My Soap Box - Poor Legislation
There are very few issues I feel any desire to speak out about because I greatly detest stirring the waters and hate debates. This issue however, is one of the few. While I certainly hold my personal views on abortion, this particular issue goes far beyond the common pro-choice vs. pro-life argument.
I am appalled at the recent legislation so greatly supported by one party in particular in both the Senate and House of the WA State Legislature. SB 5274 and the almost identical House version HB 1366 are designed by their proponents to in effect (though not specifically stated) shut down Pregnancy Resource Centers (PRC's) in the state of Washington (which include such organizations as CareNet & OptionLine). Out of the Senate, 17 D Members sponsored this legislation (signed onto the bill - essentially sealing their support). Five of those members make up the total of the D side in the Health & Long Term Care Committee, therefore guaranteeing passage out of committee once it is heard. In the House, 35 D Members and 1 R member sponsored the House version of the bill - the R giving bipartisan credibility (albeit barely). On Monday, January 24th, HB 1366 will be heard before the House Health & Wellness committee. I am not aware that a date has been set for the Senate Health & Long Term Care committee of yet.
This legislation, under the guise of preserving women's choice and protecting women does the exact opposite. Following is a summary/list of what the legislation and what it means for PRC's and their clients:
1) This legislation makes the accusation that "some limited pregnancy centers" have misled clients as to the services they provide, withheld medical records and test results from clients and not provided truthful information.
While this is not impossible to believe, because to err is human, there have been NO complaints made through any of the avenues available in WA State (Attorney General, Secretary of State, Department of Health). Surely, the proponents cannot be basing their legislation on conjecture without proof?
In regards to how it affects the women of Washington – are we to believe all women are stupid? Are women so easily misled as to choose to go to a clinic, of their own free will, that is so wholly un-promoted compared to Planned Parenthood? A woman who seeks out a PRC is looking for something different from a Planned Parenthood experience and so generally comprehends that services differ from that of a Planned Parenthood.
2) The first of many demands upon PRC's is that they state upon first contact with a client (whether by phone, email, or in person - and this means before there, "How may I help you" greeting) the services they DO NOT provide, as follows (quoted from bill text):
I wonder what would happen should these same demands be placed on a Planned Parenthood - that they must state the services they DO NOT provide to clients, such as the following: free pregnancy tests, free 1st trimester ultrasounds, free prenatal and postnatal counseling, free prenatal and parenting classes, free STI testing, free layettes for babies born and additional diapers, formula, clothes (both baby and maternity), cribs, swings, etc. at no cost to the client. Many PRC's provide all of the above to their clients (ones who don't provide all may not be considered "PRC medical clinics” and not able to do ultrasounds or STI testing), at no cost to the client, and yet we want to punish them with forcing them to say what they do not provide?
By these great demands, which would so wholly, just by their cost (who is going to promote a business on a pamphlet mailer if they have to have one so large as to accommodate a dozen primary languages stating what they don’t provide before they can even get to the heart of the services they do provide) make it impossible for them to operate on a donation based budget. Note that as a non-profit organization, PRC’s rely on donor funding to exist. In order to inform potential donors of the work they do, they would have to promote their center at such a cost as to make any donation a wash! Also, what potential donor, upon receiving an email or mailer requesting donations is going to bypass all of the foreign languages to read the request??? It will be perceived as junk and treated as such.
3) Section 5 of the bill tries to create additional law on the handling of medical records and client privacy where there is already state law in existence to meet it.
Apparently current state law isn’t written clearly enough in regard to how clinics handle a client’s medical records or confidential information as it pertains to PRC’s, but is perfectly okay for the rest of the medical profession (including abortion clinic doctors and staff) practicing in WA State. I mean really, where State law and the Federal HIPAA laws already exist to protect client’s medical information, and each center is subject to the existing state law’s penalties in breeching that confidence, is there really need for additional clarification?
4) Section 6 gives instruction as to how a person “aggrieved” by a PRC may bring a civil lawsuit against them for damages. “Person” in the bill includes counties and municipalities (meaning a city could sue a center).
Basically, all a center would have to do is risk leaving the statements from section 4 of the bill off of their promotional pamphlet, and should someone so choose, they could take a civil lawsuit out against them. If two people chose, there could be two separate civil lawsuits against them.
As you can see this legislation is far from protecting women’s rights to choice. By eliminating PRC’s women would have but one option to turn to – a family planning clinic. For anyone choosing to continue their pregnancy, no services such as PRC’s currently provide would be offered them, and most certainly not free of charge. How does this protect women and preserve their choice? I find it incredibly ironic that the very Senators and Representatives who will soon be making devastating cuts to the health care safety net in upcoming budget votes have signed onto this proposal which would create yet another hole in the delivery of women’s health services.
