I’m
aware I should be studying right now, but I also know that you need to hear
about the seminar I went to at lunch yesterday. Anyone who knows me is aware
that I am completely ignorant when it comes to politics, but that doesn’t mean
I can’t sometimes pretend (or make things up). We need to talk about this
Michigan bill with the lovely name HB 5711. We should know what’s going on with
this. Let’s put aside some names and details and talk about the stuff that
counts. Also, there shalt not be pictures of fetuses or tiny crushed skulls.
Tasteless, people, really.
Wait,
really? I should care?
Of course more girls (oh, excuse me, “women”) than boys were at
this talk explaining the bill. Outside in the sun was the “we-don’t-have-a-uterus-and-so-we-are-not-going-to-optional-seminars”
club. You know who you are. I saw you guys smiling in the courtyard. I guess
I’ll forgive you since I rarely go to these talks either. In all seriousness,
though, as future healthcare providers or future good-people-in-general, I
think everyone should care about these things.
I don’t even think it matters whether you are pro-choice or
pro-life — terms I hate, by the way, since I don’t think anyone is actually
“anti-life” or “pro-abortion.” We need more dialogue about comprehensive sex
education, about valuing and respecting the decisions made by women, and about
avoiding unwarranted stigma and shame. (This is loosely related to what I wrote
about a few weeks ago: insurance coverage and stigmatization of psychiatric
illness.) The Michigan State Medical Society has come out against this bill
because, quite simply, it is bad for the medical field. It’s not only about
abortion; the bill sets some dangerous precedent for regulating the
doctor-patient relationship. And, yeah, it’s bad for women’s health.
Reproductive justice is much more than the issue of abortion and pro-choice. It’s also about the right to have a baby, the right to raise a child, and the right to healthcare. Look at the big picture: get over the silence and stigma too often surrounding abortion. Look at numbers: 1.2 million abortions per year and 4 million births per year. Look at facts: women have about 35 childbearing years, during about five of which they want to be having children and the other 30 of which they are trying to avoid having children.
The 1973 Roe v. Wade
decision is the obvious landmark case on the issue, but it has been upheld
countless times since, perhaps most notably in the 1992 Casey decision. Laws prohibiting abortion are unconstitutional. Period. But what about laws that make the costs
prohibitive? This might be a good time to add that while I’m pro-choice, I’m
also pro-children. Families are the best thing in the world, especially when
they are so awesome that they follow you all over the world.
I’m lucky, of course, that I know the greatest family ever. Not
that I am biased or anything. But I digress…
So what does the bill actually say, anyhow?
It’s long. I haven’t read the whole thing. The gist is that it’s
all under the guise of “making abortion safer” but that what ends up happening
is that costs become prohibitive and autonomy is taken away from patients and
physicians. It requires all facilities that perform abortions, even those that
only provide medical pill-based abortions, to be free-standing surgical
facilities. This means they need negative air flow systems installed and 14-foot-wide
hallways to accommodate gurneys. Right? Right? Because of course we need huge
gurneys for tiny pills. Construction and space cost money.
The bill also stipulates that remains of fetuses be kept separate
from other medical waste, but no currently existing companies are willing to
pick up this waste. Do we really want overflowing freezers at individual
clinics? No. But we also don’t want small establishments to have their own
incinerators. The bill even requires funeral directors to be involved with the
disposal of fetal remains, since it requires burial or cremation and death
reports. There are additional potential complications involved with consent for
disposal of remains, such as if the two parents disagree about burial v.
cremation. Disposal of remains and death certificates cost money.
One million dollars of malpractice insurance would be mandatory for “abortion providers” (as
in trained medical doctors) if they performed more than six procedures per
month (which we sort of hope they do since we want to work with someone
experienced). $1 million is a lot, especially considering that abortion is one
of the safest procedures. Legal abortions are certainly much safer than almost
any surgery and WAY safer than childbirth. We don’t require any other
professionals (architects, whatever) or even any other type of doctor to have
insurance like this. There are not even insurance companies in Michigan that
have insurance set up for this right now. Insurance costs money.
