Rep. Heinrich and Emergency Contraception

Thank You (0.00 / 0)

Thank you Matt for this beautiful diary. [and the typos are charming reminders that when we are impassioned our spelling skills are not so important]

Thank you to Representative Heinrich, who has the courage to truly "represent".

Thank you to Maura and all others who write, march, walk, stand, phonebank, and talk about this issue, and other issues that are bubbling under in our lives.

Equality, Respect, Love, and Honor are the basis of our humanity, not the mean or cruel or hard acts we hear and see around us.

The health, safety, and well being of all people depend on the legal protection of individuals who suffer and bring these issues to the surface for the Law to act upon.

Thank you for reading and listening.

"I am not a Blogger...But I play one on the internet."

---

by: tessa @ Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 13:49:50 PM UTC

Rep. Heinrich is a hero (0.00 / 0)

When she testified, you could have heard a pin drop in the packed hearing room.  Her testimony was graphic and evocative.  I cried through most of it, as did others in the room. 

The gravity of Rep. Heinrich's testimony should have set the tone for the rest of the day, but, unfortunately, not all of the other members of the GA gave this seriousness of this topic the respect it deserved.  (Yes, that's you Senator DeLuca)

Matt, Melissa, and I stayed 'till the very end - we didn't get to our cars 'till 11PM.  I was so moved by the dozens and dozens of people who were there all day because they cared so much.

---

by: Maura @ Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 17:35:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hearings (0.00 / 0)

I was at the hearings yesterday. Couldn't stay for the entire thing, and my interest was actually with bill #7280, concerning medicare funds for adults with asd but not mr. 

Regarding the compassionate care hearings: Nancy Wyman did a terrific job with her presentation.

A way around the problem might have been presented by one of the reps (I forget who), who addressed the idea of a non-employee being on hand to administer the Plan B pill.  This idea came up (if I remember correctly) as a solution similar to the one negotiated between CT and Walmart.  CT and Walmart agreed that Walmart would have a non-concientious objector on hand to sell Plan B.

Going against the Catholic church is a tough thing in Ct, where contraception itself was illegal until 1964.  And convincing them that Plan B isn't abortion will take an enormous education effort. 

The hearings began at a little after 1pm and I couldn't stay for the entire thing.  The hearing room was small and really packed.

---

by: jeffs @ Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 14:09:02 PM UTC

re: hearings (0.00 / 0)

A way around the problem might have been presented by one of the reps (I forget who), who addressed the idea of a non-employee being on hand to administer the Plan B pill.  This idea came up (if I remember correctly) as a solution similar to the one negotiated between CT and Walmart.  CT and Walmart agreed that Walmart would have a non-concientious objector on hand to sell Plan B.

This solution was endorsed by Senator Lou Deluca (R-FIC Land) in his testimony as well, except the church has already rejected this compromise out of hand.

It's a shame we didn't know you were there: there were a whole gaggle of bloggers in attendance.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 14:27:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Damn! Sorry I missed you all. (4.00 / 1)

As it was, it was an education. 

It's interesting when politicians you might dislike (e.g., Amman and Deluca) support something you support.

Also, it's great to hear a good politician demolish the other side's argument.  One anti-Plan B rep worried that forcing Catholic hospitals to administer Plan B would cause them to go broke (from taking away state funding) or leave the state, and another rep spoke up and asked Nancy Wyman whether this had happened in other states with the same issue.  Wyman said, "No."  The rep said, "Thank you."  End of story.

---

by: jeffs @ Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 14:58:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Deluca (0.00 / 0)

He is a reflexive supporter of whatever the FIC and the church propose -- I get the sense that he's a decent guy (asking for a reasonable compromise here), but falls into line no matter how extreme the church position. He also uses some of the more bombastic language to justify the positions he takes -- which I actually appreciate on one level, since many legislators (like Truglia) keep quiet about what makes them vote the way they do. But he has a tendency to veer into the offensive, which isn't really becoming of an elected official.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 16:08:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Amann and Plan B for Rape Victims (4.00 / 1)

I know I keep promising to shut up about Jim Amann

B  U  T

I tried to speak to him last year about this when it was in the Health Committee. We were in the Speakers office for a coffee and bad cookies meeting during last year's CBIA Business Day panel.  As soon as I brought up Plan B for Rape Victims Rep. Amann interrupted me and started to talk about Personal Responsibility and how his cancer was his own doing because he smoked cigars and ate Chinese Food.

I have heard this speech from him five times. He gives no factual evidence of a connection between chinese food and throat cancer, he has a strange idea of the term "Personal Reponsibility", and he does not support Plan B for Rape Victims.

Jim Amann is a [censored by self].