Following are statistics as to how PRC’s served clients and the state’s budget in 2010. 1 In our state last year, 62,000 women were served by Pregnancy Resource Centers and their Medical Clinics. Of the 31,000 free pregnancy tests, STD/STI tests, and ultrasounds provided to clients throughout our state, the health care cost savings was over $5.4 million. There were 22,000 visits by clients to receive maternity and infant support (including diapers, formula, layettes, etc) at an average of $300 per client, for a total value of $18.6 million in free services. The value of PRC’s is not seen by their clients and donors only, as 24 social service entities refer to PRC’s (including DSHS, CPS, WIC, and DOH…and even… Planned Parenthood).
Not surprisingly, legislation like this is being introduced all over the country in all levels of state government. Today, on a bill similar to this being introduced in New York City, Wall Street Journal’s William McGurn, had this to say:
Meanwhile, the speaker of the City Council, Christine Quinn, is pushing a bill designed to make it harder for people who are trying to help women keep their babies. Bill 371 targets Crisis Pregnancy Centers, and would require them, among other things, to advertise on site that they do not perform abortions or provide abortion referrals. It tells us something that there appears to be no interest in requiring that, say, Planned Parenthood post in their clinics some telling information of their own: 324,008 abortions nationwide against only 2,405 adoption referrals in 2008, the most recent year for which it reports statistics.
Rather than rehash the allegations against Crisis Pregnancy Centers—e.g., that they often disguise themselves as medical clinics, that they are not upfront about whether they offer abortion—let's stipulate for the sake of argument that they are all true. In the end, a woman who wants an abortion can still walk out and get one, as many do. A woman who doesn't necessarily want an abortion, however, can find all kinds of help: a place to live if her family or boyfriend has kicked her out; training for mother care; and, not least, the friendly face of a caring volunteer. 2
While I know not all my readers agree with me on my stance on abortion, I know most will agree that choice should not be removed from the marketplace, and the Legislature has no business limiting choice, especially as it relates to our health, and most especially when it does not affect the State’s budget in any way.
If this legislation concerns you as much as it does me, do what I have done and contact your Legislator and Representatives. You can find their info here. (I'm so lucky to live in a district where all 3 are sponsors of these bills). Don’t stop there. Call them, and make an appearance when the bills come before their respective committees.
Finally, pray. Pray hard.
And now I step off my soap box.
I am appalled at the recent legislation so greatly supported by one party in particular in both the Senate and House of the WA State Legislature. SB 5274 and the almost identical House version HB 1366 are designed by their proponents to in effect (though not specifically stated) shut down Pregnancy Resource Centers (PRC's) in the state of Washington (which include such organizations as CareNet & OptionLine). Out of the Senate, 17 D Members sponsored this legislation (signed onto the bill - essentially sealing their support). Five of those members make up the total of the D side in the Health & Long Term Care Committee, therefore guaranteeing passage out of committee once it is heard. In the House, 35 D Members and 1 R member sponsored the House version of the bill - the R giving bipartisan credibility (albeit barely). On Monday, January 24th, HB 1366 will be heard before the House Health & Wellness committee. I am not aware that a date has been set for the Senate Health & Long Term Care committee of yet.
This legislation, under the guise of preserving women's choice and protecting women does the exact opposite. Following is a summary/list of what the legislation and what it means for PRC's and their clients:
1) This legislation makes the accusation that "some limited pregnancy centers" have misled clients as to the services they provide, withheld medical records and test results from clients and not provided truthful information.
While this is not impossible to believe, because to err is human, there have been NO complaints made through any of the avenues available in WA State (Attorney General, Secretary of State, Department of Health). Surely, the proponents cannot be basing their legislation on conjecture without proof?
In regards to how it affects the women of Washington – are we to believe all women are stupid? Are women so easily misled as to choose to go to a clinic, of their own free will, that is so wholly un-promoted compared to Planned Parenthood? A woman who seeks out a PRC is looking for something different from a Planned Parenthood experience and so generally comprehends that services differ from that of a Planned Parenthood.
2) The first of many demands upon PRC's is that they state upon first contact with a client (whether by phone, email, or in person - and this means before there, "How may I help you" greeting) the services they DO NOT provide, as follows (quoted from bill text):
- That the center does not provide abortion or comprehensive birth control services;
- That the center does not provide referrals to individuals or organizations that provide abortion or comprehensive birth control services; and
- That the center does not provide medical care for pregnant women.
I wonder what would happen should these same demands be placed on a Planned Parenthood - that they must state the services they DO NOT provide to clients, such as the following: free pregnancy tests, free 1st trimester ultrasounds, free prenatal and postnatal counseling, free prenatal and parenting classes, free STI testing, free layettes for babies born and additional diapers, formula, clothes (both baby and maternity), cribs, swings, etc. at no cost to the client. Many PRC's provide all of the above to their clients (ones who don't provide all may not be considered "PRC medical clinics” and not able to do ultrasounds or STI testing), at no cost to the client, and yet we want to punish them with forcing them to say what they do not provide?
By these great demands, which would so wholly, just by their cost (who is going to promote a business on a pamphlet mailer if they have to have one so large as to accommodate a dozen primary languages stating what they don’t provide before they can even get to the heart of the services they do provide) make it impossible for them to operate on a donation based budget. Note that as a non-profit organization, PRC’s rely on donor funding to exist. In order to inform potential donors of the work they do, they would have to promote their center at such a cost as to make any donation a wash! Also, what potential donor, upon receiving an email or mailer requesting donations is going to bypass all of the foreign languages to read the request??? It will be perceived as junk and treated as such.
