Yesterday I, along with MLN’s Maura and MattW, attended a marathon hearing of the CT General Assembly Human Services Committee. For 9 and 1/2 hours advocates, experts, and citizens testified on various bills before the committee. Most of the testimony centered around Senate Bill No. 1343: An Act Concerning Compassionate Care for Victims of Sexual Assault.
I’ve been a long time supporter of this bill for reasons that are just as personal and they are political, but yesterday’s testimony only strengthened my resolve to see it passed. The Courant today reports on Rep. Deborah Heinrich’s account of being assaulted, and how moving that testimony was. Rep. Heinrich was one of several women willing to share their personal stories before the committee. Another standout was reigning Miss. Connecticut, Heidi Voight who has made the rights of victims of sexual assault, her platform. Some women waited hours just to be heard. It’s interesting to note that only two survivors spoke in opposition of the bill. No matter what side of the debate you fall on I’m in awe of anyone who had the courage to go on record about their own assault.
The committee also heard from a long parade of experts, and advocates. An early standout was Theresa Younger from the CGA’s Permanent Commission on the Status of Women, who spoke about the importance access to health care for victims. As one of the first non-politicians to speak Ms Younger had to field questions from the most skeptical committee members, many of whom did not yet understand how emergency contraception even worked.
Dr. Frank Davidoff, who had served on an FDA panel that moved Plan B through the approval process, gave the committee a much needed biology lesson. It surprised me, espcially since the committee took up a similar bill only last year, how little many of them understood about EC. The bill’s opponents have done a better job at distorting the facts about EC, than it’s supporter have done with educating people. Dr. Davidoff was able to explain that Plan B was a contraceptive, that it prevented ovulation not implantation, and that there was no scientific evidence that Plan B could cause a “chemical abortion”, a term the bill’s opponents repeated often in their testimony. He also pointed out that Plan B contained Progesterone which a pregnant woman’s body already produces. You can read Dr. Davidoff’s written testimony here.
Lawyer Brian Feldman spoke on behalf of Connecticut’s four Catholic hospitals. Their position is that this bill isn’t about EC, but religious liberty. It’s interesting to note that he flatly refused any attempts at compromise suggested by legislators and others giving testimony. He was questioned as to why this was an issue in Connecticut’s Catholic hospitals but not those in NY, NJ, and MA. Obviously I don’t agree with Feldman’s position, but he was probably one of the opposition’s strongest advocates.
Most of the opposition didn’t fare as well. My favorite was Senator De Luca. He doesn’t serve on the committee, hadn’t read the bill, hadn’t listened in on any of the hearing, and was completely ignorant of what Plan B even was. Yet for some reason he felt compelled to speak. For 28 minutes we were treated to De Luca’s testimony. And I know I’m not the only who, at 10:30 PM when the hearing finally ended, appreciated that Senator DeLuca had taken up so much of everyone’s valuable time.
DeLuca’s performance was staggering, but so were the questions and commentary of many committee members. Rep. Bruce Morris kept calling on politicians and rape advocates to talk about theology. Rep. John Thompson constantly mispronounced the word ovulation as OVALation, and asked Dr. Davidoff if the sperm inside an assaulted woman could be considered a “continuation of the rape.” Rep. Adinolfi suggested that not all rapes were crimes, complained about his own poor treatment at the ER (and seemed to be implying that rape victims were asking for special treatment), and after staying silent while a number of experts testified chose to aggressively question a a grad student about why she and others were attacking Catholic hospitals.
Thankfully Morris, Adinolfi, and Thompson weren’t the only ones asking questions. Committee Co-Chair Senator Jonathan Harris was especially knowledgeable about the bill and able to ask informed questions of those both supporting and opposing it. Rep. Jason Bartlett also had a solid understanding of the facts, and his questioning helped elaborate on technical and moral ramifications of the bill. Rep. Linda Scholfield took people to task when their facts were wrong, including De Luca. Committee Vice Chair Rep. Abercrombie showed particular compassion for those on both sides of the issue.
As I mentioned, 1343 wasn’t the only bill that the Human Services Committee was hearing testimony for. Many people came to speak on behalf of bills about Autism, home day care, group homes, services for the disabled, high protein food for food banks etc. I felt bad that so much of this testimony was scattered throughout the hearing, and because of that it was difficult to follow. What I did notice is how many of those testifying about needed human services were women, most of whom had to wait several hours to be heard. Even though I didn’t know the specifics of every bill I was moved by the dedication to get services to those in need.
I wish that I could remember every detail of everyone who spoke. I have sixteen pages of notes. Last night that seemed overwhelming, but today it doesn’t seem to do the hearing justice. I have so much admiration for those who testified and the committee members, especially those who stayed for the entire proceeding. Hopefully the bill’s skeptics were convinced of it’s merits. Some members seemed to be softening towards the end, but perhaps that’s just wishful thinking on my part.
The committee could take action on Senate Bill No. 1343 by the end of the week. The CGA website has a list of all it’s members, along with appropriate contact information. I encourage anyone who feels strongly about this bill to take a moment today to contact them.
101 responses so far ↓
In today’s CT Post LTE’s there was a response to this groupis earlier LTE in favor of the legislation. The response stated that thiose who support the bill favor “death, destruction and despair” or something like that. I agree cgg, the proponents of the bill have done a poor job in advocating fo it because they haven’t spent enough time on the science of EC. BTw, DeLuca is no scientist,; I think he used to sell greeting cards.
http://www.cwfefc.org/sexual_assault.html
CGG, Thanks for sticking it out at the long hearing, and for the thorough report. Adinolfi and DeLuca are unbelievable–if not for your reporting perhaps we’d never know quite how much so.
The fact that Deluca is a State Senator is really quite humorous but also a bit scary. He actually said ” Jesus defined marriage when he was alive” in response to a question the last time the wackjobs held a presser up at the capitol.
Deluca as the face of the Republican party all but guarantees a vetoproof majority in the Ct. legislature for years to come.
