Jan 152015
 

Many Americans who believe that abortion is murder wish to prohibit doctors and health maintenance organizations (HMO) from performing this procedure. Others believe abortion is a woman’s fundamental civil right and should be offered by all HMOs. Some Americans object to public funds being used for organizations which provide abortion services. Pro-life groups say this funding is responsible for the murder of countless unborn, contrary to the wishes of many taxpayers. Others disagree, saying direct federal funding for abortions has been outlawed for many years. In 2011, Planned Parenthood performed at least 334,000 abortions at more than 750 clinics. In 2012, it received nearly 45%, or about $542 million, of its annual funding from government grants and contracts including Medicaid. Critics say this underscores the need to prohibit federal funding of this organization. Supporters claim Planned Parenthood provides a wide range of reproductive health services aside from abortion, including pregnancy testing and contraceptive services. Its annual report showed this organization provided sexually transmitted disease treatment for 4.5 million Americans and cancer screening and prevention services for 1.3 million others. Planned Parenthood claims abortion services comprise only 3% of the healthcare services it provides to women. In some rural areas, the Planned Parenthood clinic is the only affordable reproductive healthcare option for people without insurance. It says that one in five American women have visited a Planned Parenthood clinic at least once in her life. Pro-life advocates claim the number of abortions will increase with the health insurance plans offered under Obamacare. They also claim the cost of providing abortions will be paid by everyone participating in these plans. Pro-choice advocates say those who choose to enroll in a health plan that offers abortion services under the Affordable Care Act are required to pay a surcharge.

Pending Legislation:

S.154 & H.R.346 – SAFE Act

I oppose reforming current abortion funding policy and wish to defeat S.154 & H.R.346

I support amending the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to ensure that no multi-state qualified health plan offered in a health benefit exchange provides coverage of abortion. Excepts from such limitation: a pregnancy that results from rape or incest; or a case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, injury, or illness that would place the her in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, and wish to pass S.154 & H.R.346

 Posted by at 12:00 am
Jan 152015
 

Family planning, including contraceptive birth control, enables women to have the number of children they wish at the time they wish to have them. This ability gives women control over their reproductive lives, protects their health, allows them to plan their future and invest in their careers. Contraceptives also greatly reduce the need for abortion. Of our 6 million pregnancies each year, nearly half are unintended and nearly half of these end in abortion. Emergency contraception, sometimes referred to as Plan B or the morning-after pill, works like other hormonal birth control and does not harm or terminate an already-established pregnancy. This contraceptive is 95% effective in preventing pregnancy. However, there are pharmacists in many states who refuse to fill prescriptions for Plan B contraceptives. These refusals have recently increased since emergency contraception without a prescription became available to women 17 or older. Birth control opponents claim contraception separates sex from reproduction and leads to promiscuity and disease. Advocates say that access to contraception is a protected fundamental right that should not be impeded by another’s personal beliefs.

The Supreme Court’s recent Hobby lobby ruling, giving religious-minded employers the right to deny contraception to employees, has been controversial. Supporters believe this was a correct decision since many employers are against supporting or funding contraceptive birth control. Critics say this is an ambiguous ruling which could be applied to other healthcare procedures in the future. They object to a CEO or corporation coming between a woman and her guaranteed access to healthcare. Some also say this ruling is discriminatory since it blocks only a portion of women from getting care.

Pending Legislation:

S.333 & H.R.728 – Access to Birth Control Act

S.135 & H.R.217 – Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act

I oppose reforming current birth control policy and wish to defeat S.333 & H.R.728 and S.135 & H.R.217

I support requiring pharmacies to comply with certain rules related to contraceptives, including: providing a customer a contraceptive without delay if it is in stock; immediately informing a customer if the contraceptive is not in stock and either transferring the prescription to a pharmacy that has the contraceptive in stock or expediting the ordering of the contraceptive and notifying the customer when it arrives, based on customer preference, except for pharmacies that do not ordinarily stock contraceptives in the normal course of business; and ensuring that pharmacy employees do not take certain actions relating to a request for contraception, including intimidating, threatening, or harassing customers, interfering with or obstructing the delivery of services, intentionally misrepresenting or deceiving customers about the availability of contraception or its mechanism of action, breaching or threatening to breach medical confidentiality, or refusing to return a valid, lawful prescription, and wish to pass S.333 & H.R.728

I support prohibiting the Secretary of Health and Human Service from providing any federal family planning assistance to an entity unless the entity certifies it will not perform, and will not provide any funds to any other entity that performs, an abortion. Excludes an abortion where: the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest; or a physician certifies that the woman suffered from a physical disorder, injury, or illness that would place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy, and wish to pass S.135 & H.R.217

 Posted by at 12:00 am
Jan 152015
 

Targeted Regulation of Abortion Provider (TRAP) laws impose unique and burdensome regulations on doctors and health care facilities which perform abortions. Supporters claim these laws provide safer conditions for women undergoing this procedure. However, most TRAP laws require abortion clinics to install unnecessary expensive equipment, perform extensive renovations that may not be physically possible, or mandate higher employee qualifications than needed. Some TRAP laws allow unannounced state inspections when patients are present. Other TRAP laws require abortion clinics to have hospital admitting privileges which can be nearly impossible to attain. Critics say this regulation is unnecessary because abortion is our safest and most common medical procedure. Less than 0.3% of all patients experiencing a complication require hospitalization. This excellent safety record often prevents abortion clinics from attaining hospital admitting privileges, many of which require at least 5 admissions a year. They claim there is no legitimate reason to require abortion providers to have these privileges. There are now at least 34 states with TRAP laws, many of them identical. Advocates claim the only purpose of these laws is to force abortion providers out of business. They also say TRAP laws are discriminatory because they don’t apply to other facilities that provide outpatient surgery and other basic medical services.

Pending Legislations: None

I oppose reforming current Targeted Regulation of Abortion Provider (TRAP) law policy

I support identifying a legislator who will sponsor a bill to prohibit Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP) laws

 Posted by at 12:00 am