Bills of interest from Planned Parenthood (long but worth a read)
Senate Bill 117-Refusal to dispense birth control
This bill would change Indiana law such that no person shall be required, as a condition of training, employment, pay, promotion, or privileges, to dispense either (A) a medical device or drug that may result in an abortion; or (B) a birth control device or medication. So the nurse who refused to give emergency contraception to a rape victim, the pharmacist who refused to fill your prescription for birth control pills, and the gas station attendant who refused to sell you condoms would all be protected by law.
SB 117 could severely curtail access to contraception, especially in rural areas which may only have a single pharmacist per town or even county. If passed, we fear that measures like this could cause significant increases in unintended pregnancies and thus lead to an increase in the number of abortions. Planned Parenthood Advocates of Indiana strongly opposes legislation that so limits a person's right to make his/her own contraceptive choices and grants gas station attendants and pharmacists legally protected status as Indiana's sex police.
Senate Bill 119-Misuse of education funds
This bill would require each Indiana school corporation to include detailed instruction regarding human fetal development in its high school health education curriculum. In a state that does not require school corporations to teach sex education, this would be a needless misuse of both state and local education resources, and could potentially result in a curriculum designed solely as anti-choice propaganda.
Planned Parenthood Advocates of Indiana would much rather see health education funding being spent to develop and implement medically accurate sex education programs, and leave fetal development to biology class.
Senate Bill 135-Legislators playing doctor 1
SB 135 would amend Indiana's informed consent to abortion law to require a doctor to inform a pregnant woman that the fetus might feel pain, despite overwhelming scientific evidence and medical evidence to the contrary. The latest medical research (Journal of the American Medical Association, 2005) shows that the earliest the fetus might feel pain is 29-30 weeks' gestational age; abortions at this stage are banned in Indiana.
Even more outrageous, this legislation would also require that doctors inform patients that "human life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm;" in other words, "life begins at conception". Clearly, the motivation for SB 135 is to require doctors to practice politics, not medicine. Planned Parenthood Advocates opposes legislation which mandates false speech and state sponsored harassment.
Senate Bill 172-Legislators playing doctor 2
SB 172 is identical to SB 135.
Senate Bill 194-Additional restriction on abortion access
SB 194 would require a physician who performs an abortion to: (1) have privileges at a hospital in the county where the abortion is performed; and (2) notify the patient of the hospital location where the patient can receive follow-up care by the physician who performed the abortion. The majority of Indiana women who seek abortion services have to travel extremely long distances. In Indiana, only five counties have an abortion provider. SB 194 will not improve the health and safety of patients.
Physicians performing abortions want their patients to get to the nearest hospital in the event of a post-operative emergency. Further, the fact that her physician has hospital privileges in Marion County will not help the patient who's returned to her home in Vigo County-or Jennings County, or Whitley County-after having an abortion. SB 194 will only serve as an additional barrier to women seeking abortion services. Planned Parenthood Advocates opposes legislation that will needlessly curtail access to abortion while doing nothing to help prevent unintended pregnancy.
Senate Bill 221-More government, less health care for women
In 2005, at the behest of the legislature, the Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) compiled 38 pages of regulations which abortion providers must follow in order to be licensed. As written, the ISDH regulations require strict, technical building requirements for abortion facility licensure, but allow an existing facility to be "grandfathered in" and function in their current environment until they renovate or relocate the facility, at which time the new facility must meet all updated requirements. This "grandfather clause" is typical of any new regulation ISDH implements.
Indiana Right to Life tried, unsuccessfully, in 2005 and 2006 to override the authority of ISDH concerning physical plant standards. Sen. Kruse again carries the torch for Right to Life, trying to force ISDH to conform to political, not medical practices. SB 221 would force Indiana's abortion providers to renovate or relocate their facilities to conform to the physical plant standards by 2011.
Indiana's abortion providers have all been inspected and licensed by ISDH, in accordance with the 2005 law. The complication rate for first trimester abortions-in facilities as they exist and are licensed now-is less than 0.5%.
Why, then, does the legislature seek to override the decision of the Indiana State Department of Health? The answer is simple: politics! Planned Parenthood Advocates of Indiana adamantly opposes SB 221, which would do nothing to improve the health and safety of women, nor would it prevent a single unintended pregnancy.