This is a fantastic writeup, Melissa. We had SO much content after 9 1/2 hours of hearing time, I’m a bit overwhelmed — I think I’ll break it up into a few shorter posts. I’m really impressed at your ability to condense it down to the most salient notes.
I had already heard a lot about Senator DeLuca before yesterday but even with all that preparation I was genuinely stunned at his callous audacity to dare to show up at a meeting, not having read the bill, not having read any written testimony, not having listened to any oral testimony, not having prepared any written testimony himself, and then just spouting on for 28 minutes in the most ignorant way possible.
The fact that he had to plead for the Chair to tell the crowd not to laugh at him says everything. We weren’t laughing at him, though. (At least, no one that I saw was laughing.) We were audibly gasping at his ignorance and lack of respect for the seriousness and emotional gravity of the topic.
I really wish CT-N had been there to capture it on film.
I’d forgotten about the gasping.
Let’s be clear. This is what DeLuca, Adinolfi, the FIC creeps, and the heads of CT’s Catholic hospitals all think:
They believe that if your wife or daughter is RAPED, and becomes pregant by some CRIMINAL, she should be forced to carry that pregnancy to term, and have the RAPIST’s abominable baby!
I assume the assholes wouldn’t want to give visitation rights to the rapist,… but someone should ask them where they stand on the subsequent child support?
The funny thing is those guys think themselves to be good Christians! I’m sorry, but a good Christian has the capacity and willingness to put himself in someone else’s shoes. In this case it requires one to realize how awful it would be to become pregnant as the result of a brutal rape… Instead they want to put their ideology over commonsense and human compassion. Shame on them.
Thanks for your great write-up. As someone who works with the advocates, who was not able to attend the hearing because I was busy at all the other meetings in the LOB yesterday, I really appreciate this. I was at the press conference when Representative Heinrich first spoke about her experience. It was the first time I ever got chills from someone speaking.
Wow.
Amazing write-up!
TrueBlue, those comments are totally uncalled for and out of line. Instead of having a respectful debate on the issue, people like you need fan the flames of anit-catholicism by calling people who hold strong religious beliefs a**holes. That’s wrong and should not be tolerated by anyone!
There is NO STRONG RELIGIOUS views involved in this debate at all.Plan B drugs do not abort anything.
Ignorance and a flat out disrespect for woman is what drives idiots like DeLuca. I don’t know if he has any daughters or grand daughters but if he does they should sit the old fool down and explain they are his equals in todays world.
Wow, great write up! Well done.
I’d love to see a written transcript of DeLuca’s remarks. Does the legislature have any official record of these events?
CT Bob,
Perhaps we could request a copy from our respective state reps? Assuming that’s possible, I’d probably fare better than you…
Mr. Reality–
None of the aforementioned assholes hold those strong religious beliefs. Honestly, I’d like one of those guys to come forward and state for the record, that if my wife, his wife, or anyone else’s wife was brutally raped, –and impregnated as a result, — that the woman should then have to worsen the tragedy by having the rapist’s baby!
No one believes that.
What they are doing is pushing an ideology at the expense of human suffering. I think Keith has it right, and that it is quite telling that none of those opposing this law are women…
There were women who opposed the bill, including two survivors of assault, and a few others who gave testimony as Catholics. Most of those speaking in opposition were men though.
As for rhetoric, several people opposing the bill wore stickers that read: “Plan B” Medical Rape. Trueblue’s own words pale in comparison. I’d also like to point out that having strong religious beliefs doesn’t mean you oppose this bill. Certainly there is strong opposition from some religious groups, but they don’t speak for all people of faith.
There will be a transcript of the hearing available if you go to the committee’s website on CGA. It usually takes about 2 weeks to go up though.
Disagreement aside, quality write-up CGG.
TBCT, calling the rapist’s baby “abominable” is nothing short of repugnant. For you to define this creature by the actions of someone else, actions that creature played NO ROLE WHATSOEVER in really speaks volumes about you. Call the rapist abominable, not the resulting organism that had no say over the matter.
You are way off target on your interpretation of Christian doctrine. Christianity preaches a lifestyle of rolling with the punches, of turning the other cheek, of not fretting about what to wear or what to eat because if God so provides for the lillies of the field or the birds of the air, how much more will He provide for His children? You’re right that Christianity urges us to display sympathy/empathy, understanding, and compassion for those who’ve had it rough — and I will be the first person to want to help and comfort those who’ve dealt with such a disgusting and heinous act as rape — destroying the potential life, however, does not reverse the act.
Honestly, it’s one thing if you’re not terribly religious/spiritual/prone to believing in some undefinable force in the universe, but please don’t invoke any notion of a God or higher moral authority if all you’re going to do is butcher the messge and slant it to meet your own needs. As a Catholic who has more than a few issues with the heirarchy and worldliness of the institution housed over in the Vatican, I take great offense to your ignorant comments.
More information needs to be presented on this issue, more education, more deliberation before an informed decision is made. But let’s keep it to facts and not bash people with religiously-based moral convictions. It is possible to hold such beliefs and remain open-minded about issues that clash with said beliefs.
Thanks Manchpro, I’ll be sure to look for it.
It is understandable that a 10 hour or so hearing would take a couple weeks to transcribe.
More information needs to be presented on this issue, more education, more deliberation before an informed decision is made.
9 and 1/2 hours wasn’t enough? There isn’t a shortage of information available. Believe me, there’s plenty. But you can’t force people to read through it, and you can’t stop others from deliberately spreading misinformation.
I think we are missing the point here ladies and gentlemen. No one is trying to stop rape victims from getting compassionate care. What people like Sen. Deluca are trying to stop is mandating a Catholic Hospitals to break one of its laws. According to the Catholic church a fetus is alive at the moment of conception, therefore using this drug would be the same as conducting an abortion. If it were the case that the victims quality of care was at a lower standard at these hospitals then there would be a problem, but it is not. The victims are cared for in the same way at every hospital. Mandating a hospital to dispense this drug would be telling it to go against the teachings of the Catholic Church that have been around for thousands of years. I just dont believe that this is the right thing to do.
More information, education, and deliberation amongst the public is what I meant.
