State Senator, and Human Services Committe Co-Chair, Jonathan Harris was a guest on Colin McEnroe’s show today to discuss SB 1343, the Plan B Compassionate Care bill. The bill comes before the full Senate for a vote tomorrow, and it looks like supporters have the votes for it to pass.
But Harris also said that the Catholic Hospitals have decided to reject the previously agreed upon compromise. Here is a rough transcript of that compromise as described by Senator Harris.
We’re going to go beyond that. We’re going to try and be even more sensitive to the Catholic conference’s concerns and say that but to give this standard of consistent care to victims of rape they could actually have an independent third party come into the hospital and take themselves totally out of the picture and [still] be able to give the standard of care to victims.
****
We wanted to have the best bill possible to give this consistent standard of care. And we realized even though medical evidence and logic show it’s one thing, that it’s a contraceptive. When you have concerns of people of faith then it’s important that we take that into account, and that we work with them to come up with the best bill possible. We’ve done that and I’m disappointed we found out informally, not yet a formal announcement, that the Catholic Hospital[s] has rejected this third party solution and essentially is not coming back with a counter-offer.
Here is the interview in it’s entirety via the show’s podcast.
Tomorrow is an organized lobby day in support of the bill. Details can be found on the MLN calender.
15 responses so far ↓
There is no compromising with extremists.
My sentiments exactly.
Agreed, Keith. It was a good compromise. I wonder what the rationale was for rejecting it? And shame on them for not at least making a counter-offer.
Why can’t the CT archdiocese do what NY and NJ did– negotiate with their state legislatures to distribute Plan B on-site at Catholic hospitals after a simple pregnancy test is administered?
The reluctance of the Hartford archdiocese to negotiate makes me believe this is NOT a matter of Catholic doctrine, but a matter of Archbishop Henry Mansell and his personality. And that, unfortunately, is a disservice to both both rape victims and the Catholic faithful.
It was also unnecessary. Legislators bent over backwards for a lobby that ignored both the facts as well as the best interests of rape victims. Perhaps next time they won’t feel the same pressure to bother.
Totally agree, Thesea. Totally.
Really? Extremists, Keith? C’mon, you’re better than that. These folks, and many others, believe that this bill will result in the death of innocent people. Why are they extremists for opposing it? I would feel much worse if they had that belief and didn’t.
And don’t both coming back with the “it won’t kill people” debate. If you believe that life begins at conception - a valid scientific point - then this bill will end that life.
Also, CGG, if history is any guide perhaps after this bill passes the Catholic Hospitals in this state won’t provide emergency care anymore.
The RC Hospitals are apparently refusing to provide modern day emergency care already — for rape victims anyway. And if they do go away, others will fill the bill. When St Joe’s shut down in Stamford largely because it duplicated too many se4rvices and couldn’t compete, Stamford Hospital quickly filled the void and even bought the property. There is also some dispute that the RC’s actually broke off the talks. Apparently, Harris was informed by a lobbyist form and not an RC rep directly.
http://www.courant.com/news/health/hc-ctplanb0425.artapr25,0,7710396.story?coll=hc-headlines-health
I really don’t think it is fair to call the opponents “extremsists.”
I believe that as soon as any side on any issue labels the other side as such, then any good faith negotiations become impossible.
And just for the record, I think the compromise was a fair one and that Sen. Harris did an amazing job and proved himself yet again to be a fantastic leader and legislator.
It’s headlines like this that debase the debate:Senate expected to approve controversial ‘morning after pill’ measure because this isn’t about the morning after a night of wild consensual unprtoected sex it’s about preventing a pregnancy - and possibly an abortion - that might result from the brutal crime of rape.
http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18257743&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=161556&rfi=6
Additionally, Bishop Lori makes the slippery slope argument in an OpEd in today’s CT Post that the next step could be forcing the RC hospitals to perform abortions. That’s just ridiculous scre tactics - an abortion is elective surgery not emergency treatment.
Wait, are you saying that an abortion is never medically necessary?
“Additionally, Bishop Lori makes the slippery slope argument in an OpEd in today’s CT Post that the next step could be forcing the RC hospitals to perform abortions. That’s just ridiculous scre tactics…”
…toucan, you and everyone else knows once you open the door a bt on an issue, then before long it gets pushed open more and more, exp in ct…its not a slippery slope argument by Bishop Lori at all, there are numerous instances where this has been the case…simply, look no further than gay marriage…just a couple of years ago civil unions were enacted and now just a few short years later there is a trememdous push for gay marriage….
..agree or disagree, laws are like children give them an inch and theyll eventually take a foot…
Sorry guys, but anyone who believes a raped woman should sit back, not take Plan B, and then, if impregnated, actually bear the rapist’s child, — well that person is either an ideologue like Tony Stark, a religious extremist, like Brian Brown, or both.
Common sense says to offer the rape victim emergency contraception! The other positions are attempts to impose beliefs. (Primarily by men!)
I never said that TBCT - I actually think Plan B emergency contraception is probably a good idea. I just think that the other side has a valid point and we shouldn’t be labeling them extremists for thinking that.
Here’s a question: Why is the life of a person who is the product of a rape worth less than any other life? Not saying that I think we shouldn’t allow rape victims to take Plan B, but if you think it is murder, then why should you place a higher value on life just because it isn’t the product of a rape?
You must log in to post a comment.