Senate Bill 327-Cancer prevention for young women
All of Indiana's female senators have signed on as co-authors to SB 327, which would require female 6th graders to be immunized against human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, in order to prevent cervical cancer. Schools would be permitted to enroll students who had not been vaccinated. Planned Parenthood Advocates applauds this effort to increase awareness of and access to the first vaccine that can prevent cancer. Learn more about HPV, its link to cervical cancer, and the vaccine.
Senate Joint Resolution 7-Discrimination in our constitution?
This proposed amendment to the state constitution would write discrimination into the founding document of Indiana. SJR 7 would not only reserve the term "marriage" for heterosexual couples, but all related status and legal incidents thereof. In other words, gay and lesbian couples would be denied insurance, access to one another's hospital room, tax status, inheritance of property, and a host of other rights that married couples take for granted. In addition, similarly constructed constitutional amendments in other states are being used as a defense by men who abuse their girlfriends, claiming that domestic violence statutes do not apply to unmarried couples.
Regardless of whether one believes that a homosexual couple should be called married, how can one deny the constitutional rights of equal protection under the law to any segment of our population? Planned Parenthood believes that all people, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, live under the same constitution, which protects rights of privacy, liberty, due process and equal protection. It is these same rights that guarantee women the right to vote, to choose when or whether to have children, and that are at the core of all civil rights protections for women and minorities alike. Planned Parenthood Advocates of Indiana strongly opposes SJR 7 and all efforts to write discrimination into the state constitution, a document intended to protect the rights of all its citizens, not alienate them. To ignore SJR 7 would be to unravel the rights of Hoosiers everywhere! SJR 7 passed both houses of the General Assembly in 2005; in order to become part of the Indiana state constitution, it must be passed by both houses in this or the 2008 session, and then be passed by all Indiana citizens in a general election ballot in 2008.
House Bill 1020-Tax credit for loss of pregnancy
HB 1020 would allow women or couples to deduct $2500 from their taxable income if they have experienced a stillbirth within the tax year. The deduction equates to an $85 reduction of the taxes the woman or couple would owe for that year. For those who have journeyed through a pregnancy with the full hopes and expectations for parenthood only to have it end in stillbirth, the loss can be great. While this bill attempts to provide some acknowledgement of that loss, an $85 tax credit will likely do little by way of supporting families in such a difficult time. Planned Parenthood Advocates will monitor this bill closely.
House Bill 1172-Censorship or mere Big-Brotherism?
HB 1172 would require anyone selling "sexually explicit materials" to register with the secretary of state. It would be disturbing enough to think that the secretary of state was compiling a master list of businesses selling girlie mags or sex toys as if they were terrorists, but HB 1172 may reach further. While HB 1172 specifically excludes birth control from the roster of materials in question, it does not exclude sexually explicit materials of an educational or artistic nature. Planned Parenthood Advocates opposes HB 1172 because it sets a very dangerous precedent and equates to state endorsed censorship.
House Bill 1239-Civil law addresses loss of pregnancy
Criminal law already allows for charges to be brought against a person bringing harm to a viable fetus, in addition to criminal charges for harm against the pregnant woman; legal abortion is exempted from this statute. HB 1239 seeks to allow civil actions against the perpetrator of harm against a fetus whether malicious or negligent. As written, the bill fails to provide exemptions for the behavior of the pregnant woman and the emergency actions of medical personnel (malpractice notwithstanding). Planned Parenthood Advocates could fully support this bill if amended to provide protections for the otherwise lawful behavior of the pregnant woman and medical personnel. We will also watch this bill to make sure it is not amended to set an arbitrary point of viability via legislation; viability can only be determined on a case-by-case basis by a trained medical professional.
House Bill 1282-Harrassment of patients
HB 1282 is one of three proposed changes to Indiana's "informed consent" abortion law this year (see also SBs 135 and 172). HB 1282 is the least of the three, merely requiring that all information currently given to patients prior to an abortion-some in writing and some that is provided orally to the patient-henceforth be given to all patients both in writing and orally. As written, Planned Parenthood Advocates does not oppose this bill. We will watch it for amendments which would require false and misleading information be provided to patients. We would also ask legislators to realize that such bills do not reduce the abortion rate. They do not help patients. If we really want to reduce the abortion rate, we must work together to prevent unintended pregnancy.