If this issue is as important as everyone is making it out to be — and yes, it is to me as well — then we shouldn’t be content with such “you can lead a horse to water, but …” excuses. You’re right, you can’t stop deliberate distortion of facts…but if your information is as compelling as you say it is, it should be more than adequately capable of counteracting that “misinformation” you’re talking about.
It’s all about taking down the Catholics. The highest priority of liberals is demolishing social order. Abortion is the altar of liberal ideology, gay marriage the high priest.
no problem Bullhook, then the RC “faith based” Hospitals just have to stop to stop accepting government money to provide non faith based services>
Toucan, say that government funding dries up for Catholic hospitals…would that be enough to stop people from calling them insensitive for turning victims away or directing them to another hospital? I think not. The issue isn’t the funding.
Does the Catholic faith really believe a woman, if raped and impregnated, should have to have the criminal’s baby? And what about incest?
Call me ignorant, but I thought rape and incest exceptions were kind of something everyone believes in. This is the 21st century, after all?
Anyway, I’d be interested to know who here, (in practice and not theory), thinks it is wrong for a woman to have an abortion when rape or incest is involved?
Bullhook said:
Catholic Hospitals receive state funding, and they operate under the laws of the state of Connecticut and the United States of America. Render unto Caeser…?
You could preface a whole line of arguments with “According to the Catholic church” but that alone doesn’t make it so, and neither do the beliefs of the Catholic church make a contraceptive into an abortofacient.
It’s like a 2nd grader saying “According to mom and dad, the tooth fairy left me a dollar for my baby tooth.” The kid believes it, but that doesn’t mean it’s true. It’s not true that using Plan B is the same as conducting an abortion.
I repeat: It’s not true that using Plan B is the same as conducting an abortion.
One more time: It’s not true that using Plan B is the same as conducting an abortion.
Quite a bit of not-so-subtle Catholic bashing in this thread; and when that isn’t enough let’s jump all over everyone that has the audacity to be Pro-Life.
Even as a Pro-Choice Protestant it’s too much.
Many of you have no regard whatsoever for the closely held religious beliefs of others yet you expect them and everyone else to treat YOU with respect.
It’s a two way street.
ACR–
You bet I’m jumping all over those who think one of my family members shouldn’t be allowed an abortion if she is raped and impregnated my a criminal. Like any woman, my sister should have the right to choose what to do under those circumstances.
What we’re witnessing here in CT is neanderthalic thinking in the service of ideologic purity.
And how can you describe it as anti-Catholicism when the majority of Catholics agree that abortion should be allowed in the case of rape or incest??
Nobody is RC bashing here. As cgg pointed out the RC hospitals in neighboring states administer OTC Plan B. Let’s not forget about the science too::
http://www.go2planb.com/ForConsumers/Index.aspx
Being raped is not a choice a women makes;; it is an act of anger, hate and many other things by the rapist but hardly an act of God’s love. Aren’t we constantly told by the right that sex is an act of God’s love intended to procreate the race? How does the right reconcile that? And then we have the right that says that only the biological mother and father should raise a kid. Seriously, should the raped woman be required to marry her rapist???? Plan B is safe and effective in preventing pregnancy; let’s allow it!!!!!!!111
This is a completely different discussion, but what makes closely held religious beliefs so special (sacred, if you’ll pardon the pun) that they cannot be challenged or questioned when they are influencing a political or governmental process?
The Family Institute of Connecticut Action is a Catholic 501(c)(4), and conducts political lobbying. They brought religion to the table and if they don’t want their closely held religious beliefs to be debated then they need to close up shop.
RedRiden asks if the govt funding to RC Hospitals stooped would that be enough to stop people from calling them insensitive for turning victims away or directing them to another hospital? and I answer I have no idea but if the RC Hospitals don’t accpet government funding then the people would have no say.
ACR I expect victims of sexual assault to be treated with respect, and part of that respect is receiving adequate care when at the hospital. My objection isn’t to anyone’s religious beliefs, but to anyone who would deny a victim her dignity. This isn’t about slamming Catholicism or any other religion. It’s about demanding that women who are sexually assaulted receive the care they are entitled to. That care includes information and availability of emergency contraception.
Also this isn’t an abortion debate. Plan B is not abortion, and cannot cause one.
Thanks to CGG for the excellent summary and a fine example of what bloggers could be doing in the legislative process.
Here’s a fact sheet on the issue. The transcript will appear here in a couple of weeks.
The opposition on this issue is not about theology. (74% of CT Catholics support requiring hospitals to provide emergency contraception and Catholic hospitals outside CT already provide it.) It’s about controlling women’s bodies and enforcing patriarchy. Rapists and the pseudo-religious right start from a similar psychological place – hatred of women and the need to express power and control over them. Their methods are different.
CGG, you mentioned in your update that the bill is still in committee. Does anyone know when the bill will clear committee and be presented to the legislature for debate?
Isn’t it ironic that Republicans on this thread have the audacity to call for “More information, education, and deliberation ” when their leader,Lou DeLuca, obviously never even read the proposed legislation and even more obviously wouldn’t have understood it if he did.
Why exactly did Limp Louie show up ?Lou DeLuca wouldn’t know the difference between a vulva and a volvo. How can you be a Republican and not be embarassed by this guy? He makes Jimmy(I’LL CRUSH HIM) Amann look like a genius.
The bill is on the agenda for tomorrow’s committee meeting.
I dont understand why everyone keeps saying that people who are against this bill are saying that a woman who is raped shouldnt have the right to take the pill. That is not what this bill is about, what we are saying is that the state shouldnt tell a Catholic Hospital to have to administer a drug that defies there beliefs. I will say it again, the quality of the care is not under debate here.
Sen. DeLuca is a very passionate man, no everyone said he is the greatest politician, he would tell you he wasnt. There are certain people up there who are there because they are just good people, Sen. DeLuca is one of those people. He believes in something so he speaks about it. So before we do anymore DeLuca bashing lets understand where he is coming from. His words are coming from the Heart of a True Catholic who is trying to protect his beliefs.