"I am not a Blogger...But I play one on the internet."

---

by: tessa @ Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 23:13:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Amman Has Apparently Changed His Tune (0.00 / 0)

CTNJ Link

---

by: CGG @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 01:15:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Autism crew were great (0.00 / 0)

I was really impressed by the crowd of people who were there to testify about the bill about autism spectrum disorder.  They did a great job of making themselves visible, too, with those laminated yellow placards pinned to their clothes.

Having two bills with such high supporter turnouts really made for an insanely packed day, though.  I felt bad for the people who were there to testify about other bills, especially a small group of daycare providers who didn't get to testify 'till around 9PM after waiting since 1:00. 

Sorry we didn't get to meet you!

---

by: Maura @ Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 17:38:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks, Maura. (4.00 / 1)

The real energy behind this is Lois Rosenwald, an activist mother and head of CT-ASRC (Autism Spectrum Resource Center).

Some activists just really impress me.  On my way out, I stopped in the lobby to thank Lois, and she said, "I'm just a parent like you." 

Just a parent? No...*I* am 'just a parent.'  She is 'just a parent' *and* a focused, energetic, smart diplomat. 

---

by: jeffs @ Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 19:50:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm not crazy about this compromise (0.00 / 0)

Hospitals and doctors are supposed to be about treating patients, not exercising their religious rights at the expense of patients.

To get a person who is willing to practice medicine in the first place seems to be the point.  If a doctor is not willing to do a particular procedure for religious reasons that CONTRADICT medical facts about Plan B (the inaccurate info that ignores the ACCURATE INFO that Plan be DOES NOT CAUSE ABORTION of a fertilized egg), then that doctor is not practicing science based medicine and his or her judgement should be carefully watched.

Again, this is not about conscientious objection, it's about knee jerk objection and following religious dictates that fly in the face of science.

I don't think a compromise that supports unscientifically practiced medicine is a good solution.

FWIW.  Talk amongst yourselves. Gotta go to work!

---

by: greenpeas @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 12:08:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Damn polytheist doctors pushing their agenda (0.00 / 0)

The first line of the Hippocratic Oath:

I swear by Apollo, Æsculapius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgement, the following Oath.

The wikipedia entry says that the Oath is often "re-shaped" and many medical schools don't use the ancient form of the Oath... I'm curious how many US medical schools include the above line, and how many Christian (or Jewish or Muslim) students object to it.

"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." - Warren Buffet

---

by: joesaho @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 15:48:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oath of Maimonides is valid too (0.00 / 0)

Maybe this has secular variants too.  I'll check.

This copy taken from
http://www.fordham.e...

The eternal providence has appointed me to watch over the life and health of Thy creatures. May the love for my art actuate me at all time; may neither avarice nor miserliness, nor thirst for glory or for a great reputation engage my mind; for the enemies of truth and philanthropy could easily decieve me and make me forgetful of my lofty aim of doing good to Thy children.

May I never see in the patient anything but a fellow creature in pain.

Grant me the strength, time and opportunity always to correct what I have aquired, always to extendits domain; for knowledge is immense and the spirit of man can extend indefintely to enrich itself daily with new requirements.

Today he can discover his errors of yesterday and tomorrow he can obtain a new light on what he thinks himself sure of today. Oh, God, Thou has appointed me to watch over the life and death of Thy creatures; here am I ready for my vocation and now I turn unto my calling.

---

by: drowsy @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 16:22:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Lasagna Oath (0.00 / 0)

I think this is the most common oath recited during medical school commencement exercises. This is what we "swore" by when I was in Buffalo, 1994.

The Lasagna Oath:

...I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick...

Notice that the anti-abortion issue was taken out of the oath, and the concept of euthanasia is introduced. It's a more modern and forward-looking oath, I think.

The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice. --Martin Luther King, Jr.

---

by: connecticutyankee @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 17:08:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't know if any medical schools... (0.00 / 0)

...still recite the classical Hippocratic Oath, which forbade abortion. A lot of my medical school colleagues were pro-choice. The question to them is not whether they would want to have an abortion--but they certainly want to have the choice if they found themselves to be pregnant. To me and to people who are pro-choice, this is a basic right to privacy--which is alluded to in the Lasagna Oath:

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know.

The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice. --Martin Luther King, Jr.

---

by: connecticutyankee @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 17:20:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"knee jerk objection" (0.00 / 0)

You justify this by saying that it is "knee jerk objection" not conscientious objection. Is it possible, epistemologically to know whether someone's conscience is in fact operating when they claim conscientious objection?

