User login
WASHINGTON – Senate Democrats are pushing a bill to overturn most state restrictions on abortion services.
The Women's Health Protection Act (S. 1696) was introduced last November by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and was the subject of a Judiciary Committee hearing July 15. At press time, the bill had 35 cosponsors – 34 Democrats and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists submitted written testimony in support of the bill. Dr. Hal Lawrence III, executive vice president and CEO, said that many state laws "put physicians in the terrible predicament of either adhering to medical ethics by providing high-quality care that’s in the best interest of their patients, or facing legal punishments which may include fines, loss of licensure, and even jail time."
Among those he cited were laws that restrict the use of or prescribe potentially outdated clinical protocols for medication abortions, laws that prohibit the use of telemedicine to assist in medication abortions, laws that require abortion providers to have admitting privileges at local hospitals, and laws that require tests and procedures that are not medically necessary.
S. 1696 would overturn such state laws, and also ones that specify office setup, equipment, staffing, and hospital transfer arrangements; require medically unnecessary visits before an abortion; or limit training for abortion services.
The law also would declare illegal any restrictions on when an abortion provider could choose to perform the procedure.
Pro-life organizations and physicians said the proposed legislation would actually strip away protections for women.
"This bill would not protect the rights of patients because it would remove the rights of states to regulate the practice of medicine," said Dr. Monique Chireau, a board member of Americans United for Life who is also with the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C. She also said that it "would endanger freedom of conscience."
The bill "seeks to strip away from elected lawmakers the ability to provide even the most minimal protections for unborn children, at any stage of their prenatal development," said Carol Tobias, president of the National Right to Life Committee. She said the proposed legislation was "sweeping and extreme" and that "calling the bill the ‘Abortion Without Limits Until Birth Act’ would be more in line with truth-in-advertising standards."
Dr. Willie Parker, who provides abortion services at the Jackson (Miss.) Women’s Health Organization, said that a state law in Mississippi – if it stands – will effectively shut the clinic because it restricts the provision of abortion to ob.gyns. with local hospital admitting privileges. He flies from Chicago to provide the services, and is a plaintiff in a suit challenging the Mississippi law.
Abortion services should be provided because the state has high teen and unintended pregnancy rates, high infant mortality rates, high maternal mortality rates, and a high poverty rate, he said. "We know that when women have access to abortion, contraception, and medically accurate sex education, they thrive," he said. "It should be the same for all women, no matter where they live."
It’s unclear whether the Senate will take up the bill. There is a companion bill in the House, H.R. 3471, which was introduced by Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.) and was cosponsored by 124 Democrats at press time.
On Twitter @aliciaault
WASHINGTON – Senate Democrats are pushing a bill to overturn most state restrictions on abortion services.
The Women's Health Protection Act (S. 1696) was introduced last November by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and was the subject of a Judiciary Committee hearing July 15. At press time, the bill had 35 cosponsors – 34 Democrats and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists submitted written testimony in support of the bill. Dr. Hal Lawrence III, executive vice president and CEO, said that many state laws "put physicians in the terrible predicament of either adhering to medical ethics by providing high-quality care that’s in the best interest of their patients, or facing legal punishments which may include fines, loss of licensure, and even jail time."
Among those he cited were laws that restrict the use of or prescribe potentially outdated clinical protocols for medication abortions, laws that prohibit the use of telemedicine to assist in medication abortions, laws that require abortion providers to have admitting privileges at local hospitals, and laws that require tests and procedures that are not medically necessary.
S. 1696 would overturn such state laws, and also ones that specify office setup, equipment, staffing, and hospital transfer arrangements; require medically unnecessary visits before an abortion; or limit training for abortion services.
The law also would declare illegal any restrictions on when an abortion provider could choose to perform the procedure.
Pro-life organizations and physicians said the proposed legislation would actually strip away protections for women.
"This bill would not protect the rights of patients because it would remove the rights of states to regulate the practice of medicine," said Dr. Monique Chireau, a board member of Americans United for Life who is also with the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C. She also said that it "would endanger freedom of conscience."
