cleaning out work emails
An oldie but goodie
Subject: FW: Sen. Patrick's ultrasound bill in Senate Committee Thursday
FYI-
I sent this to some people I know that are interested in this issue. Please feel free to forward it to anyone you know that may also be interested.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen. Dan Patrick's ultrasound bill, SB 182, has been set for a hearing this Thursday, March 19th, at 1pm or upon adjournment of the Senate. The House version, HB 36 by Corte, has not been set for a hearing yet. This is the bill that would require a woman to undergo an ultrasound (whether or not her physician deems it necessary) before an abortion. She would also be shown an image of the ultrasound (the bill says she can avert her eyes), she would have to listen to a verbal description of the image, and she would be forced to listen to the fetal heartbeat. Women would have to go through all of this even in cases where the pregnancy is no longer viable.
Please take a moment to contact the committee members, as well as your own senator, to let them know you oppose this bill. Also, please get the word out and encourage others that may be concerned about this bill to do the same.
The Senate Committee on State Affairs is made up of:
Chair
.Robert Duncan (R - Lubbock - Dist. 28 - 512-463-0128)
Vice-Chair
.Robert Deuell (R - Greenville - Dist. 2 - 512-463-0102)
Members:
.John Carona (R - Dallas - Dist. 16 - 512-463-0116)
.Rodney Ellis (D - Houston - Dist. 13 - 512-463-0113)
.Troy Fraser (R - Horseshoe Bay - Dist. 24 - 512-463-0124)
.Chris Harris (R - Arlington - Dist. 9 - 512-463-0109)
.Mike Jackson (R - La Porte - Dist. 11 - 512-463-0111)
.Eddie Lucio, Jr. (D - Brownsville - Dist. 27 - 512-463-0127)
.Leticia Van de Putte (D - San Antonio - Dist. 26 - 512-463-0126)
Below are some talking points that may help someone that would like to voice opposition to this bill:
· Our priority should be reducing the number of unintended pregnancies, not interfering in the doctor-patient relationship. We should do this by supporting legislation that improves the quality of sexuality education and promotes the use of safe and effective contraceptive methods. Fewer unintended pregnancies result in fewer abortions.
· Leading medical organizations such as the American Medical Association, American Medical Women’s Association, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and American Public Health Association oppose procedure-specific requirements that interfere with the doctor-patient relationship or compromise a doctor’s medical judgment as to what information or treatment is in the best interest of the patient.
· An ultrasound is a medical procedure, not a political tool. The decision about when and whether to perform an ultrasound should be the doctor’s - not the State Legislature’s. No legitimate medical purpose is served by forcing a woman to listen to a description of the ultrasound or to the fetal heartbeat.
· This bill is politically motivated, as proven by its focus on one medical procedure. A patient is not coerced into viewing or listening to descriptions of X-rays, cat scans, or videos of surgeries. Singling out a woman who is seeking an abortion is purely political.
· Although the bill allows the woman to “avert her eyes” from the ultrasound, nothing in the bill allows her to “avert her ears” from sound of the ultrasound description or the fetal heartbeat. There is no medical justification for this invasive requirement.
· No exceptions are made for women that are pregnant as a result of a sexual assault or women with severe and irreversible fetal abnormalities. There is also no exception for women that miscarry and have to have the same procedure used in an abortion to evacuate the uterus.
· Texas already requires a 24-hour mandatory delay before a woman can receive an abortion. Further delays, especially for medically unnecessary reasons, could pose a risk to the woman’s life or health. This is particularly true for low-income women or women from rural areas who may have to travel hundreds of miles to access health care.
· Requiring a medically unnecessary procedure drains time and resources from a health care system that is already overloaded. We should focus on providing services that patients need, not injecting politics and extra paperwork into the health care system, especially in the midst of an economic recession and health care crisis.
Thanks!
______________________________
Also, I got a card in the mail asking my Rep. to support this bill because it's " a woman's right to be medically informed." Ummm, you are getting an abortion right? Is the woman going to say "oh shit, there's a baby in there?? I didn't know that, abort the abortion" when she's forced to watch the screen?
