May 19, 2013

Legislature sends ‘webcam abortion’ ban to the Governor

The state legislature has approved a bill that would bar the use of telemedicine to administer abortion-inducing drugs.

Representative Jeanie Riddle (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Rep. Jeanie Riddle (photo courtesy Tim Bommel, House Communications)

The bill (HB 400) would require that when a woman is using RU-486 or another abortion-inducing drug she must be in the presence of her doctor, rather than have him monitor her by a videoconference.

The bill’s House sponsor, Rep. Jeanie Riddle (R-Mokane), says such procedures happen elsewhere in the country and leave patients at risk.

“We’ve had 15 deaths and well over 1,000 … 1,300, 1,500 serious complications with this drug. We’ve had two in the United States … two teenage girls that bled to death at home because they were afraid to tell their parents. Yes, this is about quality care for women.”

Rep. Genise Montecillo (D-St. Louis) says Riddle overplays the risks, and is not genuine in stating her motivation.

“If you’re opposed to RU-486, say you’re opposed to RU-486 and that’s what this bill is about, but don’t stand up and say that this has nothing to do with a woman’s right to choose because it has everything to do with a woman’s right to choose” Montecillo said. “Let’s just be honest about the discussion for once.”

Other opponents argued that the drug is meant to be administered and followed-up on at home.

The proposal goes to Gov. Jay Nixon on veto-proof majorities in both chambers. Ten House Democrats voted with Republicans in passing it.

House passes bill barring ‘webcam abortions’

The House has passed a bill to stop so-called “webcam abortions.” It would bar in Missouri the administering of “abortion-inducing” drugs to a woman in one location by a doctor teleconferencing with her from another.

Representative Jeanie Riddle (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Representative Jeanie Riddle (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

It’s sponsor, Representative Jeanie Riddle (R-Mokane) says her bill, HB 400, is not about preventing abortions, but protecting the health of women seeking them.

“The physician who is going to prescribe these drugs needs to take professional responsibility for the woman taken them. Women need protection from unscrupulous medical people who want to take their money with a cushy job, no equipment to purchase, no late nights, no 3 a.m. emergency visits.”

Riddle offered statistics and argued that such drugs are dangerous to women, but Democrats rejected that argument as a scare tactic.

Representative Genise Montecillo (D-St. Louis) told her colleagues, “The risks are the same as if the woman has a miscarriage … I think that this is just another attempt to interfere with a woman’s right to make good medical decisions for herself.”

Democrats say such procedures do not currently happen in Missouri, but Riddle suggests they are becoming more common in the U.S.

The legislation would also require a physician or representative to make all reasonable efforts to have a woman who has used an abortion-inducing drug make a follow-up visit between 12 and 18 days later for an assessment of her condition.

It now goes to the Senate for consideration.

House approves conscience rights for medical workers legislation

The House has passed its version of legislation to redefine what medical workers can choose not to do based on conscience.

House Speaker Tim Jones (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

House Speaker Tim Jones (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

The House version of conscience rights for medical workers legislation is sponsored by House Speaker Tim Jones (R-Eureka). He says the bill strengthens the definitions of the medical procedures it allows workers to opt out of.

“Abortion, abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, sterilization which is not medically necessary, assisted reproduction, human cloning, embryonic stem cell research, human somatic cell nuclear transfer, fetal tissue research and nontheraputic fetal experimentation. That’s it. If it’s not in the bill, it’s not included and you can’t use it as the basis for your objection to that medical procedure.”

Read the legislation, HB 457.

Jones says the bill could not be used to deny a woman access to emergency contraception in cases of rape. He says he has been assured, that is in keeping with Catholic doctrine.

“If it’s a rape then the idea is, under the doctrinal theory, that a pregnancy has not yet occurred so the drugs can be administered so the act of the pregnancy cannot occur with that short of a period of time, if you’re talking about the rape situation … I was told that directly from the Catholic authority. They showed me the directive.”

Several House Democrats speaking against the bill maintained it would deny emergency contraception.

Representative Stacey Newman (D-St. Louis) has opposed versions of this legislation in the past, and says this version causes her even greater concern.

“Remember the original bill was a conscience bill … that would allow any medical professional, any medical entity to refuse treatment for religious reasons. Because it had trouble in committee, this bill was narrowed to just deal with reproductive health … just deal with women.”

Jones tells the House his bill also specifically defines when a medical worker can and can not claim a conscience protection right.

The proposal goes to the Senate on a 116-41 vote, a great enough margin to overturn a Governor’s veto if no legislators change their votes.  11 Democrats voted for the bill.