3) Section 5 of the bill tries to create additional law on the handling of medical records and client privacy where there is already state law in existence to meet it.
Apparently current state law isn’t written clearly enough in regard to how clinics handle a client’s medical records or confidential information as it pertains to PRC’s, but is perfectly okay for the rest of the medical profession (including abortion clinic doctors and staff) practicing in WA State. I mean really, where State law and the Federal HIPAA laws already exist to protect client’s medical information, and each center is subject to the existing state law’s penalties in breeching that confidence, is there really need for additional clarification?
4) Section 6 gives instruction as to how a person “aggrieved” by a PRC may bring a civil lawsuit against them for damages. “Person” in the bill includes counties and municipalities (meaning a city could sue a center).
Basically, all a center would have to do is risk leaving the statements from section 4 of the bill off of their promotional pamphlet, and should someone so choose, they could take a civil lawsuit out against them. If two people chose, there could be two separate civil lawsuits against them.
As you can see this legislation is far from protecting women’s rights to choice. By eliminating PRC’s women would have but one option to turn to – a family planning clinic. For anyone choosing to continue their pregnancy, no services such as PRC’s currently provide would be offered them, and most certainly not free of charge. How does this protect women and preserve their choice? I find it incredibly ironic that the very Senators and Representatives who will soon be making devastating cuts to the health care safety net in upcoming budget votes have signed onto this proposal which would create yet another hole in the delivery of women’s health services.
Following are statistics as to how PRC’s served clients and the state’s budget in 2010. 1 In our state last year, 62,000 women were served by Pregnancy Resource Centers and their Medical Clinics. Of the 31,000 free pregnancy tests, STD/STI tests, and ultrasounds provided to clients throughout our state, the health care cost savings was over $5.4 million. There were 22,000 visits by clients to receive maternity and infant support (including diapers, formula, layettes, etc) at an average of $300 per client, for a total value of $18.6 million in free services. The value of PRC’s is not seen by their clients and donors only, as 24 social service entities refer to PRC’s (including DSHS, CPS, WIC, and DOH…and even… Planned Parenthood).
Not surprisingly, legislation like this is being introduced all over the country in all levels of state government. Today, on a bill similar to this being introduced in New York City, Wall Street Journal’s William McGurn, had this to say:
Meanwhile, the speaker of the City Council, Christine Quinn, is pushing a bill designed to make it harder for people who are trying to help women keep their babies. Bill 371 targets Crisis Pregnancy Centers, and would require them, among other things, to advertise on site that they do not perform abortions or provide abortion referrals. It tells us something that there appears to be no interest in requiring that, say, Planned Parenthood post in their clinics some telling information of their own: 324,008 abortions nationwide against only 2,405 adoption referrals in 2008, the most recent year for which it reports statistics.
Rather than rehash the allegations against Crisis Pregnancy Centers—e.g., that they often disguise themselves as medical clinics, that they are not upfront about whether they offer abortion—let's stipulate for the sake of argument that they are all true. In the end, a woman who wants an abortion can still walk out and get one, as many do. A woman who doesn't necessarily want an abortion, however, can find all kinds of help: a place to live if her family or boyfriend has kicked her out; training for mother care; and, not least, the friendly face of a caring volunteer. 2
While I know not all my readers agree with me on my stance on abortion, I know most will agree that choice should not be removed from the marketplace, and the Legislature has no business limiting choice, especially as it relates to our health, and most especially when it does not affect the State’s budget in any way.
If this legislation concerns you as much as it does me, do what I have done and contact your Legislator and Representatives. You can find their info here. (I'm so lucky to live in a district where all 3 are sponsors of these bills). Don’t stop there. Call them, and make an appearance when the bills come before their respective committees.
Finally, pray. Pray hard.
And now I step off my soap box.
Thank you for this Cassie. Very important.
ReplyDeletepersonally I don't agree with abortion, but I understand that sometimes it is the only option. And when it comes down to it, it is a woman's choice, not the governments. I was 17 and pregnant with my oldest daughter and received much help from a PRC. In turn, I have taken my baby stuff from my other daughter and my grandson and helped those in need. PRCs are vital to women's health
ReplyDeleteWhile pro-choice I believe we should all have CHOICES. This sounds terrible. What business would be successful in reaching it's customers if it had to advertise what it DOESN'T have. What a well written, well-thought out blog entry. Also...thanks for linking to my site...what a sweetheart!
ReplyDeleteThank you for posting this Cassie. I have been toying with writing a blog myself about my disgust with the "doctor" on the east coast who is on trial for killing 7 babies after they were born, but get far too emotional to get anything out in writing. I am angry that the legislature wants to put such restrictions on organizations that do such good. It just doesn't make sense. I could go on and on, but instead I will take action and write my legislators, and will think about how much fun you must be having today with Steven on his first birthday.
ReplyDelete