Categories
Family Planning Population Reproductive Health Women's Issues

Watch this Legislation

Watch this Legislation—2-2011

© Richard Grossman MD, 2011

What is this country coming to? Even if you are not concerned about population issues, you should be concerned about various legislative actions that are gestating now. These bills, if they become law, will be serious steps backwards for the rights of half of our voting population—women.

If they were to become law, the infrastructure of health care for women (and for some men) would be destroyed. Many children will suffer, too.

The efforts at a federal level to restrict access to reproductive health care are in the “spending bill”, H.R. 1. During this economic downturn it makes sense to cut funding, but women and children seem to be getting the short stick.

The federal WIC program (Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children) provides healthy food to pregnant women, their babies and children up to five years of age. Over six million children receive food through this program, as well as more than two million pregnant and breastfeeding women.

One of the strong points of WIC is that the program encourages women to breastfeed. Remember that nursing is healthier for the baby and for the mom, and that nursing also is an effective means of child spacing.

The proposed budget would cut more than a tenth of WIC funding. What will happen to those unfortunate mothers and their children if the WIC program is not available to them?

Another federal program, Title X (ten), provides family planning services to millions of women. It has become even more important since the economic downturn; the number of Americans without health insurance has risen to over 50 million! This program also pays for services such as cancer detection and the diagnosis and treatment of reproductive tract infections. From a purely financial standpoint it is well known that contraception pays for itself in the long run. Every dollar invested in family planning saves more than four dollars in obstetrical and pediatric services. Title X is one of the best programs to save the taxpayers’ money!

Nevertheless, some legislators are trying to take away all funding from Title X in H.R.1 and rwith H.R. 217. Apparently this is to remove support from Planned Parenthood, which administers much of the funding. Although Planned Parenthood does provide abortion care for many women, it carefully observes the laws that prevent using federal funds for abortions.

Furthermore, family planning services have been shown over and over to decrease the demand for abortion. If Title X is canceled there will be an increase in unplanned pregnancies and requests for abortion—just the opposite of what the antiabortion legislators (and you and I) want!

Earlier this month the House of Representatives passed the Pence amendment to H.R. 1 (the spending bill) aimed directly at Planned Parenthood. In addition to taking away Title X moneys, it will prevent any federal money from going to this organization. Fortunately, the Senate (with its Democratic majority) will probably prevent this bill from becoming law.

As a doctor who performs abortions, I take special note of South Dakota HB 1171. It is titled “An Act to expand the definition of justifiable homicide to provide for the protection of certain unborn children”. Just what the bill means, and how it will be interpreted if it becomes law, are uncertain. Perhaps the bill might as well be called the “The abortion doctor assassination authorization act”. Remember that the US Supreme Court declared abortion legal in 1973. Since that date the number of women suffering and dying from abortions has plummeted.

If this bill were to become law it is likely that the few doctors who do perform abortions in South Dakota will stop doing so. Where safe medical abortion services are not available, nonmedical people are ready to take over. Poorly trained people, without proper instruments or sterile technique, worked in the back alleys before 1973. Once again we will see victims of illegal abortionists in our hospitals and morgues.

There is other miserable legislation afoot, but these—H.R.1, the Pence Amendment and South Dakota HB 1171—are among the worst. Keep an eye on them, and let your legislators know that you still respect women and women’s right to have safe and legal abortions. A good source of information about bills before Congress is www.opencongress.org, which not only provides information but also makes it easy to email legislators.

Call our federal legislators and let them know what you think about these bills: Representative Scott Tipton—202.225-4761 Senator Mark Udall—970.247-1047 Senator Michael Bennet—970.259-1710

Categories
Action Contraception Population Reproductive Health Women's Issues

Smash Amendment 62

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”
Bill of Rights, Constitution of the United States

Imagine this scenario. Anne, a young mother of three small children, recently noted low abdominal discomfort and bloating. She is horrified to learn that she may have ovarian cancer—but even more horrified to learn that the necessary surgery cannot be performed in Colorado.
If Amendment 62 passes it would make removing a diseased ovary illegal. Worse, a doctor who performs such a lifesaving surgery would be punished for murder!
Here is what the proposed Amendment 62 says: “Person defined. As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the term “person” shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.”
Anyone who graduated from an eighth grade health class knows that the start of the biological development is the human egg, and that girls are born with all the eggs that their ovaries will ever contain. So removing an ovary (even if diseased) would mean the removal of thousands of “persons”.
A woman whose doctorate is in biochemistry and is loosely associated with Georgetown University wrote this wording. An ethicist against abortion, what she has framed is so poorly defined that the above scenario is possible. A lawyer—or even a physician—could have done better!
This proposed amendment is laughable. It is unclear, it is unsupportable, it is misogyninistic and it would cost the state of Colorado millions of dollars to implement. Only the lawyers would profit if it is passed.
Let’s look at the problem of implementation. The word “person” appears in over 20,000 laws in our state. One current legal definition of “person” is “an autonomous being”. This foolish proposed amendment would certainly change that, since a fetus, embryo or egg are anything but autonomous! Passing the amendment would make major changes in the legal world, and would keep Colorado’s lawyers employed for years trying to figure out the ramifications.
You will remember that just two years ago a similar amendment was put forward. Proposed amendment 48 was a real loser! It lost in all Colorado counties. It lost by a huge margin—73 percent of voters were against it. Why did the Colorado Right to Life people do this again? Apparently they have received a message from God that this is their calling. This is clearly a case of infringement of our constitutional rights when one person’s religion interferes with the ability of another person to seek medical care. The proposed amendment would establish one set of religious beliefs as the law of the state. Doesn’t our Constitution’s Bill of Rights prohibit this?
The supporters of this proposed amendment don’t stop with facts. View their incredible misrepresentation of truth at: youtube.com/user/PersonhoodUSA.
Many of the same people who are against abortion are also against any contraception. They claim, against the judgment of most reputable scientists, that IUDs, emergency contraception and even “the pill” work by causing an abortion. If this crazy amendment were passed, all of these birth control methods might become unavailable in Colorado. Furthermore, miscarriages would have to be investigated (to be sure that the woman hadn’t caused the pregnancy loss intentionally), adding to the parents’ emotional pain.
Oh, what about abortion? There is no provision for cases of rape, incest or when a pregnancy endangers the mother’s life. This proposed amendment would make interrupting a pregnancy illegal—including saving the life of the mother! Even the strict “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops” allows interrupting an ectopic (tubal) pregnancy, because the pregnancy threatens a woman’s life. This would not be possible under Colorado’s proposed Amendment 62. Aborting a pregnancy for a woman who had been a victim of rape or of incest would also be punished as first-degree murder.
Proposed Amendment 62 is stupid. It is poorly written and therefore would tie up lawyers and the court system. If passed, 62 would endanger women’s health care. It would make it difficult for couples to plan their families, and the already high undesired pregnancy rate would skyrocket.
Please vote in this midterm election. And please vote NO on proposed Amendment 62. To do anything else would be irresponsible!

© Richard Grossman MD, 2010

This article may be copied or published but must remain intact, with attribution to the author. I also request that the words “First published in the Durango Herald” accompany any publication. For more information, please write the author at: richard@population-matters.org.