House hears bill to make abortions in some cases a crime

A House Committee has heard arguments for and against a bill that would make it a crime to perform an abortion for a woman who wants it because of her unborn child’s sex or a genetic abnormality.

Representative John McCaherty (courtesy; Missouri House Communications)

Representative John McCaherty (courtesy; Missouri House Communications)

The legislation is sponsored by Representative John McCaherty (R-High Ridge).

“Consider the facts that human beings are human beings, and whether or not they have Down’s syndrome or whether or not they are absolutely perfect as we deem ‘perfect being,’ or whether or not they are male or female should not have a basis on whether or not they live.”

McCaherty says his proposal would give a woman legal grounds if after having an abortion she decided she was persuaded into having it by a doctor.

“Right now a lady has no recourse if she is coerced or if she is pressured into having an abortion by a physician or somebody like that … so if she can prove that in court she would have some recourse.”

McCaherty says cases of such persuasion have happened in the State of New York.

Missouri Planned Parenthood lobbyist Michelle Trupiano says the legislation will infringe on the rights of women faced with difficult decisions. She shared the story of a woman in Columbia who had a wanted pregnancy and learned the child had severe complications.

“We see this throughout Missouri and throughout the country … these much wanted, much loved pregnancies that up until that time the families are overjoyed, and they’re not making these decisions lightly, that these are heartbreaking, heartbreaking decisions that they’re having to make … and for a legislature to sit up here and say, ‘We know what’s right for them,” that’s talking about government intrusion in the worst.”

Representative Chris Kelly (D-Columbia) says the bill raises a constitutional question.

“To what degree may the state enact a law which impares the right to choose an abortion based on the condition of the fetus?” He says there are two questions, “Can you do it constitutionally and the other one is if you can do it constitutionally, should you do it?”

The committee has not voted on the proposal.

Hearing on ‘benevolent’ tax credits becomes abortion, birth control debate

A hearing in the House Committee on Children, Families and Persons with Disabilities on a proposal to extend so-called “benevolent” tax credits turned into a discussion about abortion and birth control on Tuesday.

Representative Genise Montecillo at a hearing of the House Committee on Children, Families and Persons with Disabilities.  (Photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications.)

Representative Genise Montecillo at a hearing of the House Committee on Children, Families and Persons with Disabilities. (Photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications.)

The hearing was on a bill that would extend tax credits for donations to charitable causes, such as centers that help children in crisis, food banks and more. The debate regarded credits for pregnancy resource centers.

Pro-Choice Missouri Executive Director Pamela Sumners testified that a study revealed many of those centers giving inaccurate medical information regarding abortions and birth control.

“We know that what happens with some of these facilities is that you don’t get the proper information early on, there are delays and sometimes these delays will put people beyond the point at which they can legally get an abortion or put them in a position where the procedure will be more risky to them,” she says.

Sumners discussed some of the findings of that study.

“Sixty-nine percent of these facilities said that there was a link between abortion and hormonal birth control increasing infertility,” she says. “Ninety-two percent wouldn’t tell a woman where she could obtain birth control. Fifty-four percent stated or implied that condoms are less effective in preventing sexually transmitted diseases than they are. Twenty-eight percent told women in their written materials that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer.”

Sumners told lawmakers she wanted them to have the facts before they extended the credit benefitting those centers.

Missouri Catholic Conference spokesman Tyler McClay questioned the definition of what is “medically accurate.”

“I can show you studies that suggest that (abortion is a risk factor for breast cancer),” McClay says. “I can show you studies that say it is not a risk factor. So, I guess the question is, ‘What’s medically accurate?’ That’s going to be difficult to define, I think, in law. That would be my concern with that.”

Rep. Genise Montecillo (D-St. Louis) indicated she will offer an amendment to the bill to require that medical information provided by clinics be accurate.

See the legislation – HB 87.

Rep. Eric Burlison (R-Springfield) says the hearing on his bill about charitable tax credits was hijacked.

“That’s unfortunate because we’re trying to just accomplish something that is very good,” Burlison says. “There’s a lot of good that’s happened in all these benevolent tax credits.”

Barbara Brown-Johnson, president of the Missouri Network of Child Advocacy Centers, testified to urge lawmakers to extend the “children in crisis” credit. She says at her center in Springfield, it yielded $534,000 in four years and over $240,000 in July and August, 2012 alone.

She says one thing it supports is forensic interviewers who interview children going through stressful situations.

“This little boy asked a different kind of question that we’d never been asked before,” Brown-Johnson says. “He looked at the interviewer and he said … he was eight … he said … ‘Yeah, I have a question.’ He said, ‘Can you tell me why people keep hurting me?’ That’s a question no child in Missouri or any state should ever have to ask.”

The legislation will come to a vote in the committee next week.