have the right to make my husband pay to support a child that is not his own, or to deny children the right to know who their real father is. Men are, in every respect, held responsible for their children under our laws, which is why they have the right to know who their children are.

Wolfgang Zeitlmann of the Christian Social Union told Agence-France Presse in January,

A man must be able to find out whether he is the father or not. Making this right dependent on the agreement of the woman is not fair.

And, make no mistake, the express legislation of this goal is to prevent men from carrying out paternity tests without having to go through the courts. German Justice Minister Brigitte Zypries originally proposed this legislation in 2003, complaining that men were seeking secret paternity tests and then divorcing their wives when they discovered that they were not, in fact, the father of the child they had thought was their’s. It being better, presumably, for German marriages to rest on a foundation of lies and deceit.

Zypries said at that time,

Secret paternity tests violate the rights of the child and the mother. They also violate data protection laws.

Sources:

Proposal to ban secret paternity tests divides German government. Agence-France Presse, January 7, 2005.

Who’s Your Daddy?. Deutsche Welle, September 12, 2004.

Father’s rights suffer setback. Deutsche Welle, January 13, 2005.

Should A Paternity Test Require the Mother’s Permission? is a post from: EquityFeminism

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Australia passed a similar law in 1998 and has seen those predictions come true. Now a Melbourne fertility clinic has written to all male politicians under the age of 45 asking them to put their sperm where their legislation is and serve as donors.

The Monash IVF clinic reports that whereas in 1998 it had about 20 donors a year, in 2004 it could only round up five such donors. So the clinic’s medical director, Gab Kovacs, wrote a letter to male politicians in Victoria saying,

We hope that if some of the leading role models within our community become donors, others may follow suit.

Kovacs says he was inspired by recent drives to improve organ donation in Australia.

Apparently this isn’t the first clinic to think outside the box to obtain sperm donors. According to the BBC, in December an Australian fertility clinic offered Canadian students a free two-week vacation in Australia if they’d agree to be sperm donors.

Source:

Australian MPs’ sperm in demand. The BBC, January 13, 2005.

Australian Politicians: Put Your Sperm Where Your Legislation Is is a post from: EquityFeminism

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The bottom line is that John Kerry did horribly with women, especially if you believe as the National Organization for Women president Kim Gandy does that, “Our health, our rights, and our democracy are teetering on the brink” due to Bush’s re-election.

Whereas Al Gore won 54 percent of the vote in 2000, Kerry managed only 51 percent to Bush’s 48 percent among women. In four years in which Bush, according to NOW, placed the very health and rights of women at risk, Bush improved his share of women voters by 5 percent.

What explains the increase? NOW issued a press release shortly after the election blaming security moms,

The gender gap did, in fact, decline from its 10 point spread in 2000 for Al Gore. Women’s leaders speculate that the Bush campaign’s intense focus on security, and their active courting of women voters, drew additional support to the Republican ticket. However, the research shows that, for women, security is more than averting terrorist attacks:

“We need to broaden the dialogue about security,” said Lake. Issues such as preventing violence against women, equal pay, health care and social security are all of vital interest to women and progressive voters.

The shift of a small percentage of women’s votes to Bush occurred most notably among white women, married women and older women. Still, within these groups, women demonstrated less support for Bush than their male counterparts.

As the Washington Times noted in an op-ed, however, the very idea of a gender gap is a bit silly since it is, in fact, largely a racial gap. As the Times notes, except for Bill Clinton’s 1996 re-election, Republican candidates have won a majority of white women in all presidential elections beginning in 1980, but Democratic candidates receive the overwhelming percentage of votes cast by minority women.

So, to get a more precise understanding of how women have responded to the Democratic message, let’s examine how white women have been voting since 1980. In the seven elections beginning with 1980, Democratic presidential candidates have received an average of 46 percent of the white-women two-party vote. Republicans have collected an average of 54 percent. Bill Clinton’s re-election in 1996 was the only time a Democratic candidate received a majority (53 percent in 1996) of the white-women two-party vote. Mr. Reagan received 57 percent in 1980 and 62 percent in 1984. (Mrs. Smeal’s dream ticket of Mondale-Ferraro captured a mere 38 percent of the white-women vote.) George H.W. Bush got 57 percent in 1988 and 50 percent in his 1992 losing campaign. George W. Bush received 51 percent of the white women’s two-party vote in 2000 and 55 percent in 2004. Thus, beginning with the 1980 election, Bob Dole has been the only Republican candidate who has failed to win a majority of the white-women two-party vote. Since white feminists comprise the largest voting bloc based on gender and race, the repeated failure of Mrs. Smeal and her cohorts to deliver helps to explain why Democrats have lost five of the last seven presidential elections.

