Politics was never one of my focal points for writing, but it is something that I can go on about at length if I feel passionate enough about it. I had been sitting idly by the last few months, watching the Republican primaries with a mixture of fear and amusement, fairly content to let professionals like Stephen Colbert and John Stewart deliver satirical social commentary on our current political climate, but I finally reached a breaking point today and had to put my thoughts down. Some of this started as late night insomnia induced snippets on Facebook, but there’s enough material now to go full bore into a blog entry, something that this blog desperately needs if I am to justify its very existence at this point in time.
I live in New Hampshire, a state that used to be known as the Live Free or Die State and is now known for being engaged in a heated battle with Arizona for the title of The Bat Shit Crazy state. Our Tea party controlled House of Representatives has proposed so many outrageous bills this year, that every day the Union Leader begins to look more and more like The Onion. In fact, at this point, I think we out-Onion the Onion on the absurdity of our proposed legislation. Even The Onion couldn’t make this shit up.
The latest here in New Hampshire is House Bill 1659. Dubbed the “Women’s Right to Know Act”, it’s an anti abortion bill disguised as an informed consent law. The law would require women seeking an abortion to first give informed consent…because apparently, we routinely undergo medical procedures without it? I have signed more informed consent forms at medical appointments than I can remember. It is a normal, routine part of any medical procedure to ensure that the patient undergoing treatment or the procedure is made aware of the risks involved. Well, the NH abortion bill would make the informed consent literature include the following information:
e) Materials that inform the pregnant woman that there is a direct link between abortion and breast cancer. It is scientifically undisputed that full-term pregnancy reduces a woman’s lifetime risk of breast cancer. It is also undisputed that the earlier a woman has a first full-term pregnancy, the lower her risk of breast cancer becomes, because following a full-term pregnancy the breast tissue exposed to estrogen through the menstrual cycle is more mature and cancer resistant. In fact, for each year that a woman’s first full-term pregnancy is delayed, her risk of breast cancer rises 3.5 percent. The theory that there is a direct link between abortion and breast cancer builds upon this undisputed foundation. During the first and second trimesters of pregnancy the breasts develop merely by duplicating immature tissues. Once a woman passes the thirty-second week of pregnancy (third trimester), the immature cells develop into mature cancer resistant cells. When an abortion ends a normal pregnancy, the woman is left with more immature breast tissue than she had before she was pregnant. In short, the amount of immature breast tissue is increased and this tissue is exposed to significantly greater amounts of estrogen—a known cause of breast cancer. Women facing an abortion decision have a right to know that such medical data exists. At the very least, women must be informed that it is undisputed that pregnancy provides a protective effect against the later development of breast cancer.
But, there is a small problem with this. It is not true. And it’s not even wishy-washy kind of not true, like it could be a misinterpretation or something. According to the National Institute of Health and the National Cancer Institute…this piece of information is a flat out lie.
Here’s the information listed under “Key Points” on the National Cancer Institutes/National Institute of Health Fact Sheet on Reproductive History and Breast Cancer Risk:
Reproductive History and Breast Cancer Risk
Key PointsThe hormonal changes that occur during pregnancy may influence a woman’s chance of developing breast cancer later in life.
Some factors associated with pregnancy may reduce a woman’s chance of developing breast cancer later in life.
Some factors associated with pregnancy may increase a woman’s chance of developing breast cancer.
Induced abortion and miscarriage have not been shown to increase a woman’s chance of developing breast cancer.
Pregnancy may reduce a woman’s chance of developing some other cancers, including ovarian and endometrial cancers, later in life.
Awesome…so our legislators are now passing legislation that contains deliberately inaccurate medical information.
The bill also includes a “24 hour waiting period” (what are we, handguns for crying out loud?) before women are allowed to under go the abortion. Except, they don’t really clarify when that 24 hours starts. Is it 24 hours from when I first have sex? Or is it 24 hours after I find out that I am pregnant? Is it 24 hours after I make the appointment to have the abortion? Because I am pretty sure that most abortion providers aren’t walk in clinics…you usually need to call ahead, and like most medical procedures, there is some type of a consult before they actually perform the procedure. I mean hell, I had at least 24 hours between the consult and the appointment when I had my wisdom teeth out, so I would assume the same would be true for an abortion. But they don’t really say when the 24 hours starts. I would assume that the point of the 24 hour waiting period is to provide the woman with enough time to “reconsider her choice”. Like, something magical is going to happen in that 24 hours and suddenly she will change her mind. Except, that won’t happen. Making the decision to undergo the procedure is not something women take lightly. Also, I decided around the time I became capable of becoming pregnant that I never, ever wanted to have children. That means I decided in December of 1991 that if I were ever to become pregnant, I would terminate the pregnancy. As far as I’m concerned, my 24 hours are up.
That is this week’s bill. Last week, our illustrious “leaders” voted on a bill that would allow employers to refuse to cover contraception for women under the guise of religious objection. They of course were proposing this bill under the mantra of “religious freedom.” Never mind that in 2000, a bill mandating that all employers who offer insurance plans cover contraception was passed by a Republican controlled NH House with bipartisan support. Never mind that no one, not one religious organization complained or spoke out against the bill when it was initially passed or at any other point in time over the last 12 years. Apparently we must now repeal that bill. Religious freedoms, you know.
In discussion, someone brought up the whole concept of religious objection to health care, and demanded that if this bill were to pass, it should probably include additional language that would, say, allow Jehovah’s Witnesses or Christian Scientists to refuse to provide coverage for blood transfusions, since it violated their religious beliefs. The bill’s sponsor said that he would not consider that language because it went “too far”. (If I were a Jehova’s Witness or a Christian Scientist, I would be pissed).
All religions are equal, but some are more equal than others.
I have a lot more to say on this issue, but it would turn into one really, really long post, so instead I will put this up in installments. Stay tuned for the next one, which tentatively should be up by Monday evening.