From my own post: My favorite was Senator De Luca. He doesn’t serve on the committee, hadn’t read the bill, hadn’t listened in on any of the hearing, and was completely ignorant of what Plan B even was. Yet for some reason he felt compelled to speak.
Bullhook, Deluca didn’t have a clue what he was even talking about. He seemed to think the bill was about RU486, which is the abortion pill. Did I mention that this hearing lasted 9 and 1/2 hours? If you don’t even have your facts straight, the testimony is essentially worthless.
Passionately arguing for the opposing side is one thing. Complete ignorance of the bill that’s being debated is quite another.
Sen DeLuca was not elected Pope.
I attended the last FIC press conference and it was totally obvious that the old geezer not only doesn’t understand the issues he doesn’t even have a basic understanding of his own religion which he claims to be defending.
” Jesus defined Marriage when he was alive” was one of his brilliant statements that drew laughter from even those on his side.
DeLucas picture should be in the thesaurus right next to the phrase “there’s no fool like an old fool”
Jim Amman has come out in support of 1343.
It’s also worth noting that Miss Connecticut, Heidi Voight is standing next to him at the presser. Voight has been an incredible advocate for the cause.
Good on Jimbo! Maybe there’s hope for him yet. Will someone ask him where he currently stands on Civil Unions? I don’t expect him to get behind the same-sex marriage proposal, but it’d be good to know if he’s a big enough man to admit he got it wrong when he voted against the historic CU legislation.
>>And how can you describe it as anti-Catholicism when the majority of Catholics agree that abortion should be allowed in the case of rape or incest??
Unless I’m mistaken, the Roman Catholic Church isn’t operated like a democracy; thus this is a case where the majority doesn’t rule.
That said, and I’m not at all interested in taking on members of my own party; I’m more inclined to agree with the bill’s supporters than not.
Further, the RC’s hardly need me, a Pro-Choice Protestant in their corner, they’re big enough to take care of themselves.
This is about Catholic and Pro-life bashing. There is a convenient alternative to every Catholic hospital in the state. This is the perfect issue for the Pro-Choice crowd because anyone against it is labeled anti-rape victim. This is a hypothetical issue that is getting way to much time and attention.
The arguement I hear is that what if your wife, daughter, girlfriend etc… gets raped. The answer is we go to a hospital that reflects are beliefs. We go to Yale instead of St. Raphs. We go to Hartford rather than St. Francis.
What is next requiring Catholic schools to teach about birth control? After all if it keeps one girl from getting pregnant or keeps one girls from catching an STD then isn’t worth trampling on one groups religious beleifs.
Joey,
If Catholic Bashing was what this was about there are PLENTY of things that could have been brought up in this thread that were totally avoided.
If any religious organization wants to be involved in a business where they accept PUBLIC FUNDS they must be willing to put the PUBLIC GOOD(as determined by our legislature) before their beliefs.The same is true for Religious schools that accept PUBLIC FUNDS.
Catholic hospitals are not just for Catholics and certainly not just for catholics who are totally obedient to the church.
If tommorrow the Catholic church ruled that treating testicular cancer was against their religion or that treating jews was a sin would you still be willing to support them with PUBLIC FUNDS.
Joey, Joey, Joey….
This isn’t about Catholic-bashing. How can it be when the vast majority of Catholics agree that exception should be made in cases of rape, or incest?
What the debate is about is requiring a public hospital to serve the consumer appropriately. If CT’s Catholic hospitals don’t want to provide rape victims with emergency contraception, maybe they should close their emergency rooms. At the vert least, the RC hospitals should insist that any and all rape victims be transported by ambulance to the more enlightened secular hospitals.
P.S. Catholic schools should be teaching sex ed and contraception to their high school students. Do you honestly believe that any teenager shouldn’t know these basics? (I mean I’d encourage my kids to be abstinent, but I wouldn’t want them screwing up their lives with an out-of-wedlock child if they weren’t!)
I am sure the percentage of ER visits involving rape is quite small. From a public health perspective, it would be a disaster to close the ERs in the Catholic Hospitals. If you go back to a recent Courant article, Connecticut’s Emergency Rooms are jammed up and it is getting worse. Closing Catholic Hospitals because of this one issue would do great harm to many more people than the number of individuals impacted by the need for emergency Plan B (which appears from data presented to be no one).
In this seemingly most hypothetical debate, the idea that a rape victim would need transported to get Plan B from someplace other than a Catholic Hospital ER is viewed with great alarm. There are many cases everyday where patients are transported between hospitals because the host hospital cannot provide the care required by the patient. A hospital may not provide the service for a variety of reasons including current crowding conditions, shortage of staffing or decision not to provide a certain type of care.
The General Assembly is so focused on this issue when there are many issues that will have a larger impact on a woman’s access to care. It is a very real possibility that there will no longer be ob services in the Willimantic because of the high cost of malpractice insurance and the high Medicaid mix of patients. Pregnant woman in this area may have to travel to Norwich or Manchester to deliver their babies. This is a critical matter that will affect hundreds of woman hitting the economically disadvantaged the worse.
Keith, for the love of all that is holy, will you come off it? To call for a free and open debate of the issue isn’t audacious on my part or on the part of any of the Republicans that may have posted here tonight. It means I’m not going to succumb to being a closed-minded clown like others who’ve posted here tonight — honestly, are people under the impression that there is rampant hatred of women in this society? DeLuca’s opinion does not necessarily represent mine, so no, it’s not ironic that I hold a stance different from his or at the least am calling for an educated, informed stance.
Joey, it’s only a hypothetical debate from the point-of-view of the Catholic hospitals and the gosh-darned bishop. Otherwise it’s frighteningly real.
Can you argue that from the point-of-view of any rape victim, and/or her family members, emergency contraception should be available/required in ANY emergency room, without question or ideology?
I comprehend that you want to sweep women’s rights and sexual abuse under the table. But please, you demean yourself and your fellow humans when you try to dismiss this very real debate as “hypothetical”.