So why do white women vote majority democratic? After all, John Kerry tried to make sexual inequality a theme of his campaign late in the campaign, citing the wage gap between men and women in one of his debates with Bush. Conservative critics of feminism suggest that the problem is that feminists are out-of-touch with the mainstream,

Another conservative analyst of women’s issues, Carrie Lukas of the Independent Women’s Forum, said feminists “have increasingly marginalized themselves” by embracing an agenda that doesn’t reflect most American women’s priorities.

“They see government as the answer to all problems – as the national health care provider and day care provider,” Lukas said. “And they have made unfettered access to abortion the absolute centerpiece of their movement… Their ‘March for Women’s Lives’ last year seemed like a celebration of abortion.”

I’m not so sure about women rejecting big government, but suspect she’s on to something about the feminist movement’s obsessive focus on abortion. Groups like NOW often seem to focus almost exclusively on abortion, but the issue is surprisingly not a big factor in women’s voter preference. In an open-ended question in exit polls in the 2000 election, for example, only 4 percent of women listed abortion as an important factor in determining who they voted for.

In exit polls in 2004, surprisingly large numbers of pro-abortion supporters actually voted for Bush, although Kerry won the vast majority of pro-abortion voters. Bush won 25 percent of the votes of people who believe that abortion should be legal in all cases, and 38 percent of the votes of people who believe that abortion should be legal in most cases.

Sources:

Gender gap myths and legends. The Washington Times, December 18, 2004.

Feminists face tough time after election. David Crary, Associated Press, January 9, 2005.

Gender Gap Persists in the 2004 Election. Votes for Women 2004, Press Release, November 5, 2004.

Women Voters Maintain Gender Gap in 2004 Elections. Lisa Bennett, National Organization for Women, November 12, 2004.

The Security Mom Myth. Anna Greenberg, September 30, 2004.

Security Moms Weren’t A Myth After All is a post from: EquityFeminism

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Do such DNA dragnets make sense? Should men ever volunteer their DNA (and reports are that there are some men who have already volunteered their DNA?)

The American Civil Liberties Union has obvious civil liberties concerns from a test in which refusal to voluntarily cooperate is apparently going to lead to increased scrutiny as a possible suspect. In addition, those men who are innocent of the crime might want to think twice about giving a sample because evidence collected from such dragnets has a habit of being preserved and could potentially be used for other purposes.

But a more basic issue is that such DNA dragnets tend to be expensive and they rarely, if ever, result in the discovery of a suspect. As forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Baden told Greta Van Susteren on her Fox News show,

VAN SUSTEREN: Dr. Baden, it’s been three years, it seems like an awful lot of clues. Why can’t they solve this?

BADEN: Well, Greta, about a third of all murders in this country aren’t solved. They seem to have very good DNA evidence. I think doing this kind of dragnet has certain civil liberties aspects to it but from a scientific point of view it’s been done a number of times in England and in France and other European countries and it’s proven very inefficient, costly and ineffective in accomplishing the goal of finding out whodunit.

The European cases have, to be sure, occasionally turned up suspects, but in those cases the DNA dragnets are mandatory — those asked to give DNA samples do not have the right to refuse. The BBC notes, for example, that German police tested 16,000 samples in a murder several years ago that did manage to turn up the killer.

Such broad mandatory testing in the United States, however, would almost certainly be unconstitutional, being a clear violation of individuals’ Fifth Amendment rights.

Source:

Mass DNA test for US murder town. The BBC, January 10, 2005.

DNA Dragnet. On The Record With Greta Van Susteren, Transcript, January 11, 2005.

