Another case of misinformation

Just when we thought we only had to worry about our students being misinformed about sex education in schools, (see HB1055) it turns out our newspaper editors need a lesson in fact-checking as well. Yesterday the Springfield News-Leader reported the "morning after" pill was briefly included on an anti-meth bill in the Missouri Senate. Actually, RU-486, or the abortion pill, was tacked on by the Missouri House to a bill tracking controlled substances by pharmacists - it's final inclusion was a clerical error. Even more erroneous is the reporting on the story. Not only is RU-486 not sold or dispensed by pharmacists, the article wrongly identified RU-486 as "an emergency contraceptive ingested orally to prevent or delay ovulation."

LET'S GET THE FACTS STRAIGHT HERE! Emergency contraception, also known as EC, Plan B, or the "morning-after" pill, is a higher dose of birth control which if taken within 120 hours of unprotected sex can prevent pregnancy. EC will not affect a woman who is already pregnant or her pregnancy – EC is NOT an abortion. EC has been approved by the FDA for over-the-counter use for those over the age of 18. RU-486 on the other hand, or a medication abortion, can only be obtained from an abortion provider - not a pharmacist. Additionally, there is a 24-hour waiting period between education about RU-486 and the dispensing of the drug by an abortion provider.

Tell the News-Leader this is not a case of semantics; it’s a case of MISINFORMATION. Comment and write to the News-Leader asking them to correct their story here.

Crystal Brigman is the Grassroots Organizer for Planned Parenthood of Southwest Missouri

Lawsuit Filed

Monday, March 3, 2008: Jefferson City, MO - Today, the Planned Parenthood affiliates in Missouri (PPMO) and the Missouri Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (MORCRC) applauded a legal challenge, filed by Mary Hickey of St. Louis, to the second initiative petition submitted by Illinois-based David Reardon in so many months. This version was certified on February 21st.

“We will fight this initiative because it is dangerous and extreme,” said Peter Brownlie, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri. “I don’t believe the people of Missouri want politicians and bureaucrats deciding what treatments grown adults can receive or what treatments doctors can recommend.”

“The measure is so poorly written with vague and undefined terms so that no one is completely sure what it does, how far it goes or how it could be enforced,” stated Paula Gianino, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region. “What is clear is this measure would force doctors to provide questionable and in some cases false information to their patients instead of the open honest discussion that is best for patients.

“This measure will hurt women and deny them access to the professional health care they deserve because of David Reardon’s politically motivated goals,” stated the Reverend Rebecca Turner, Executive Director of Missouri Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

“This measure may seem to target women – but it sets a precedent that politicians and bureaucrats can dictate what treatments any patient can qualify for and what treatments doctors can prescribe,” said Tonia Stubblefield, CEO of Tri-Rivers Planned Parenthood.

The vast majority of Missourians[1] believe that decisions about medical care, including abortion, should be made by a woman in consultation with her doctor. Planned Parenthood and MORCRC stand behind this belief and will stand up for Missourians on this issue. “Missouri already has some of the nation’s strongest laws requiring informed consent and a waiting period for abortion – so it’s clear that the measure is not really about that, it is about extreme politics,” said Kellie Rohrbaugh, Director of Public Affairs for Planned Parenthood of Southwest Missouri.

Planned Parenthood and the Missouri Religious Coalition oppose both of Mr. Reardon’s initiatives and will do everything possible to protect access to safe and legal health care, including the right to abortion care in Missouri.
For the summary language and full text of the initiative go to:
http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2008petitions/08init_pet.asp#2008027

NOTE: Tuesday, March 4 is Protect Women’s Health Lobby Day. Teams of activist will be at the Capitol urging their elected officials to support the Prevention First Act and vote NO on HB1831 and SB1058 should they come to a vote.
[1] 63% of Missourians strongly believe the government should not interfere with private healthcare decisions made between a patient and her doctor: Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Sept 07—more information: www.ppmissouri.org

1984?

"The "Party" has taken over all aspects of life... Winston is painfully aware of the telescreen, which is both a receiver and transmitter at the same time. It incessantly relays messages from the Party and simultaneously allows the dreaded "thought police" to tune into the activities of any individual at any given time." www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984

The most recent claims to reproductive fame by Rep. Therese Sander was handling the abominable sex mis-education/abortion restriction bill last year. She was also the sole sponsor of a bill that would have ascribed a 'conscience' to corporations, employers, and insurance companies allowing them to deny health services to patients based upon personal beliefs and ideological values. Among the many terrible bills with Rep. Sander's name are:

• a bill that would protect denying pharmacists;
• a bill that would require parental consent for birth control for teens; and
• a bill establishing an 'alternatives to abortion' program that categorically cannot provide family planning services (the best 'alternative to abortion').

But her piece de resistance - filed this year - is a bill that would require doctors who perform abortions to ask women why they are seeking an abortion, then report that information to the state government!

It is filed as HB1984; could that be intentional, or is it some kind of Orwellian slip?

1984...hmmm, makes a girl think back to high school and learning the definition of dystopia.

Can you spell 'Big Brother'?

Alison Gee is the Vice President of Public Policy at Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region

Abortion Ban Task Force meeting update

Greetings from the Missouri State Capitol! Less than one week into the 2008 Missouri Legislative Session and, as the lobbyist for Planned Parenthood affiliates in Missouri, I can tell you things are heating up. Let’s take today (1/15) for example, from 12-2, I suffered through a meeting of Governor Blunt's sham of a Task Force on the Impact of Abortion on Women where anti-choice ideologues spouted the most puzzling and outrageous things regarding abortion. None of Blunt's Task Force members have a day’s experience providing safe, medically reputable contraceptive, sex education or abortion care - nor have they asked anyone who has that experience to testify before them!

