I've written about my feelings on the subject before, but allow me to reiterate that 1) this is an important and necessary piece of legislation that will offer much-needed help to people in need and 2) THE MORNING-AFTER PILL IS NOT ABORTION. It prevents contraception from ever happening in the first place, thus avoiding the possibility of needing an abortion altogether. You'd think those crazy anti-abortion people would be happy as clams about this.MADISON, Wis. (AP) - The state Assembly has given preliminary approval to a bill that would require hospitals to supply emergency contraception to rape victims if they ask for it.
The bill would require emergency rooms give sexual assault victims information on the so-called morning-after pill and dispense it upon a victim's request.
Supporters contend the measure will help prevent pregnancies in rape victims. Critics have likened the drug to abortion.
The Assembly passed the measure 56-41 Tuesday night just before midnight, but majority Republicans used a parliamentary tactic to prevent it from leaving the Assembly.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
The Assembly gets something (mostly) right
Even though the Republicans pulled a petty maneuver to keep it in the Assembly until the next calendar (probably January), I'm very glad to see that this passed:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
As you may or may not know, Wisconsin Right to Life and the Wisconsin Catholic Conference didn't even oppose this bill. Gundrum and the AssGOP are on their own on this one. The pro-life Democrats opposed the religious exemption because they knew that Catholic hospitals already provide EC in the situations the bill requires. Ironically, most of the hospitals that don't provide EC are not religious in any way. So the amendment would have basically ticked everyone off in theory, but not even done anything in practice.
Second, since this bill is well written and truly doesn't have anything to do with the abortion debate (like you said), why the heck is NARAL crowing about this being the "first pro-choice bill to pass the Assembly in a decade?" They can't have it both ways. It was rhetoric like that which caused me to oppose the bill initially. Once I realized it was a reasonable bill, I immediately supported it.
I think NARAL is correct to hail this as a pro-choice victory. The term pro-choice is not exclusively about abortion, but about trusting women to make choices for themselves, to know what is best for them. Abortion is one of such choice, as is taking birth control, or EC-- or refusing any/all of the above.
At any rate, I'm glad the author of the first comment decided to support the bill. So glad to see this moving ahead!
Post a Comment