The bill "seeks to strip away from elected lawmakers the ability to provide even the most minimal protections for unborn children, at any stage of their prenatal development," said Carol Tobias, president of the National Right to Life Committee. She said the proposed legislation was "sweeping and extreme" and that "calling the bill the ‘Abortion Without Limits Until Birth Act’ would be more in line with truth-in-advertising standards."
Dr. Willie Parker, who provides abortion services at the Jackson (Miss.) Women’s Health Organization, said that a state law in Mississippi – if it stands – will effectively shut the clinic because it restricts the provision of abortion to ob.gyns. with local hospital admitting privileges. He flies from Chicago to provide the services, and is a plaintiff in a suit challenging the Mississippi law.
Abortion services should be provided because the state has high teen and unintended pregnancy rates, high infant mortality rates, high maternal mortality rates, and a high poverty rate, he said. "We know that when women have access to abortion, contraception, and medically accurate sex education, they thrive," he said. "It should be the same for all women, no matter where they live."
It’s unclear whether the Senate will take up the bill. There is a companion bill in the House, H.R. 3471, which was introduced by Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.) and was cosponsored by 124 Democrats at press time.
On Twitter @aliciaault
WASHINGTON – Senate Democrats are pushing a bill to overturn most state restrictions on abortion services.
The Women's Health Protection Act (S. 1696) was introduced last November by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and was the subject of a Judiciary Committee hearing July 15. At press time, the bill had 35 cosponsors – 34 Democrats and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists submitted written testimony in support of the bill. Dr. Hal Lawrence III, executive vice president and CEO, said that many state laws "put physicians in the terrible predicament of either adhering to medical ethics by providing high-quality care that’s in the best interest of their patients, or facing legal punishments which may include fines, loss of licensure, and even jail time."
Among those he cited were laws that restrict the use of or prescribe potentially outdated clinical protocols for medication abortions, laws that prohibit the use of telemedicine to assist in medication abortions, laws that require abortion providers to have admitting privileges at local hospitals, and laws that require tests and procedures that are not medically necessary.
S. 1696 would overturn such state laws, and also ones that specify office setup, equipment, staffing, and hospital transfer arrangements; require medically unnecessary visits before an abortion; or limit training for abortion services.
The law also would declare illegal any restrictions on when an abortion provider could choose to perform the procedure.
Pro-life organizations and physicians said the proposed legislation would actually strip away protections for women.
"This bill would not protect the rights of patients because it would remove the rights of states to regulate the practice of medicine," said Dr. Monique Chireau, a board member of Americans United for Life who is also with the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C. She also said that it "would endanger freedom of conscience."
The bill "seeks to strip away from elected lawmakers the ability to provide even the most minimal protections for unborn children, at any stage of their prenatal development," said Carol Tobias, president of the National Right to Life Committee. She said the proposed legislation was "sweeping and extreme" and that "calling the bill the ‘Abortion Without Limits Until Birth Act’ would be more in line with truth-in-advertising standards."
Dr. Willie Parker, who provides abortion services at the Jackson (Miss.) Women’s Health Organization, said that a state law in Mississippi – if it stands – will effectively shut the clinic because it restricts the provision of abortion to ob.gyns. with local hospital admitting privileges. He flies from Chicago to provide the services, and is a plaintiff in a suit challenging the Mississippi law.
Abortion services should be provided because the state has high teen and unintended pregnancy rates, high infant mortality rates, high maternal mortality rates, and a high poverty rate, he said. "We know that when women have access to abortion, contraception, and medically accurate sex education, they thrive," he said. "It should be the same for all women, no matter where they live."
It’s unclear whether the Senate will take up the bill. There is a companion bill in the House, H.R. 3471, which was introduced by Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.) and was cosponsored by 124 Democrats at press time.
On Twitter @aliciaault
AT A SENATE COMMITTEE HEARING