“There, but for the grace of God, goes me and mine…”
TrueBlueCT
This is a debate about ideology much more than a debate about medicine. One group wants to impose its ideology on another group. You do not deal with any of the facts in the case that show there are plenty of alternative sites for care. There is no reason that any patient needs to go to a Catholic Hospital.
In your comments you then attack me based only on my thoughts that a religious organization should not be forced to do something it is morally opposed to. Especially in light of the fact that there is no public health risk for the position it takes. This is not about women’s rights but it is about freedom to people and organizations to practice religion. My other point is that there are more critical health care issues for woman in this state that are getting lost in this debate.
The name calling against anyone who opposes this is disheartening and really diminishes the quality of this site.
It’s funny how all the Catholics arguing about the importance of their ideology here are MEN! Hmmm…where are all the Catholic women who aren’t chiming in? Could it be because THEY want the Plan B option for themselves?
Joey,
You write that “This is not about women’s rights but it is about freedom to people and organizations to practice religion.”
Last time I checked, there’s a big Catholic church at the end of my street. Its bells ring every hour and its pews are filled on Sunday. So nothing that goes on at a Catholic hospital is infringing on the freedom of Catholics to practice religion.
Are you arguing that the Catholic Church is being oppressed here? Are you seriously arguing that the Catholic Church’s religious beliefs are being trampled by requiring that a Catholic hospital provides competent medical care?
The Catholic Church deems quite a few things to be immoral. Homosexuality is one. Should the hospitals be able to refuse to treat gay people in the emergency department? I mean, the Catholic Church has a closely held religious belief that homosexuality is an abomination, so why should they have to treat a gay person?
This is the healthcare business, and if the Catholic Church is not in it to provide competent and comprehensive healthcare, what are the Church’s motives?
ct_bob,
catholic: check
woman: check
opposed to forcing a religious institution to spit in the face of its governing doctrine: check
all better now?
CT statutes do treat religious entities differently – they exempt them from discrimination laws against homosexuals. The judiciary committee did it just yesterday when passing a bill outlawing discrimination against gender confused cross dressers. It provided that a religious entity could in fact discriminate against them under certain circumstances.
That being said, the plan B debate is an attack on the church. As was previously stated, there are secular hospital alternatives near every Catholic Hospital. Also, since plan B is now available over the counter, have the rape counselor from the police department carry a supply, and offer it to the victims. There are numerous alternatives to this bill that don’t tread on the Church. Pass one of those.
Why aren’t the RC Hospitals in neighboring NY and MA whaling that those governments treaded on religious freedoms? Is the RC Church in CT a different sect or something?
Joe Sixpack says: hat being said, the plan B debate is an attack on the church.
According to many who oppose the bill it is. Meanwhile I see the debate as an attack on women and their right to basic medical care.
As was previously stated, there are secular hospital alternatives near every Catholic Hospital.
Several people gave testimony about why this would not work. An OBGYN pointed out that women who come to the hospital after an assault often can’t even speak to confirm they’ve been raped until a few hours after arriving. An unconscious woman arriving by ambulance can’t demand to be taken to a secular hospital. Rape is a form of assault. I don’t understand why this is so hard to comprehend. Women don’t just stroll into the ER for a rape kit.
Also, since plan B is now available over the counter, have the rape counselor from the police department carry a supply, and offer it to the victims.
Feldman who spoke on behalf of the Catholic hospitals said that this was an unacceptable situation. Several rape counselors also pointed out that they are not medical professionals and cannot dispense medication.
There are numerous alternatives to this bill that don’t tread on the Church. Pass one of those.
Again, going back to Feldman’s testimony the Catholic Hospitals rejected attempts at a compromise.
CGG – Rape counselors are not medical professionals, but neither am I – and I manage to dispense medication to myself and my kids just fine. It is an OTC drug – just like aspirin. To even state that someone needs special medical training to administer it is beyond ridiculous. If they can open a child-proof cap, consider them trained.
As for Feldman, he needs to be a little more open to a compromise that does not require the hospital to give plan B. Put plan B in the rape kits and be done with it.
Joe Sixpack,
Rape counselors are not medical professionals, but neither am I – and I manage to dispense medication to myself and my kids just fine. It is an OTC drug – just like aspirin.
Yeah, but I bet it’s a liability thing. They could get in serious trouble if they gave out medication. When I was a teacher, I wasn’t allowed to give out asprin, for example.
Right but a rape counselor isn’t giving medication to herself or her children. My understanding is that no one other than a medical professional can legally dispense medication in a hospital.
Also keep in mind that Feldman doesn’t make policy. He was there as a lawyer for his employer.
They pass laws all the time to permit people to dispense meds without liability – camp counselors can adminster epi-pens to bee sting victims, for example. It’s pretty simple to grant immunity to a rape counselor to administer plan B.
Has anyone noticed that there is a move to get more forensic nurses trained in this state and working in the ER’s? Does everyone remember here that rape is a crime and that evidence needs to be collected and preserved? While that is secondary to comapssionate and proper care it is important. Don’t you think?
Joe – that of course is a simple solution to the problem but then how can everyone attack the church? Nope, we need to show the church how much we hate them…and yes I agree, if Christ’s mom was raped he would tell her to have an abortion…obviously! How about when the Pope got shot? What an idiot he was…he actually went and forgave the the Islamic fundamentalist who shot him, I guess if that guy were a Catholic the Pope would have had him crucified…and rightfully so since Catholics…especially those against the ditribution of plan B are such ass-holes.
I always forget, the church doesn’t tell people to turn the other cheek they tell people to abort and hate, get revenge…I think that’s what Christ said on the cross.
I guess that means you are opposed to the state’s death penalty then, Mr. Reality, as well as pre-emptive wars..
I actually I am toucan. So is the church.
Great, but do you really think that a woman who is violated by rape against her will and as a crime against the state is meant to allow impregnation too when it can be prevented by sound sciemce? It doesn’t seem right; and the church ( I assume you mean the Roman Catholic Church) has seen fit in MA, NJ and NY to administer OTC Plan B. What’s the differnence here in CT with the RC Church?
