Disclaimer: I do not normally feel the need to share my opinions on a public stage, such as this blog. But I am pretty passionate about the following issue and needed to get it out there - the whole reason for having a blog. This is my platform, and is not intended to be a dialogue or induce debate. That is why I am disabling comments on this post. If you feel the need to express your opinions, please feel free to do so in your own space. I respect your right to your own opinion just like I appreciate you respecting my right to mine.
Last night was a pretty powerful night in the Texas legislature. A night of chaos, lack of control on both parties' part, and, in my opinion, a breakdown in how the creators of our government years ago envisioned politics.
In case you've been hiding under a rock, last night decided the fate of Senate Bill 5. The one regarding abortion clinic regulations.
This bill stirred up quite the controversy - only after making it all the way to the final voting stages. While it has received much attention since being introduced, it kind of blows my mind that last night the world really decided to pay attention. Doesn't this show that we should be more aware of what's going on?
For work, since we have introduced a few bills this session, I have been monitoring the state legislation website and have gotten familiar with how to research a bill, read it, and interpret the status. Honestly, I had not looked into it until yesterday morning after word of Wendy Davis's filibuster hit news waves. Much like the rest of the nation, I was aware it was in there somewhere, but didn't realize last night at midnight was the night to make a decision. To decide the fate. Make or break moment.
I have a vested interest in women's and reproductive health. My goal is to be in that field some day - teaching, practicing, or whatever life happens to throw my way. It's my passion. My interest. And therefore, this hits the bull's eye of my radar. I've read the bill myself, made my own opinions about it, and ignored the politics. I formed my view based solely on how I feel about health.
I consider myself pro-life, but also realize that may not be everyone's opinion. I pride myself in being objective in many areas of health and hearing others' opinions rather than forcing my own on them. This is a basic rule of being a health educator - to realize that you might not always agree with the client/patient, but your job is to improve their health status with regard to their personal health goals. I will not ever work for a biased life/choice organization - either way. I feel strongly about this because no person should ever been coerced into making decisions based on others' opinions. Health Education 101 people!
So here is my breakdown of the arguments. I try to be objective but my opinion does come out loud and clear. Again, this is my opinion and in no way should influence yours (see previous paragraph).
Opposing Argument: The bill calls for abortion procedures not to occur after the developing baby is 20 gestational weeks old.
My Rebuttal: This is true, and probably the most valid point from opposers. But two things struck me as fair in this bill in regards to this argument. One, it clearly states that medical exceptions exist. If there is danger to the mother and/or baby, a post-20-weeks abortion can occur. Therefore, the 20 weeks rule applies only to elective abortions. Two, I feel that if it has taken a mother more than 20 weeks to decide if she wants to abort, we have bigger issues. In my opinion, if you are at 20 weeks without making a decision, you are not capable of making a sound judgment call on the life of an unborn child. This is all regardless of if the baby can feel pain or not and regardless of your opinions on abortion.
Opposing Argument: The bill would close 37 of the 42 clinics in the state.
My Rebuttal: Yes. This is also true. But hello!!! Do you know why that many clinics would shut down? Did you read the bill?? It's because 37 out of the 42 clinics would not be able to pass current medical/surgical facility regulations. I'm sorry, but no clinic should be able to operate if they cannot pass basic regulations intended to keep us safe from infections, malpractice, and more. I feel like every person has the right to a safe medical procedure, the right to adequate post-care, the right to have a doctor who is held accountable, and the right to know that your clinic is regulated. This is regardless of the facility's purpose. I feel very strongly about this point, especially for those saying this bill is anti-womens-health. This is the strongest part of the bill that would improve health all over the state. Besides, did you not read the part where these clinics have until September 1, 2014 to comply!? It's not like these clinics will suddenly shut their doors the day after the bill passes.
Opposing Argument: The bill violates women's rights.
My Rebuttal: Again, this piggy backs on my previous rebuttal. I feel like this positively affects women's rights to quality health care. The fact that this bill has turned into some larger political venture is embarrassing for us women who believe in access to quality care and women's rights. Does the end justify the means? Is it worth it to take this bill and use it as a platform? Remember where this bill came from - the crazy lunatic in Pennsylvania. There is not a person in this world who was not appalled by that case, and yet, we are turning on our own legislators who are attempting to avoid that situation in this state.
Opposing Argument: The bill favors the pro-life demographic.
My Rebuttal: In my opinion, this has nothing to do with that debate. In fact, several times this bill mentions what abortion is, that is it is legal, and says that in no way is this a stand-alone bill, but an extension of the right to abortion. This bill simply tries to regulate it a little more to protect patients who may not understand they are receiving ill advice and/or bad care.
Opposing Argument: The bill was created by and for the caucasian demographic, when most abortions occur in the minority population.
My Rebuttal: I'd like to see what research you have to back this up. Multiple articles would have to prove that minorities are more likely to consider an abortion, that more minorities conceive an unplanned child, and that Texas demographics play no role in skewing the data. Even if that last part of the argument is valid, then isn't this even more reason to pass regulations? This argument infers that minority populations need more abortions, and therefore lack quality health education (again, more research needs to be cited). If that is the case, then shouldn't the state step in to regulate these facilities for them so they do not need to fully understand what their rights as patients are - overcoming language, cultural, educational and other barriers? This would actually make a fantastic doctoral research project. But I doubt the person/people making this argument think that way.
Also as a side note, last night I was very aggravated by the use of the collective "we" when referring to women and Texans. Not all Texans and not all women can be grouped like that, especially in regards to opinions on hotly debated topics.
I was also quite annoyed with the fact that we elected the people voting - I did not vote for Wendy Davis, fyi. We elected them to speak for us and vote for us on important issues. And yet, we cheer when a filibuster prevents the voting process from happening. And we cheer because a woman was leading the fight. And we cheer because after going through the full judicial process, we have killed a bill no one cared about until the final hours. Not to mention, the other bills that would have been considered - even ones we all agree on - that died with this one.
Ok, rant is over. Thank you for holding on, if you did. Above all, I am passionate about patient rights and women's/reproductive health. Luckily, this bill will not affect me personally since I will never consider an elective abortion. But it doesn't hurt to be in-the-know, especially when it directly pertains to your career field.
