OPINION & EDITORIAL
A careless clause
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Badger Herald Editorial Board:
- A security fee-for-all (December 11, 2007)
- Farewell, Chancellor (December 10, 2007)
- $$FC (December 6, 2007)
- In a bind (December 5, 2007)
- Entitlement Town (December 4, 2007)
Related Stories:
- A good Plan (May 3, 2007)
- Victims deserve true compassion (May 8, 2007)
- Sex, drugs, free market (October 11, 2006)
- Thoughts on birth control (January 15, 2006)
- Sexual assault law looks good, even without beer-goggles (October 25, 2001)
by Badger Herald Editorial Board
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
In the aftermath of a rape or sexual assault, time is at a premium for women seeking to deter a possible pregnancy. For this reason, and because of the associated emotional trauma, we believe it is appropriate for the state to require hospitals to provide information about emergency contraception, and offer it to rape victims. This philosophy was the anchor of the Compassionate Care for Rape Victims Bill before an Assembly amendment stripped it of any meaning. We urge the state Legislature to pass the bill in its original form.
The Senate passed the bill by a 27-6 margin in May, seeking to ensure Wisconsin residents a consistent standard of emergency care. Last month, however, the Assembly’s Judiciary and Ethics Committee added a “conscience clause” to the legislation that would allow health care providers to refuse to inform a victim about Plan B or dispense the morning-after pill on ideological grounds. Emergency contraceptives, including “Plan B,” are intended to prevent pregnancy if taken within 72 hours of sexual intercourse and, according to its makers, will not abort an established pregnancy.
In essence, the amendment renders the bill a useless affirmation of the status quo.
A woman suffering the trauma of rape should not have to search among area hospitals for one that carries the morning-after pill. Indeed, our rejection of the proposed amendment is a matter of conscience: No woman should be forced to jump through political and ideological hoops to avoid conceiving a rapist’s baby. Compassion and good conscience require a measure of empathy that is lacking in the Judiciary and Ethics Committee chaired by Rep. Mark Gundrum, R-New Berlin, who considers the bill a First Amendment violation.
His concern is outweighed by the fact that states retain the right to regulate hospitals and basic public services. Religious objections are never an acceptable excuse for a doctor’s failure to provide a basic level of care in emergency situations.
Putting the onus on victims of horrific crimes to conduct research and determine whether a hospital gave them an incomplete set of options is unconscionable. Appropriate venues to mount a cultural or ideological protest are certainly available; a rape victim’s hospital room is not one of them.
Anonymous (October 23, 2007 @ 11:34am):
Well-stated. I'm glad you are addressing this critical issue.
Members of the Judiciary Committee who crafted the opt-out amendment fail to see that it is an unconscionable affront to the dignity of rape victims to deny them the opportunity to prevent a potential pregnancy if they so choose. But as a rape survivor, I do not have the privilege of overlooking this bill's significance.
When a receptionist at the ER in Venice, Italy immediately asked me if I wanted to take emergency contraception, I was startled because a potential pregnancy was the last of my concerns. Three years later, I now recognize how important that question was to my recovery, since the assault itself was one insult among a constellation of related injuries I endured. With the exception of that receptionist, I was judged, doubted and humiliated by the medical and legal professionals who should have helped me. It took over a week, plus the coordinated efforts of my parents in Whitefish Bay, the US Embassy and my professor to find a doctor who would treat me with the empathy and respect that I needed to survive. Because I know how hard it is to recover from a traumatic emergency room visit, I refuse to watch as Wisconsin continues to fail where Italy got it right.
CCRV does not mandate that all women who are raped take EC, instead it ensures that they can make informed decisions for themselves about their medical care. I am profoundly grateful for the choice I was afforded in my treatment. Coping with the assault itself and repeatedly facing barriers in my attempts to report the crime were deeply painful. For months I barely ate, I struggled to sleep and I labored just to breathe. The psychosomatic consequences that nearly killed me would likely have been unable to sustain a healthy fetus and facing an unwanted pregnancy from the man who raped me would have added an unfathomable burden to my life. But unlike opponents of this bill, I am not insisting that my personal choices and ethics extend to everyone.
I have worked very hard to reassemble the sense of self that was shattered the night I was attacked. I can only imagine how much harder my struggle to regain a sense of autonomy would be had that crucial choice about emergency contraception--the only one left for me that evening--been made for me. Members of the Assembly who support the amendment to CCRV exacerbate rape victims' suffering by contributing to the seemingly insurmountable loss of control we experience. We must reform Wisconsin's emergency room policy so all rape victims have what I had: A question to engage us in our healing, a chance to speak for ourselves, and a choice in our treatment. For us, it is a matter of survival.
Amanda Harrington
Compassionate Care for Rape Victims Coalition
http://www.wiawh.org/resourcecenter/informationclearninghouse/ccrvcoalition.aspx
Anonymous (October 23, 2007 @ 1:41pm):
One of the important things regarding survivors of sexual assault is that they are given the chance to make choices for themselves again. Working in student affairs and responding to sexual assaults has made that fact abundantly clear. Doctors need to be worried about the person in front of them in that moment, give them all their options, and let them make their decisions for themselves.
Anonymous (October 23, 2007 @ 1:43pm):
These businesses who provide us with so much care at some of the lowest profit margins in the private sector really owe us don't they? I mean rape is so terrible we should bind their hands financially, administratively, and morally. Regardless of what you think about hospitals they owe you nothing. Rape is terrible so to fix it can you actually assert a right to legislate the morals of a private business?
Quite frankly, you sound like spoiled brats. I would hope that a woman who was willing to destroy a genetically distinct being would be willing to make the effort of calling around. This would seem far more efficient than randomly going from hospital to hospital and then getting pissed that no one shares your ideology.
How can you persecute a business for operating by some moral standard? You may not agree with the standard, but American legislator was certainly not designed to assist selfish bigots like you in forcing business to cater to your wishes.
For the record I am completely supportive of hospitals rights to carry the pill and perform abortions.You want to take away their right to moral decisions. Seems to me its a lot like rape. You would bind their hands and force them into an act they believe to be immoral or somehow destructive. I am sure it really sucks to be raped. Please don't take it out on those people who already care for us at our lowest points.
Anonymous (October 23, 2007 @ 3:23pm):
1:43-- I love it, corporations should have more rights than human beings. That's the first (and hopefully last) time I've heard corporate personhood used as an excuse to deny rape victims emergency contraceptives. Shame on you.
Anonymous (October 23, 2007 @ 4:01pm):
It seems like a pretty obvious double edged sword here. Someone's choices may be getting stomped on either way. When does one's morality overrule another person's choices? I know society is filled with these types of situations, but that doesn't make it right. You're free to disagree, but IMO, the doctor's first duty is to his patient. At risk of being clumped in with previous responders, I will own that yes, I am spoiled. Really, it's an aspect of the service industry. Maybe, just maybe people want to have all their options presented to them. I would be oh so pissed off if my doctor did not give me the best option for survival because he or she disagreed had moral objections.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