Mr. Reality,
You said “he actually went and forgave the the Islamic fundamentalist who shot him”.
Mehmet Ali Agca was Muslim. But there is no evidence of activities on his part that would justify identifying him as an “Islamic fundamentalist.” The only basis for your statement would seem to be the fact that he is Muslim.
Toucan–
Let me tell you the difference, one overly ideological, ass-holish bishop.
And yep, the guy is an asshole. I mean any American who wouldn’t put their theory aside to help a rape victim take simple steps to prevent becoming pregnant with the child of her rapist!
It isn’t a Catholic tenet that a raped woman should have to carry the baby of a criminal. I know it isn’t. I mean what religion could be so incredibly insensitive in this modern age? It doesn’t sound like any Catholics I know.
Thank you for trying to stereotype me. Unlike government, the church is not a Democracy and I think that’s why so many people get so fired up because they believe church’s teachings can be changed based on popular opinion. That’s not the way it works. I love it when I see polls that 74% of Catholics believe this or that…that doesn’t make it right according to church teachings.
I can’t speak for churches in NJ and surrounding states, but I belong to a parish in the Hartford diocese. The church is very consistent in their views against birth control and abortion. The church is also about compassion and forgiveness. A big part of the problem is that people…including Catholics are not willing to do either. These hospitals provide a great service to the community, it’s not like women do not have access to this pill if they want it…it’s readily available. But to force the Catholic hospitals in CT to dispense it really sounds more to me like an attack…I bet there are a lot of people pushing for this legislation who have had other gripes with the church in the past and I think that adds to the frustration of DeLuca as well.
I knew it was the local bishop TBCT but I don’t think calling the spiritual leader of the CT RC’s an asshole does much to advance the debate here. Maybe it’s time to call the vote. Can we have a motion on the floor?
Grumpy…The 23-year-old Agca identified himself as a Palestinian, an Islamic fundamentalist and an opponent of both American and Soviet imperialism.
There are plenty of ways to resolve this situation without insulting my religion. Catholic Democrats must stand up to this obvious Catholic-bashing bill. Look at the hateful comments in this forum by those (I think) who are on my side of the aisle.
Remember when the same wackos tried to make Priests divulge what they heard in confession? Democrats in the Senate (Gaffey, Fonfara, Looney, Hartley, Crisco and Daily) fought against, and defeated, that effort.
Where are they now? We need them. We cannot have these anti-religious zealots represent our party.
Mr. Reality said: Unlike government, the church is not a Democracy and I think that’s why so many people get so fired up because they believe church’s teachings can be changed based on popular opinion. That’s not the way it works. I love it when I see polls that 74% of Catholics believe this or that…that doesn’t make it right according to church teachings.
But CT is a Democracy. Connecticut is accountable to voters. And 74% of CT residents who are Catholics support the bill.
it’s not like women do not have access to this pill if they want it…it’s readily available.
Another misconception. The pill isn’t readily available. Call your local pharmacy and ask if Plan B is in stock. In many cases it isn’t. Women’s advocates advise every woman to have a dosage in her home for that very reason. Also, there’s no law that says a pharmacist has to dispense Plan B.
Access is very much a problem.
Cgg; I beleive these are the points about Plan B specifically related to brutalized and traumatized rape victims in an ER that get muddled in the debate :
1. Plan B prevents pregnancy just like birth control pills (it’s a high dose of one) but it can not and does not cause an abortion
2. Time is of the essence in taking the regimen – it’s more than one dose – if it is to work to prevent pregnancy and avoid the need (or discussion) about an abortion;; so the sooner the regimen is administered the better chance it has of working.
3. Checking in and out of an ER isn’t like going to McDonald’s or Burger King and continuity of caregiver is one of the keys in establishing and collecting evidence of a crime as well as beginning the healing process for the victim.
So why aren’t you out forcing a law that require pharmacies to stock it? The last time I looked there were a lot more pharmacies than the 4 Catholic hospitals. Why the attack on the hospitals? The only reason I can think of is because they are Catholic. Something tells me CGG that you and others that are all going crazy probably didn’t have a positive view on the RCC BEFORE this issue came up.
So if 74% of Catholics said that crosses should be put on public buildings, and the majority of state residents said it was okay you wouldn’t have a problem with that? I don’t think so.
Toucan–
Is Dobson an asshole? How about Donohue? Robertson is probably better described as a kook. And Falwell, what a prick. (remember that scumbag Jim Baker.)
Sorry, all these guys are abusing religion terribly, –to divide America, in the service of latent political agendas. While I have respect for the underlying religions, I have none for the demagogues. They should be called out, at every turn.
Anyone here doubt that if Jesus came back to Earth, the first thing he’d do would be to kick the scoundrels to the curb?
Mr. Reality I do support adopting laws that would require pharmacies to carry and dispense Plan B. Again, my issue isn’t with Catholic hospitals. My issue is with making sure women have access to emergency contraception. Also, keep in mind that this law would apply to ALL hospitals in the State, no matter what their religious affiliation.
see how you muddle the debate cgg, when you talk about the pharmacies and the RC not being a Democracy, etc.; as you pointed out from the bginning the advocates have not doen a very good job staying on point with their message — the rape treatment issue;
and on the different issue I guess you noticed Bloomberg is now dispensing Plan B for free along with condoms; let’s not suggest that every women should be prepared to be raped by carrying a regimen of Plan B.
Mr. Reality–
The Compassionate Care law, as written, addresses all hospitals. (some of the secular hospitals have been deficient in their care as well.) And anyone who thinks the motivation behind it is anti-religion isn’t living in reality.
Do you honestly believe Jim Amann would support the bill if it was indeed, anti-Catholic?
Yes TBCT, let’s call them all names because that’s the best way to change hearts and minds – well, except military force that is.
No I don’t think I’m muddling the debate Toucan. In fact I think pointing out problems with access is good way to highlight that this bill isn’t an attack on religious liberty.
