By Scott Tibbs, June 20, 2005
----Original Message Follows----
From: Scott Tibbs <email@example.com>
To: S44@IN.gov, S40@IN.gov, R60@IN.gov, R61@IN.gov
Subject: A bill the Indiana Legislature should consider
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 04:01:42 -0700 (PDT)
Senator Simpson, Senator Steele, Representative Welch and Representative Pierce,
As you may know, the state House of Representatives in Wisconsin has passed a bill that would prohibit the health center at the University of Wisconsin from "advertising, prescribing or dispensing", the Morning After Pill, also known as "emergency contraception". The text of the bill is included at the end of this e-mail.
I would point out that Planned Parenthood's own Web site states that "(Emergency Contraception) prevents pregnancy by stopping ovulation, fertilization, or implantation." (Emphasis is mine.) PlannedParenthood.org also states that the birth control pill "can also prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus."
Many pro-life Hoosiers object to the Morning After Pill (MAP) because one of the ways it "prevents pregnancy" is by preventing implantation of a human embryo, causing the embryo's death. As someone who believes life begins at fertilization, I consider killing the embryo by preventing implantation to be a very early form of abortion.
At the national level, there is a strong debate raging over embryonic stem cell research. President George W. Bush prohibited the use of federal funds for such research, citing ethical concerns regarding the destruction of human embryos. Several families with "snowflake children" (children who were frozen embryos at one time) went to Washington to argue against using embryos for stem cell research. Are the human embryos killed by the MAP different from the embryos killed by stem cell research?
The answer to that question is "no". Once a human embryo is formed, all of the necessary building blocks of life are present. He or she will, given time, nutrition and shelter, grow and develop through the stages of human life.
I do not think it is unreasonable for the State Legislature to act to prevent, for example, the Indiana University Health Center from distributing the "Morning After Pill". After all, Hoosier taxpayers are supporting Indiana University through the money we pay the state. Furthermore, some Indiana University students have objected to the mandatory fee for the IU health center because it provides drugs that can act as an abortafacient.
Introducing and passing similar legislation would be a good idea, both because it will save lives and because it is fiscally responsible. Thank you for your time.
2005 - 2006 Legislature LRB-2514/6
ASSEMBLY BILL 343
For further information see the state fiscal estimate, which will be printed as an appendix to this bill.
The people of the state of Wisconsin, represented in senate and assembly, do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. 36.11 (49) of the statutes is created to read: 36.11 (49) ADVERTISING, PRESCRIBING, AND DISPENSING OF CERTAIN HORMONAL MEDICATION PROHIBITED.
(a) (intro.) In this subsection:
1. “Dispense” has the meaning given in s. 450.01 (7).
2. “Prescription order” has the meaning given in s. 450.01 (21).
(b) No person whom the board employs or with whom the board contracts to provide health care services to students registered in the system may advertise the availability of, transmit a prescription order for, or dispense a hormonal medication or combination of medications that is administered only after sexual intercourse for the postcoital control of fertility to a registered student or to any other person entitled to receive university health care services.
(c) In addition to the prohibition under par. (b), no person may advertise, prescribe, or dispense a hormonal medication or combination of medications that is administered only after sexual intercourse for the postcoital control of fertility on system property, except for property leased under s. 233.04 (7).