Here’s the thing: public policy can either straight-out discourage
abortion or it can make it so that clinics won’t be able to operate. Certain Michiganders
are currently going for the latter. In previous decades, there was the decrease
demand or discourage strategy, whereby anti-abortionists used scare tactics, presented
false information, and made stuff up about increased risks of cancer, etc. If HB
5711 becomes law, it will add excessive costs to abortions and is expected to
shut down the majority, if not all, facilities that provide abortions in
Michigan.
It’s just plain medically inaccurate
Vagueness and stupidity are rampant in this bill, in my humble
opinion. “Gestation” is defined using the last menstrual period instead of
conception, so that the fetus is “older.” In parts of the bill, the term “baby”
replaces “fetus.” There is all this talk about coercion to abort (perhaps
well-founded, but I don’t know), so physicians must ask a series of questions
about threats. In fact, though, there is just as much or more coercion not to
abort. For instance, in Ann Arbor, I’ve heard about some clinic right next to a
Starbucks that gives out advice about adoption possibilities and the like. I’m
not saying this is bad; I’m simply pointing out that the pressure goes both
ways. Also, let’s be honest with ourselves. I can’t imagine a woman ever – EVER
– actually wanting to have an abortion. Life does not always go the way you
planned it, and I can imagine a lot of situations that are justified as more
than mere “thoughtless mistakes.” I don’t care what anyone says; I bet that
terminating a pregnancy is not something that any woman does without serious
thought and many tears.
Further, prescription guidelines in the bill are set to match the FDA
regulations, which most physicians agree are about 20 years out of date.
Doctors would not be allowed to use current, best-evidence medicine. Do we want the
state legislature to take control of people who are licensed physicians? Do
politicians know more than doctors about these drugs? Plus, it places
an undue burden on a woman’s right. The bill would require doctors to be physically
present when the medicine was taken, which is stupid since smart women can
follow directions like big girls, all by themselves. Telemedicine possibilities for
women in the Upper Peninsula would be impossible, meaning that they would have
to come way down south and probably stay overnight in addition to all the other
mandated waiting. (Ask me some time about telemedicine, and I’ll get all
excited and tell you about my college thesis on the Inuit natives up in Arctic
Canada and Alaska.)
Where
is this bill now?
HB 5711 has already passed the Michigan House. There was that whole
national eruption about legislators being banned from the House floor for
saying “vagina.” The bill was pushed through very quickly in the House at the
end of June, since it came up in the last two days with no prior warning. Apparently
there is some rule about notifying people of the bill by 18 hours prior (at the
latest) and the bill was put up literally at the 18-hour mark before getting
onto the floor. Then it went to the senate judiciary committee in July; in August,
it passed again.
I don’t know Governor Snyder personally. I don’t even really know that much about his public opinions and policy. I would hope that he’d encourage Senate Republicans not to introduce this bill, and I’d ask him not to sign it if the Senate did pass it. The Senate returned from summer session September 11th. They could consider and vote on the bill at any time. I don’t know all the details about how long a bill can stay there. PoliSci 101 probably would have taught me these things, but I never took that class. Proponents of the bill might want to wait until after the election. It turns out that a lot of the most controversial bills are passed during that “lame duck” period after elections but before the new people take office. So, for this year, that means after that special Tuesday coming up in November. It is also possible that by the time the bill reached the senate that it wouldn’t be as terrifyingly all-encompassing as it is now.
Also remember that passing a bill and enforcing it are two very
different things. If you do a count in the Michigan Senate, you have the votes
to pass it (or so say people who know more than I about these things). The
problem would be in the governor’s office. For starters, the bill is simply
medically incorrect and absurd, but the governor might also not want to be
known as an anti-abortion guy. If it gets onto his desk, he’d have 20 days to
decide. If he signed it, it would take immediate effect.
Then again, it could be struck down as unconstitutional if there is
no exception added for the health of the mother when abortions are needed in
later stages of pregnancy. It could be voided for vagueness. It could be voided
for being unnecessarily coercive or for placing undue burden on a women’s right
to an abortion. It could be the Michigan ACLU who would attack it. Okay, I’m
getting way outside my area of expertise now. I should get back to studying
hemoglobinopathies. But, seriously, let’s talk more about what gets by under
the pretext of “protecting women” because frankly it makes me sick.
No comments:
Post a Comment