And I’m not suggesting that every woman have a dosage of Plan B just because she might be raped. But with access still a problem I think it’s a good idea for women to have a dosage on hand in case she or another woman she knows needs it.
and in so doing you weaken the basic argument behind mandating the pills be available in the ER, ccg, but good luck.
Toucan–
Oh, you mean name-calling never has its effect? Tell that to the Rabid Right… (look what they have done to Michael Moore, or even Vice-President Gore for that matter.)
I’m sorry this one isn’t close. Pointing out the facts matters so little to the ideologues. Nothing will change their minds. Period.
So I’m calling them out on the insanity of their position, which none of them really believe in. (well except for a handful of extremists.) If you notice, not one of the righties really wants to own the bishop’s position against rape victims. Instead, all they can do is whine about “Catholic-bashing.”
This is political. They are in the overwhelming minority. And anyway who wants to deny a raped woman emergency contraception is, indeed, an asshole.
Gore desreves every criticism he gets and more!
True Blue –
Your namecalling merely shows your ignorance. You add nothing to this discussion. And to claim that this is not aimed at the church is, once again, more of your ignorance on display. The history of this bill from last year was that it was an attempt by some legislators to force Catholic hospitals to dispense plan B. In a political move, they now come up with a study showing some other hospitals do not dispense it every time. The study does not explain why those victims at other hospitals were not given plan B – maybe they were already taking contraceptives, so no pregnancy risk was involved, maybe they were post-menopausal – it simply said it wasn’t given in some cases. This was a defense tactic by the church bashers to say “Look, we aren’t after the church after all -we want to apply it to all hospitals”.
Well, in the past year, the landscape has changed – you no longer need a prescription to get plan B – So it can be given by nonmedical personnel – like a rape counselor. So it can be made available by someone other than the hospital.
Joe, while this may be RC bashing for some it isn’t for me. And what you suggest isn’t practical but it sounds good. Maybe somebody should hold a hearing and ask how things go in an ER when a victim shows up. Maybe somebody should ask a cop how he/she investigates these crimes. maybe somebody should ask a prosecutor what it takes to prosecute one of these cases, and then see if this is RC bashing.
Sixpack–
What do you believe? Do you agree with the Bishop that if a woman is violently raped, she should take no steps to prevent a pregnancy? And then heaven forbid, if she does become pregnant, she should valiantly bear the child of her assailant?
You see, in practice no one believes that a woman shouldn’t have a choice under those circumstances. The rest is sheer ideology, which a few are trying to impose on the individual, in this case a health care consumer following a rape.
True –
There you go – see, you can make a point without resorting to name calling. Personally? I believe a woman should absolutely have a choice. I believe that she should have the right to make a decision about pregnancy, especially when the conception was forced. That being said, there are options besides forcing a religious hospital to go against a central tenet of that religion. And the state, in passing numerous other laws, has provided certain exemptions for religious entities. In the civil union bill, for example, the state bent over backwards to say that churches did not have to perform ceremonies. They also state that a religious nursing home does not have to provide a room for same sex couples to share.
But the right to life vs. woman’s right to choose dogmatic battle is the boiling point. Always will be. To try and reach workable compromises is to walk a minefield where both sides believe so strongly that they are right – that they are the moral ones, that to disagree with them is to be completely unthinking or uncaring. This is the one issue where neither side will take even the smallest stpe toward the other for fear that the entire house of cards will tumble down.
A pregnant woman killed? Everyone agrees it’s horrendous, but was the fetus a victim as well? Pro choice advocates cannot accept this as a separate crime, because to do so means they contradict their thoughts on abortion. And plan B? For right-to-life types, this is one step down the slippery slope to requiring Catholic Hospitals to perform abortions – after all, it’s in the state constitution that a woman has a right to choose – why not say her consitutional rights are violated when St. Francis turns her away when she wants an abortion – it is her right,a fter all.
So this is one of those seemingly innocuous issues that everyone should agree upon, but for the sake of their own pro or anti- abortion stance it becomes a major fight. My point is – we let the Catholic church (and other religious institutions) off the hook on other laws. Why is this the one to push so hard on, when other workable, less offensive to some, approaches are available? It’s an OTC drug – it’s like an aspirin. Just have someone else give it to the victim besides a Catholic Hospital employee.
Just have someone else give it to the victim besides a Catholic Hospital employee and with that Joe shows he doesn’t know how it goes in the ER. See TBCT, he made your point.
Toucan – A rape counselor is in the ER with the victim – That’s how it goes. Why can’t that counselor hand the victim the pill, and the follow up doses at that point. Tell me why that is not feasible?
Sixpack–
Emergency contraception is offensive to whom? Honestly, I know many Catholics, and while some of them are against abortion, none of them are against contraception. If the Catholic church isn’t against contraception, why are they making this big stink against what you suggest should be a commonsense consensus?
I do hear you about a slippery slope. But exceptions in the case of rape or incest is pretty much a given across the country, even with regard to a majority of pro-life activists. This isn’t a road to anywhere. It’s just basic human decency needing to be enforced by the government.
Joe if you followed the testimony you’d know that the RC Hospitals in CT already claim that they dispense Plan B in the ER to rape victims but they only do it after testing for ovulation, which delays treatment but is something their faith here in CT apparently dictates but not the science of the drug. Have you ever heard of false positives? Have you ever heard of a double standard?
The “Rabid Right” made Michael Moore and Al Gore morbidly obese? I have a hard time buying that one…
This is taken from Dr. Daviodoff’s testimony: “In fact, the most careful and rigorous study that’s been done to date, which was published just last month in the scientific literature, showed that while Plan B was nearly 100% effective in preventing pregnancy when it was used before ovulation occurred, it was almost completely ineffective in preventing pregnancy when it was used after ovulation and fertilization had occurred.”
Catholic hospitals refuse to administed Plan B if there is reason to believe that ovulation has occurred, otherwise the drug is administered to rape victims. Dr. Davidoff says that the drug is “completely ineffective” when used after ovulation. We are now on the piont of issuing a bill that would force Catholic Hospitals to violate their religious precepts by administering a pill that Dr Davidoiff says would be completly ineffective under the circumstances in which Catholic hospitals would refuse to administed the… what to call it? …placebo. Does this make sense?