This bill would change Indiana law such that no person shall be required, as a condition of training, employment, pay, promotion, or privileges, to dispense either (A) a medical device or drug that may result in an abortion; or (B) a birth control device or medication. So the nurse who refused to give emergency contraception to a rape victim, the pharmacist who refused to fill your prescription for birth control pills, and the gas station attendant who refused to sell you condoms would all be protected by law.
SB 117 could severely curtail access to contraception, especially in rural areas which may only have a single pharmacist per town or even county. If passed, we fear that measures like this could cause significant increases in unintended pregnancies and thus lead to an increase in the number of abortions. Planned Parenthood Advocates of Indiana strongly opposes legislation that so limits a person's right to make his/her own contraceptive choices and grants gas station attendants and pharmacists legally protected status as Indiana's sex police.
Senate Bill 119-Misuse of education funds
This bill would require each Indiana school corporation to include detailed instruction regarding human fetal development in its high school health education curriculum. In a state that does not require school corporations to teach sex education, this would be a needless misuse of both state and local education resources, and could potentially result in a curriculum designed solely as anti-choice propaganda.
Planned Parenthood Advocates of Indiana would much rather see health education funding being spent to develop and implement medically accurate sex education programs, and leave fetal development to biology class.
Senate Bill 135-Legislators playing doctor 1
SB 135 would amend Indiana's informed consent to abortion law to require a doctor to inform a pregnant woman that the fetus might feel pain, despite overwhelming scientific evidence and medical evidence to the contrary. The latest medical research (Journal of the American Medical Association, 2005) shows that the earliest the fetus might feel pain is 29-30 weeks' gestational age; abortions at this stage are banned in Indiana.
Even more outrageous, this legislation would also require that doctors inform patients that "human life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm;" in other words, "life begins at conception". Clearly, the motivation for SB 135 is to require doctors to practice politics, not medicine. Planned Parenthood Advocates opposes legislation which mandates false speech and state sponsored harassment.
Senate Bill 172-Legislators playing doctor 2
SB 172 is identical to SB 135.
Senate Bill 194-Additional restriction on abortion access
SB 194 would require a physician who performs an abortion to: (1) have privileges at a hospital in the county where the abortion is performed; and (2) notify the patient of the hospital location where the patient can receive follow-up care by the physician who performed the abortion. The majority of Indiana women who seek abortion services have to travel extremely long distances. In Indiana, only five counties have an abortion provider. SB 194 will not improve the health and safety of patients.
Physicians performing abortions want their patients to get to the nearest hospital in the event of a post-operative emergency. Further, the fact that her physician has hospital privileges in Marion County will not help the patient who's returned to her home in Vigo County-or Jennings County, or Whitley County-after having an abortion. SB 194 will only serve as an additional barrier to women seeking abortion services. Planned Parenthood Advocates opposes legislation that will needlessly curtail access to abortion while doing nothing to help prevent unintended pregnancy.
Senate Bill 221-More government, less health care for women
In 2005, at the behest of the legislature, the Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) compiled 38 pages of regulations which abortion providers must follow in order to be licensed. As written, the ISDH regulations require strict, technical building requirements for abortion facility licensure, but allow an existing facility to be "grandfathered in" and function in their current environment until they renovate or relocate the facility, at which time the new facility must meet all updated requirements. This "grandfather clause" is typical of any new regulation ISDH implements.
Indiana Right to Life tried, unsuccessfully, in 2005 and 2006 to override the authority of ISDH concerning physical plant standards. Sen. Kruse again carries the torch for Right to Life, trying to force ISDH to conform to political, not medical practices. SB 221 would force Indiana's abortion providers to renovate or relocate their facilities to conform to the physical plant standards by 2011.
Indiana's abortion providers have all been inspected and licensed by ISDH, in accordance with the 2005 law. The complication rate for first trimester abortions-in facilities as they exist and are licensed now-is less than 0.5%.
Why, then, does the legislature seek to override the decision of the Indiana State Department of Health? The answer is simple: politics! Planned Parenthood Advocates of Indiana adamantly opposes SB 221, which would do nothing to improve the health and safety of women, nor would it prevent a single unintended pregnancy.