Such a principle could be applied in the following way: conscientious objectors to the draft during the Vietnam War weren't conscientious objectors- they were lazy cowards who were afraid to go off to war. This is not something that I myself am asserting about COs during Vietnam.

It does bring is back us back to the question, how do you get inside a person's head to verify the operation of conscience. If they are willing to swear to the operation of conscience while under oath before God and on penalty of pejury isn't this sufficient? Certainly, this is sufficient for establishing evidence in court.

So, this does bring us back to the issue, how can you credibly know what is going on in a person's head? Such a willingness to dismiss the conscience of Catholics as resulting from ignorance- this betrays what is the problem with the political conversation right now. Specifically, there is no political conversation- just two sides yelling at each other until they turn blue in the face- a lack of curiosity to understand the position of the other- and a certainty that you full know and understand the position of the other. This happens on both sides of the aisle and it is shameful. People are less interested in discovering the over and having a dialogue and more interested in the flimsy partisan interests of their side- democrat or republican- even if it is at the cost of what is right and true.

---

by: J. Bailey @ Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 02:15:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Plan B- An Economic Analysis (0.00 / 0)

I worry that the dems are charging the wrong pony on the Plan B issue. Setting all moral issues aside, I think that economic analysis and history say something about not pushing this issue too far.

Take the example of Catholic Charities in Boston. The Massachussets Supreme Court told them that they had to allow gay adoption. The choice before them was to cease operations or continue operation under circumstances they found morally objectionable. They decided that they would not be coerced to do something odious and thus stopped providing adoption services.

The relevant economic analysis here is that the total productivity is equal to the area under the total product curve. The state is passing legislation ordered towards increasing that area. The risk is that while the legislation may guarantee quality, it serves to actually decrease the area under the curve. (What do I mean by this? Catholic hospitals may decide to exit the business of providing services to rape victims and thus provide NO services.) And this is the question I ask- is this an acceptable risk- a significant decrease in the amount of care available to rape victims? The other question, I would ask (that hasn't been really addressed) is how many documented cases have there been where the following three elements have been present (a) a rape victim has sought treatment at a Catholic hospital (b) has sought Plan B and (c) been denied Plan B following test showing that she was ovulating? This is not an irrelevant question- if it is miniscule- is it justifiable

I guess a third question that I'm raising here, is why isn't constructive notice sufficient for the Catholic hospitals, moving forward? Its not like people don't see the cross over the door when entering- or to put it another way- why hasn't the state passed a law requiring EMS and law enforcement to inform women that if they are taken to a Catholic hospital, they may be denied Plan B if they are ovulating? Why isn't constructive notice sufficient? Who would expect to have unfettered access to Plan B at a Catholic hospital? What kind of ignorance does that betray? (I make this point because of the comments accusing Catholics of ignorance.) What circumstances make it acceptable to infringe on people's religious liberties? Our English roots have conditioned us to view religion as simply a moral code rather than a way of life. Certainly, in current times morality is seen as simply a matter of opinion. But for Catholics, Catholicism is not simply a moral code, but a way of life that we have proudly built institutions to support- churches, schools, hospitals, nursing homes. James Cardinal Hickey said that the reason why we are so charitable towards others is not because they are Catholic, but because we are. It seems that our willingness to reach out and to share is not being received in a spirit of similar charity, but one that sees our charitable work as an entitlement.

---

by: J. Bailey @ Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 02:54:29 AM UTC

I was raised a Catholic. (0.00 / 0)

I went through grade school and high school of Catholicism. I probably know more about the history of the Catholic Church than most practicing Catholics. I have also pursued a career in medicine (and currently am practicing that same "art and science" for at least ten years, now--here in Connecticut!), and have had hospital privileges in at least one Catholic hospital in CT (Hospital of St. Raphael, New Haven).

With that said, I am very sure that the major "catholic" hospitals in CT (St. Raphael of New Haven, St. Francis of Hartford, St. Mary of Waterbury, St. Vincent of Bridgeport) will not close over this matter of emergency contraception. The 'Catholics' who run these hospitals are not about to let the "petty" rationale of "contraception" supercede the greater and truer catholic calling of service and compassion for the truly needful. So your argument, does not hold as much water as you think it might.

The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice. --Martin Luther King, Jr.

---

by: connecticutyankee @ Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 03:37:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

how do you know? (0.00 / 0)

You say:

With that said, I am very sure that the major "catholic" hospitals in CT (St. Raphael of New Haven, St. Francis of Hartford, St. Mary of Waterbury, St. Vincent of Bridgeport) will not close over this matter of emergency contraception. The 'Catholics' who run these hospitals are not about to let the "petty" rationale of "contraception" supercede the greater and truer catholic calling of service and compassion for the truly needful. So your argument, does not hold as much water as you think it might.

