This is what democracy looks like.

Participants in Women's Health Care Day listen to the opening remarks.
Yesterday was Women's Health Care Day at the capitol (of Oregon), sponsored by Planned Parenthood Advocates of Oregon. People came from all over the state to lobby their respective state legislators on a few particular issues facing the current Oregon legislature. I went (I'm way on the other side of the room in that picture) and it was a great experience, overall. I highly recommend seeking out similar events in your state. As our Secretary of State, the very fierce & very awesome Kate Brown, said yesterday when speaking with us--it is vital for legislators to hear directly from their pro-choice constituents.

There are two bills and one resolution of note here in Oregon to be aware of. First is the resolution, SR 1/HJM 19 ("Birth Control Matters"), which was already signed by the Senate, though the House version of the bill has not yet been scheduled. Essentially this says that "ALL methods of FDA approved contraception be included in the definition of women's preventative care and available without co-pays" within the new health care law (the Affordable Care Act)--and it says it as a message to the Dept. of Health and Human Services from the State of Oregon. Nearly every single senator signed the resolution.

When we saw our Senator (Bruce Starr)--ok, his staff member since he double booked meetings (*cough*convenient*cough*)--we made a point to thank him for his signage. Now, since the House has yet to even schedule this, we could discuss it with my Rep (who is Katie Eyre Brewer). Rep Brewer requested to know just what all consisted of "FDA approved contraception" before she'd consider signing her name to it. Now, she didn't say this and it is only my calculated and cynical guess but I'm willing to put it out there that I think she won't sign if it includes PlanB or ella or similar. Just call it an educated hunch based on how our entire meeting went.

So, anyway, the next bill that is, in my opinion, rather important is SB 769/HB 3425 ("Addressing Patient Safety Concerns at Crisis Pregnancy Centers"). It is, essentially, a consumer protection bill. It states that places who are "crisis pregnancy centers" must be upfront about the services they do or do not offer. They must post these in writing. They must be upfront about the people who are working there--if they are actual medical personnel or not. It also makes these centers comply with HIPAA in regards to medical information that they collect. Since these places are unlicensed and thus far, unregulated, they have not had to comply with any standards. Some centers have fundraised and purchased diagnostic medical imaging technology and preformed ultrasounds on clients--yet the people are not, in fact, trained to do so nor to properly read such reports. They are currently in a legal "grey area". This bill (the House & Senate bills are identical) make them more in terms of being regulated--at least make them be honest about what they do. It seems fairly clear cut and, frankly, extremely non-controversial. It doesn't seek to put anyone out of business.

Sen. Starr's staffer, David, listened and asked a few questions about it and, overall, seemed neutral-positive about it. I have my doubts about Starr himself but David didn't seem to find anything objectionable to it. Rep. Brewer is a whole different story. She said that she might, might just consider supporting it if it included Planned Parenthood. Her reasoning was that Planned Parenthood says it offers comprehensive well-woman care but doesn't do mammograms (failing to agree that PP doing breast exams and would refer for a mammogram being 'enough'). So with that giant red herring thrown out, she went on about how she's never heard of any crisis center selling patient information, so it can't be a problem. So she does NOT think that it's any sort of issue that they collect medical histories and are not compelled to have to respect privacy laws. Her reasoning was (paraphrase): if you don't want people to have the information, you don't give it out. I asked her point blank that she didn't think centers should have to be upfront if they have actual trained medical personnel, particularly those who provide ultrasound services, and she said no. A rather hostile no, at that. Rep. Brewer, in my observation, has a very thin veneer of "nice" under which is a singularly unpleasant person, even without the atrocious politics.

Which brings us to this last bill--of which, Rep. Brewer is a co-sponsor. In fact, 25 of the 30 republicans in the House are co-sponsors. It is only in the House (so far) and generally not expected to go anywhere. It's important, though, in terms of how the current crop of legislators think/feel and what they'd like to do. This is HB 3512 and it bans abortions after 20 weeks--and has a narrow & misleading "medical emergency" clause for the life of the mother. One reason this bill is a ginormous waste of time is that it violates rulings by the US Supreme Court who prohibited a state from enacting laws to ban abortions before 24 weeks gestation. When we mentioned this to Rep. Brewer, she seemed a bit surprised but ultimately shrugged it off and said that they (the legislature) pass a lot of laws that might be contested. It's up to the challengers to bring the challenge in court. We also discussed that 20 weeks was the time frame of some diagnostic testing, some of which may have to be redone or scheduled for 21 or 22 weeks and then one has to wait for results and etc. She was unmoved by this, merely arguing that "science has advanced". Which makes no sense, given general human fetal development HASN'T and you'd still have to wait certain time frames. However, no logic was working here. When I discussed a concerning aspect of the bill being this one--and ones like it--take away from patient autonomy and the patient/doctor relationship and insert the government, she didn't have much to argue with that but she said "we'd just have to agree to disagree". Ugh. However, I think my favorite bit was when she, sitting behind her desk (which sat higher than the little couch visitors sit upon), said: "I appreciate that you have your voice and your platforms and I have my voice and my platform." Because, you see, when she said "my platform", she ran her hands across her desk--this while closing discussion about the bill she co-sponsored. I don't know that she even realized she was doing it but was still very ridiculous and it emphasized the power divide/balance/what-have-you.

So if you live here, in Oregon, please contact your own legislators! They need to hear from their pro-choice constituents!

If you don't live here, check out lobby events in your state! It's very educational and worth the time.