The award for the most hypocritical statement of the day goes to a Task Force member who is a lobbyist promoting abstinence-only sex education which withholds life-saving information from teens. He surprised me with this statement:

"Since when do we, as a culture, value a lack of information."

Good thing he wasn't looking at a mirror when saying that one.

They spent a lot of time reviewing medically inaccurate doozies presented in previous meetings and brainstorming ideas that show they have no idea about current counseling or reporting practices and requirements.

To give you a virtual front-row seat in the Missouri Legislature, I’ll be posting periodically throughout the session. To get a real front-row seat, come join me in Jefferson City and I’ll show you around. Just contact your local Planned Parenthood Organizer.

'Til Later, Michelle Trupiano, MSW,
Planned Parenthood affiliates in Missouri Lobbyist

Abortion panel an embarrassing waste

An open letter to Gov. Matt Blunt: I am writing to express outrage at your violation of the public trust through convening a committee of ideologues who will support your belief that abortion is harmful to women and children, beliefs that are not supported by credible scientific research. I am not alone in this outrage. The American public is tired of public officials putting ideology before science and appointing unqualified people to make scientific decisions. As governor, you have an obligation to all of the people of Missouri, not just your fundamentalist base.

Calling the committee you have convened "scientific" adds insult to injury. The committee consists of members who are not only biased but also unqualified to assess research methodologies. Some research does claim abortion is harmful to women. For example, your committee is likely familiar with the Elliot Institute and its director, "Doctor" Michael Reardon, who claims abortion causes serious health problems despite research to the contrary by the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association. It’s important to consider that Reardon received his "doctorate" through an online diploma mill called Pacific Western University, which was investigated by the Government Accounting Office as one of four "diploma mills and unaccredited schools" that the federal government should not fund. Reardon did not labor through six to eight years of post-graduate education to gain expertise in research methodologies - nor did he pay the expenses. This is not just a question of scholars making differing arguments about the impact of abortion, but one of the quality and credibility of scholars and the research they produce.

The most extensive research done to date on abortion was the Koop report funded by the Reagan administration with the hope of proving the harmful effects of abortion. State officials told the news media the outcome of the research was inconclusive. This was not true. In 1989, the Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations held an investigative hearing to review the findings of the report. The review indicated the report had concluded that "abortion is medically safer than pregnancy and childbirth, both in terms of mortality and morbidity," and that "delays in obtaining an abortion, for whatever reason, jeopardize the physical and mental health of the mother." Koop, who opposed a woman’s right to abortion, also commented on his disappointment with the "poor quality" of research produced by the anti-women’s rights groups.

Koop was a person of integrity who refused to prostitute his professional standards for ideological correctness. Can the same be said of the committee you have convened? To guard against "poor quality" research, it is imperative to convene a committee of members with expertise in different research methodologies and who have differing views on abortion to critically analyze all research claims.

In his testimony, Surgeon General Koop also said "psychological problems from abortion are rare and not significant from a public health viewpoint." When you study the research on "post-abortion syndrome," be sure to include the research of the incoming president of the American Psychiatric Association, Nada Stotland, who concludes it is not a serious health-care problem. Carole Joffe, a sociologist who studies reproductive health care and the abortion issue at the University of California at Davis, has similarly said, "The repeated attempts by opponents of abortion to allege negative mental health effects of abortion - so-called ‘post abortion syndrome’ as well as negative physical effects, such as a link between abortion and breast cancer - have been discredited as ‘junk science.’ The alleged link between abortion and breast cancer was repudiated by a consensus conference called by the National Cancer Institute. If opponents have moral objections to abortion, they should state those. They should not rely on false statements to make their case. "Readers can go to the American Cancer Society’s Web site to find its conclusion that "Research studies, however, have not found a cause-and-effect relationship between abortion and breast cancer." The ACS also discusses the "bias" in earlier studies that led to this conclusion.

It is obvious this committee has been convened to support the denominational doctrine of its members, who not only oppose abortion but sex education and birth control. The international research of the World Health Organization concludes, however, that providing accessible birth control reduces the number of abortions. The reduction in abortion rates with access to birth control is evident in Eastern Europe, especially Russia, where very high abortion rates have been decreasing over the last decade as birth control options have become available. Making abortion inaccessible will not stop it. It didn’t in the United States before its decriminalization. Right now in Brazil, a mostly Catholic nation where abortion is illegal, there are 800,000 illegal abortions annually. About 4,000 women die as a result of those illegal abortions, making it the fourth leading cause of maternal death in Brazil.

Convening this committee is disingenuous and an embarrassment to the state of Missouri. How about using taxpayer money to convene a committee about post-traumatic stress syndrome among Iraq veterans or battered women and children? How about finding out how those women and children whom you have cut off of Medicaid are doing? We need role models in political office who demonstrate respect for science, religious pluralism and the public good. How dare you sacrifice the health of Missouri’s women and children on the altar of political expediency, ignorance and religious intolerance?

Victoria Johnson is a faculty member in the Sociology Department at the University of Missouri and a member of Faculty, Staff and Students Concerned about Democracy and Public Knowledge.