Subject: FW: Sen. Patrick's ultrasound bill in Senate Committee Thursday
FYI-
I sent this to some people I know that are interested in this issue. Please feel free to forward it to anyone you know that may also be interested.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen. Dan Patrick's ultrasound bill, SB 182, has been set for a hearing this Thursday, March 19th, at 1pm or upon adjournment of the Senate. The House version, HB 36 by Corte, has not been set for a hearing yet. This is the bill that would require a woman to undergo an ultrasound (whether or not her physician deems it necessary) before an abortion. She would also be shown an image of the ultrasound (the bill says she can avert her eyes), she would have to listen to a verbal description of the image, and she would be forced to listen to the fetal heartbeat. Women would have to go through all of this even in cases where the pregnancy is no longer viable.
Please take a moment to contact the committee members, as well as your own senator, to let them know you oppose this bill. Also, please get the word out and encourage others that may be concerned about this bill to do the same.
The Senate Committee on State Affairs is made up of:
Chair
.Robert Duncan (R - Lubbock - Dist. 28 - 512-463-0128)
Vice-Chair
.Robert Deuell (R - Greenville - Dist. 2 - 512-463-0102)
Members:
.John Carona (R - Dallas - Dist. 16 - 512-463-0116)
.Rodney Ellis (D - Houston - Dist. 13 - 512-463-0113)
.Troy Fraser (R - Horseshoe Bay - Dist. 24 - 512-463-0124)
.Chris Harris (R - Arlington - Dist. 9 - 512-463-0109)
.Mike Jackson (R - La Porte - Dist. 11 - 512-463-0111)
.Eddie Lucio, Jr. (D - Brownsville - Dist. 27 - 512-463-0127)
.Leticia Van de Putte (D - San Antonio - Dist. 26 - 512-463-0126)
Below are some talking points that may help someone that would like to voice opposition to this bill:
· Our priority should be reducing the number of unintended pregnancies, not interfering in the doctor-patient relationship. We should do this by supporting legislation that improves the quality of sexuality education and promotes the use of safe and effective contraceptive methods. Fewer unintended pregnancies result in fewer abortions.
· Leading medical organizations such as the American Medical Association, American Medical Women’s Association, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and American Public Health Association oppose procedure-specific requirements that interfere with the doctor-patient relationship or compromise a doctor’s medical judgment as to what information or treatment is in the best interest of the patient.
· An ultrasound is a medical procedure, not a political tool. The decision about when and whether to perform an ultrasound should be the doctor’s - not the State Legislature’s. No legitimate medical purpose is served by forcing a woman to listen to a description of the ultrasound or to the fetal heartbeat.
· This bill is politically motivated, as proven by its focus on one medical procedure. A patient is not coerced into viewing or listening to descriptions of X-rays, cat scans, or videos of surgeries. Singling out a woman who is seeking an abortion is purely political.
· Although the bill allows the woman to “avert her eyes” from the ultrasound, nothing in the bill allows her to “avert her ears” from sound of the ultrasound description or the fetal heartbeat. There is no medical justification for this invasive requirement.
· No exceptions are made for women that are pregnant as a result of a sexual assault or women with severe and irreversible fetal abnormalities. There is also no exception for women that miscarry and have to have the same procedure used in an abortion to evacuate the uterus.
· Texas already requires a 24-hour mandatory delay before a woman can receive an abortion. Further delays, especially for medically unnecessary reasons, could pose a risk to the woman’s life or health. This is particularly true for low-income women or women from rural areas who may have to travel hundreds of miles to access health care.
· Requiring a medically unnecessary procedure drains time and resources from a health care system that is already overloaded. We should focus on providing services that patients need, not injecting politics and extra paperwork into the health care system, especially in the midst of an economic recession and health care crisis.
Thanks!
______________________________
Also, I got a card in the mail asking my Rep. to support this bill because it's " a woman's right to be medically informed." Ummm, you are getting an abortion right? Is the woman going to say "oh shit, there's a baby in there?? I didn't know that, abort the abortion" when she's forced to watch the screen?