March 26, 2012

State Bill 1387 and Another 15' in the Spotlight

Carolyn and I went downtown to my favorite pizza place for dinner and on the way back we drove by the dwindling "Occupy Boise" encampment.  I'm not really in favor of the Occupy movement, but I'll freely admit I'm not against them either...well aside from the fact that they are camping out on public property and a general eyesore.

As we passed the Capital there was a protest going on....a protest that we later found out a friend of ours was attending.  Since we cut the local cable we don't always get the local news so I didn't know what was going on.  Evidently the legislature is working on State Bill 1387.

Like the majority of people who might be reading this blog, I don't know what State Bill 1387 is about, but fortunately the fine State of Idaho has decided that some level of transparency is warranted and puts all their legislation online.  Here is the information regarding SB 1387:
"ABORTION - Amends existing law relating to abortion to establish provisions relating to certain materials made available to physicians, hospitals or other facilities providing abortion and abortion-related services, to establish provisions relating to a list of health care providers, facilities and clinics that offer to perform certain ultrasounds, to establish provisions relating to a statement regarding certain ultrasound imaging and heart tone monitoring and to establish other related provisions."

On a couple of levels this may seem innocuous enough, but hey....I'm not a doctor, nor am I a woman, much less someone who is going to be providing or receiving an abortion.  I don't know crap in this matter and won't profess to have any sort of informed opinion.  All I can do is provide my limited commentary in this matter.

I'm not that political, but I will stand up if I think something is amiss.  Even if I don't know diddly about abortions and ultrasounds I have to say that something seems amiss.  My very first clue is the fact that Brandi Swindell (I know this is a low blow, but I simply am not smart enough to come up with such an apt name if I tried) is in favor of this bill.  When the heck is her fifteen minutes going to be up?

She is a noted anti-abortion advocate who has recently been interviewed by the 700 Club regarding her views.  Today, before a group of roughly 150 legislators, she provided color commentary as ultrasounds were being performed.  I've taken a look at Brandi's Blog and she doesn't mention anything about her having any sort of medical training, yet she is qualified to explain ultrasounds to the uninitiated?

Oh....I get it...because she is the "founder and president" of a "health care" facility that makes her that anything like buying a diploma or medical license?  I just want to know because I fail to see the rationale for her expertise.  She couldn't have one of her legally licensed medical practitioners provide the commentary?

Now that I think of it, the Idaho Medical Association is just down the street from the Capital building.  If there was anyone qualified to provide medical consultation to the legislature I would expect it to be these guys.  After all, their mission statement is "The purposes of this Association are to promote the science and art of medicine, the protection of the public health, and the enhancement of the medical profession of the State of Idaho."

I shuddered a bit when I read a Swindell quote that made the news, "Who doesn’t love an ultrasound image of a baby?"  Wow...simply wow.  That sounds like awesome medical advice that I'm sure the 105 legislators (76 men and 29 women) can use in deciding what is best for the State of Idaho.  No agenda there Brandi....

For those of you who do not know, this woman decided to open up her own "Pro-Life" Clinic next door to Planned Parenthood because, in her own words, "Planned Parenthood sells one option." The next words out of her mouth are, "We're not agenda driven."  I can't make this stuff up.  Listen for yourself (about 1'57" in):

I will, and have fully admit that I don't know if ultrasounds are a medical necessity for an abortion.  I'm assuming that if they were, health care providers would make them available without any concern if they were legally mandated or not.  I think that maybe, just maybe, we should leave the medical procedures up to the medical providers and not those with a religious or political axe to grind.  Idaho already has abortion rates 1/3 to 1/4 the national average.  We already have some strict laws mandating counseling and a waiting period. Brandi Swindell has already put together support for an optional women's health care facility, which has to be a good thing for the women she helps....but it doesn't make her a medical expert.

Call me crazy, but I prefer people sticking to their areas of expertise.

1 comment:

Adelle Stubblefield said...

Very well put Chris. I was there when the RS was read to the Senate State Affairs Committee. As it stands now, patients do have the option for an ultrasound. There is no medical necessity for the extra procedure. Making an ultrasound a requirement forces a woman to face her unborn child before aborting. The worrisome thing about this bill is that it makes no allowance for rape or incest creating more for the victim to deal with. Thanks for the post. Adelle