Yes Pesci, if Plan B is ineffective once ovulation has started then the RC Hospitals who require a test today for ovulation before administering the drug are just being silly in their opposition.
Yes Toucan, and applying the strictures of Pascal’s wager to the problem, it is not the Catholic Church that should retreat from its position IF — big “if” — a victory on your part should violate both the canon law of the church and First Amendment rights. The problem, if there is a problem, can be solved in a way that does not violate either. By the way, did the relevant committee ask any of its expert testifyers precisely how many rape victims, turned away by Catholic hospitals, could not receive the Plan B in other places? That figure should figure in any legislative attempt to force Catholic hospitals to violate their chruch’s legal strictures.
Don–
When 90% of even Catholics think a raped woman should be quickly given whatever she needs to avoid a pregnancy, yes, the proper place for a woman to receive Plan B is in the emergency room. Period.
Catholic or non-Catholic hospital is not the issue. Having medical professionals promptly assist a rape victim is.
I bet even Bishop Mansell won’t go on record saying that a woman, after being violently raped, should sit back, do nothing, and if impregnated go ahead and give birth to the rapist’s baby. Honestly, I’d like to hear him say it.
This debate is all about ideology run amok. And yes, the government should simply legislate it out of the health-care profession.
TrueBlueCT
You can frame the issue anyway you like; it’s a free country, though there are some who would like to make it less so. The proposed legislation, however, does not seek to check unreasonable ideologies. The practical effect of the legislation will be to force Catholic hospitals — not to mention the Catholics who work in them — to violate their consciences and to commit a crime against the cannon law of their church. That is not an ideological description; it is a precise description of what the bill will do. That is an extreme – not to mention unconstitutional – measure. A reasonable person, faced with such a Draconian solution to a problem that may not exist – the jury is yet out on that one – must ask himself: what is the problem precisely, and can it be settled by other means. I do not find anyone here asking or attempting to answer that question. If Dr, Davidoff’s assertions are accurate, we are on the point of forcing Catholics in this state to violate their consciences because they are unwilling to provide an “ineffective” medical prescription to rape victims. See the above entrée. Now, this sort of thing may disturb only a small number of Catholics in the state. But this is a matter that should not be settled by counting heads. It should be settled by using brainpower.
No Pesci it’s not an “ineffective” medical prescription to rape victims at all; the FDA has found it to be safe and effective for its intended use and they don’t require a test for ovulation; in fact delaying the administration of the regimen for that test only increases the risk of the raped vistim becoming pregnanat and then putting her in the position of seeking an abortion. And Pesci, the hospitals are by defintion government contractors and rape is a crime against the state – see above! Yes, brainpower needs to be applied.
Tocan
Come on Toucan. Neither I nor Dr. Davidoff ever said that Plan B was an “ineffective medical prescription when given to rape victims.” In fact, the administrators in Catholic hospital don’t believe that either — which is why they DO dispense Plan B EXCEPT UNDER ONE NARROW CIRCUMSTANCE: WHEN THE VICTIM MAY BE PREGNANT, at which point, says Dr. Davidoff, the drug cannot induce an abortion. The drug is “ineffective,” in other words, only under the conditions in which Catholic hosptials refeuse to administer Plan B. This means that you and others wish to use the powers of the state to force religious people to commit crimes against cannon law so that they may distribute to rape victims a drug that cannot abort an unwanted child. That is the clear meaning and import of Dr. Davidoff’s testimony. I ask you again — do these measures make sense?
Amen, Don Pesci.
Well said and exactly what this issue is about. Before we even get to the point of saying “should we do this” or “should we not do this”, it appalls me that many of the legislators and even the Current do not understand the Catholic Church’s perspective. An institution having a span of knowledge and philosophy spanning 2000 years with hundreds of millions is not arbitrarily making a stand on a whim.
Proscribing Plan B – or the Cervical Cancer vaccine- cannot be made simply because “we think its in your best interest”. That’s not legally sound. It doesn’t make sense. I’m an EMT and in my field I am often faced with the question of what is in a patient’s “best interest” – and sometimes forcing them against their will to be committed to a hospital. I have also been faced many times with family members and law enforcement who are at thier wits end or don’t know what else to do with a patient who won’t be seen by a doctor and tell me that they have to go. But people are autonomous beings and if they don’t fall under strict legal criteria to be committed, they simply can’t be. Difficult as is it is, people will have various beliefs, reasons, and experiences that will prevent them from conforming to the common societal standards. And sometimes those beliefs might prove to be correct and the standard in future times.
The bottom line in this debate is that the Catholic Church is THE most prominent religious institution in this state and holds a reasonable basis for its belief. Its position is very clearly protected under the 1st Amendment and no judge would allow this law to touch those institutions. Similarly, non-religious hospitals may have similar policies for other medical or philosophical reasons for not offering Plan B. Those also are private instutitions with reasonable philosophies. The alternative is to send someone to another hospital and the time required to do so in such a small state where you can drive to any one of 36 hospitals OR any of hundreds of private medical providers within an hour and a half does not represent an undue burden by any imagination.
TrueBlueCt-
You’re clearly not knowledgeable in Church law or workings. If you were to say that 90% of Catholic’s do not believe in Jesus Christ, does that make the Church not teach that Jesus is the Son of God? Of course not. The people don’t vote what the Church teaches or believes in. Its incumbant on them to learn the philosophy and whether or not to accept it. In our secular society, of course many don’t take on that initiative. That doesn’t make them wrong- but just ignorant of WHY the Church teaches it.
TrueBlueCt-
You’re clearly not knowledgeable in Church law or workings. If 60% of high school graduates couldn’t locate China or Russia on a map, does that mean they didn’t graduate high school? Of course not. The people don’t vote what the Church teaches or believes in. Its incumbant on them to learn the philosophy and whether or not to accept it. In our secular society, of course many don’t take on that initiative. That doesn’t make them wrong- but just ignorant of WHY the Church teaches it.
You must log in to post a comment.