Senate Bill 327-Cancer prevention for young women
All of Indiana's female senators have signed on as co-authors to SB 327, which would require female 6th graders to be immunized against human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, in order to prevent cervical cancer. Schools would be permitted to enroll students who had not been vaccinated. Planned Parenthood Advocates applauds this effort to increase awareness of and access to the first vaccine that can prevent cancer. Learn more about HPV, its link to cervical cancer, and the vaccine.
Senate Joint Resolution 7-Discrimination in our constitution?
This proposed amendment to the state constitution would write discrimination into the founding document of Indiana. SJR 7 would not only reserve the term "marriage" for heterosexual couples, but all related status and legal incidents thereof. In other words, gay and lesbian couples would be denied insurance, access to one another's hospital room, tax status, inheritance of property, and a host of other rights that married couples take for granted. In addition, similarly constructed constitutional amendments in other states are being used as a defense by men who abuse their girlfriends, claiming that domestic violence statutes do not apply to unmarried couples.
Regardless of whether one believes that a homosexual couple should be called married, how can one deny the constitutional rights of equal protection under the law to any segment of our population? Planned Parenthood believes that all people, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, live under the same constitution, which protects rights of privacy, liberty, due process and equal protection. It is these same rights that guarantee women the right to vote, to choose when or whether to have children, and that are at the core of all civil rights protections for women and minorities alike. Planned Parenthood Advocates of Indiana strongly opposes SJR 7 and all efforts to write discrimination into the state constitution, a document intended to protect the rights of all its citizens, not alienate them. To ignore SJR 7 would be to unravel the rights of Hoosiers everywhere! SJR 7 passed both houses of the General Assembly in 2005; in order to become part of the Indiana state constitution, it must be passed by both houses in this or the 2008 session, and then be passed by all Indiana citizens in a general election ballot in 2008.
House Bill 1020-Tax credit for loss of pregnancy
HB 1020 would allow women or couples to deduct $2500 from their taxable income if they have experienced a stillbirth within the tax year. The deduction equates to an $85 reduction of the taxes the woman or couple would owe for that year. For those who have journeyed through a pregnancy with the full hopes and expectations for parenthood only to have it end in stillbirth, the loss can be great. While this bill attempts to provide some acknowledgement of that loss, an $85 tax credit will likely do little by way of supporting families in such a difficult time. Planned Parenthood Advocates will monitor this bill closely.
House Bill 1172-Censorship or mere Big-Brotherism?
HB 1172 would require anyone selling "sexually explicit materials" to register with the secretary of state. It would be disturbing enough to think that the secretary of state was compiling a master list of businesses selling girlie mags or sex toys as if they were terrorists, but HB 1172 may reach further. While HB 1172 specifically excludes birth control from the roster of materials in question, it does not exclude sexually explicit materials of an educational or artistic nature. Planned Parenthood Advocates opposes HB 1172 because it sets a very dangerous precedent and equates to state endorsed censorship.
House Bill 1239-Civil law addresses loss of pregnancy
Criminal law already allows for charges to be brought against a person bringing harm to a viable fetus, in addition to criminal charges for harm against the pregnant woman; legal abortion is exempted from this statute. HB 1239 seeks to allow civil actions against the perpetrator of harm against a fetus whether malicious or negligent. As written, the bill fails to provide exemptions for the behavior of the pregnant woman and the emergency actions of medical personnel (malpractice notwithstanding). Planned Parenthood Advocates could fully support this bill if amended to provide protections for the otherwise lawful behavior of the pregnant woman and medical personnel. We will also watch this bill to make sure it is not amended to set an arbitrary point of viability via legislation; viability can only be determined on a case-by-case basis by a trained medical professional.
House Bill 1282-Harrassment of patients
HB 1282 is one of three proposed changes to Indiana's "informed consent" abortion law this year (see also SBs 135 and 172). HB 1282 is the least of the three, merely requiring that all information currently given to patients prior to an abortion-some in writing and some that is provided orally to the patient-henceforth be given to all patients both in writing and orally. As written, Planned Parenthood Advocates does not oppose this bill. We will watch it for amendments which would require false and misleading information be provided to patients. We would also ask legislators to realize that such bills do not reduce the abortion rate. They do not help patients. If we really want to reduce the abortion rate, we must work together to prevent unintended pregnancy.