What gives you that certainty? Even if they don't close, how do you know they won't, for example, cut services to rape victims from the portfolio of services that they offer?

Even if there is no resultant risk- what is the marginal gain- how many have been turned away- and is it worth the coercion that this involves?

---

by: J. Bailey @ Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 03:46:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

When 'true' Catholics are pressed into a corner (0.00 / 0)

I would like to think that they would prefer to err on compassion and help over the pharisaical hypocrisy of people who think that their 'bible' speaks a greater truth than what they already know what is the right thing to do right there and then in front of them.

If I'm wrong about what Catholics really are supposed to be, then I think I'm doing okay by being lapsed Catholic.

The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice. --Martin Luther King, Jr.

---

by: connecticutyankee @ Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 03:59:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

what Catholics really believe (0.00 / 0)

You describe Catholic attitudes towards Plan B as pharisaical hypocrisy and claim that the attitudes of Catholics are derived from the Bible.

It is these two premises that I want to explore further. In regard to pharisaical hypocrisy, I disagree with that description, as a Catholic myself. What we must look at is the essential nature of Plan B. When a woman is not ovulating, Plan B acts as a contraceptive- it delivers a dose of synthetic progesterone and thus tricking a woman's body into behaving as if it is pregnant, suppressing ovulation. Unfortunately, when Plan B is given to a woman who is ovulating, the effect is very different. In a woman who is ovulating, you have the possibility that fertilization has occurred. If fertilization has occurred, Plan B prevents the implantation of the embryo in the womb of the mother, having an abortifacient effect. As to whether or not it stops a life, the point I will make is this. The embryo that is created by fertilization has its own unique DNA- completely different from that of the mother and the father. It is this DNA that gives each being its unique identity. Moreover, DNA is the internal roadmap for most of all of the internally caused the biological events that happen in the life of a being. So if the embryo is left alone, it will implant in the uterus of the mother and grow at the prodding of its DNA.

So within this context, a rigorous moral analysis seems to indicate that the means we are talking about involves stopping a human life in its tracks. Traditional (classical and Kantian) moral analysis shows us that an improper means, makes an act in and of itself immoral. Or to put it more colloquially- the end cannot justify the means- the means too must be good. Certainly, the idea that it is wrong to take innocent life is not limited to Christianity, but found in the moral systems of non-religious philosophers such as Kant- and thus seems to indicate that such an idea is a value that transcends religious denomination. So within this context, we have pretty convincing evidence that when Plan B acts as an abortfacient it is stopping innocent human life. I think it is important to establish that since a democratic society does not hold descendants responsible for the misdeeds of their ancestors, it is almost impossible to argue that the embryo isn't innocent life.

Sadly, we live in an age of consequentialist morality that expresses interest only in consequences- not in the means used to get there. Bush used this consequentialist morality to justify his incursions into civil liberties. Both the Democrats and the Republicans use it and it is really nasty stuff. As Alisdair MacIntyre puts it, it is as if a bomb has gone off in the world of moral analysis- society regards morality as mere opinion instead of having a truth value. We largely have the likes of Bentham and Mill to thank for this. This is why Bentham was a philosopher with the "small-mindedness of a shopkeeper".

The practical application to this is the use of emotional, situational and consequentialist morality to justify improper and wrong actions aimed at the very good end of trying to assuage the pain of a rape victim. Certainly, I think it a great burden for a rape victim to carry an unwanted child to term. I recognize that she has suffered a great indignity and want to help make her whole. The legislature should specify minimum civil damages of $100,000 or more for rape victims. Moreover, the father of a rape victim should have his wages garnished and be required to provide exclusive support for his child. If he is sentenced to prison, he should be sentenced to long days of hard labor to provide that money.

That said, from a Catholic moral perspective, providing Plan B for abortifacient purposes is the same thing as providing  abortion. The reality is that rape victims have a 72-hour window within which they can take Plan B and they can obtain it over-the-counter at pharmacies, many of which are within walking distance of the Catholic hospitals. Given this wide availability outside of Catholic hospitals, beyond arguments of convenience it is very hard to argue the existence of so great a hardship to justify trampling the religious liberty of Catholics. This is indeed a slippery slope- if the number of abortion providers in the state decreases, what is there to stop you from forcing Catholic hospitals to provide abortions? To what extent can government second guess and limit legitimate expressions of conscience? Yet again you see consequentialist morality at work- it is okay to impede the civil rights of Catholics because of the consequences of not doing so- having to go elsewhere to obtain Plan B?

A society that does not allow the genuine, heartfelt, expression of conscience is not a tolerant society.

---

by: J. Bailey @ Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 17:14:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]