Opponent Testimony on the Compassionate Assistance for Rape Emergencies Act
On March 10, 2010 opponents of HB 333, the Compassionate Assistance for Rape Emergencies Act had their turn to testify before the House Health Committee. It was interesting how hard some of them tried to say that they do care about rape victims but still oppose creating a basic standard of care which makes sure that they can prevent pregnancy and/or prevent them from getting a sexually transmitted infection. All of them focused on the fact that the medical professional's personal religious/moral beliefs should be protected and is more important than the right to comprehensive treatment for all sexual assault survivors. Some of the highlights include: "First of all, there is no need for HB 333. Emergency Contraception (EC) is available without a prescription to any female age 17 and over. In fact, I purchased this package of Plan B emergency contraception last December at my local Kroger pharmacy without a prescription. I show you this only to illustrate how easy it is for women to obtain these drugs if they want them." ( K. Severyn)
Does Ms. Severyn think that sexual assault only happens to women who are 17 or older? Women under 17 must still get a prescription and face large hurdles to get EC. Also, it may be easy for someone who has not just be assaulted to go to the Kroger pharmacy down the street and get Plan B... but not so easy for someone who has just been victimized, and what about all of the survivors of sexual assault who can't afford the $50.00 for Plan B? It won't be so easy for them, will it? "HB 333 proponents claim to be "pro-choice." Where is the "choice" if HB 333 denies pharmacists and other health care professionals, motivated by conscience and/or religion, their "freedom to choose" not to participate in an act which may destroy human life?" ( K. Severyn)
Actually, HB 333 protects the individual beliefs of medical professionals and allows for any individual to step aside and not participate in a treatment that they have an objection to. The bill does require that the hospital have a policy in place such that when a medical professional does not want to provide the service in question that someone else is there to make sure that the survivor of sexual assault gets the treatment that they deserve. The responsibility and possible punishment for not complying with the law is all placed on the HOSPITAL not the individual medical professional. "H.B. 333 requires hospitals that provide emergency services, to provide "emergency contraception" to victims of sexual assault. Hospitals would be required to inform the woman that emergency contraception "does not cause an abortion" or "interrupt an established pregnancy". These statements are based on the act that the bill's proponents define "pregnancy" as only beginning when the embryo implants in the woman's womb." ( M. Lally, Ohio Right to Life)
Well, yes the bill's proponents (which I assume he means NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio and our allies in this bill) define pregnancy as beginning at when the fertilized egg implants in the uterus, along with every medical association in the United States. Just ask any woman who has gone through in-vitro fertilization. Just because the doctor put fertilized eggs in her uterus didn't mean that she was pregnant. Unfortunately most of these eggs do not implant in the uterus and therefore these procedures have a high failure rate, because she is not pregnant until at least one of those fertilized eggs implant in the uterine lining. You can read all of the testimony for yourself by clicking the links below. |