Massachusetts Town Tries DNA Dragnet to Solve 2002 Murder is a post from: EquityFeminism

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The New York Times recently reported on Virginia’s experiment at doing just that. Essentially what Virginia has been doing is collecting data on recidivism rates for non-violent crimes. It knows, for example, how likely a single male vs. a married male is likely to become a repeat offender. It knows how likely a married male vs. a single female is to repeat an offense as well. And it encourages its judges to sentenced based on this data.

According to the Times,

Using these factors and a few others, including a defendant’s adult and juvenile criminal records, Kern designed a simple 71-point scale of risk assessment as an aid for judges. If he scores 35 points or less, a defendant who would have otherwise gone to prison under Virginia sentencing guidelines is recommended for an alternative sanction like probation or house arrest. Anything above 35 means a recommendation of jail time. “Judges make risk assessments every day,” Kern said. “Prosecutors do, too. Our model brings more equity to the process and ties the judgments being made to science.”

The result is clear — a single male and a married female who commit identical crimes and have identical criminal records might be receive vastly different sentences. Is this fair? Is this just?

University of Pennsylvania law professor Paul Robinson raises the point that there seems to be something very wrong with determining criminal penalties on matters that have nothing to do with the blameworthiness of the individuals in question,

“If you’re punishing people because of a bunch of factors that have nothing to do with blame, well, you’re not in the business of doing justice anymore,” said Paul Robinson, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. As he and like-minded legal thinkers see it, a woman in her 40′s who deals drugs hasn’t done anything more to earn trust or deserve a break than a male dealer in his 20′s charged with the same offense. She has just gotten lucky, by falling into a group whose other members have generally proved a good public-safety bet.

In fact, Virginia currently uses a numerical scale that recommends prison for anyone who scores over 38 points. According to The Times, simply being young, single and male is enough to earn 36 points out of the gate.

It is telling that there is one factor which Virginia doesn’t include in its scale — race. Despite the fact that African Americans commit crimes at higher rates than whites, race is explicitly excluded from formula on the rather flimsy grounds that race is simply a proxy for socioeconomic status. But that’s not much of an argument given that being young or old, married or unmarried are also simply proxies for other underlying social phenomena, at least when considering criminal recidivism.

Virginia’s scheme would seem to be a blatant violation of the 5th amendment rights of convicts.

Source:

Sentencing by the numbers. Emily Bazelon, The New York Times, January 2, 2005.

Should Men and Women Receive Different Sentences for the Same Crime is a post from: EquityFeminism

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The woman was 22, the girl was 15. The relationship lasted 2 and a half years, in which the minor apparently never realized that the “man” she was dating was, in fact, a woman. When police informed her of this, the girl had a restraining order taken out against the woman. According to the Herald Sun, “The nine charges related to one instance of oral sex and eight where a sex toy was involved.”

The woman was then convicted of all 9 charges, but was released on a suspended sentence and the Australian equivalent of parole. At sentencing, the judge noted that the woman consider herself to be a man and that serving time in a women’s prison would cause her “considerable emotional distress.”

As Australian victims rights advocate Noel McNamara put it in response to the sentence, “What about the victim’s considerable emotional distress?” McNamara urged prosecutors to appeal the sentence.

Source:

Woman posed as man to bed girl. Liam Houlihan, Herald Sun, December 1, 2004.

Woman Who Impersonated Man Receives Suspended Sentence in Sexual Assault Case is a post from: EquityFeminism

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Freshman Lauren Searle-Lebel and sophomore Jennifer LeBarbera are suing the college claiming they enrolled in Wells College under the presumption that it would remain a woman’s college, and that by admitting men Wells College is breaching a contract it had with the women. They are seeking a preliminary injunction that would prevent Wells College from admitting men until 2008.

The students’ lawyer, Peter Carmen, told the Associated Press,

We’re asking for very limited relief. We just watn the women who applied to, and were accepted, by a woman’s college to be able to graduate from a women’s college.

Ann Rollo, vice president for external relations for Wells College, told the Associated Press that the college was moving forward with plans to admit men,

It is the students’ choice to pursue legal actionbut we remain focused on moving forward. Students, faculty and staff are fully engaged to make this work.

Source:

Students sue Wells College to delay admission of men. Associated Press, November 30, 2004.

Students demand ban. Indiana Daily Students, December 1, 2004.

Wells College Students Sue to Prevent Admission of Men is a post from: EquityFeminism

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.