Legislature Brings Controversial Fetal Well being Invoice to Indiana Information
In a matter of hours, lawmakers passed two bills through committees that would affect the health of pregnant women, but the principles of the two bills contradict each other.
House Bill 1309 would allow a pregnant woman to apply for maternity accommodation with her employer without fear of retaliation or termination. However, the employer only has to respond “in good time” to the request, which, according to proponents, is insufficient.
Samantha Kern, who identified herself as a small business owner and the mother of Fishers, said her former employer, a local Catholic hospital, would not allow her to leave her shift if she noticed any bleeding.
Although her doctor and her relief were only one floor away in the same building, she couldn’t leave until she’d secured cover for her shift.
“I was the breadwinner, the insurance carrier for my family,” said Kern.
“Since Indiana is an arbitrary state, I was afraid that if I left I would lose my job and I couldn’t afford to be unemployed, pregnant, and without health insurance. I had to choose whether to save my pregnancy or my job. I couldn’t walk for almost two hours and eventually lost my baby. “
Sign up for our newsletter to receive the latest news.
Kern’s life changed four years ago, but she said there are still denials of maternity accommodation and the proposed legislation would not protect pregnant mothers who are denied bathroom or water breaks, told to carry heavy objects and who are not allowed to seek treatment.
“If 1309 were there, my situation would not have changed … [my employer] The answer offered no shelter and was attributed to the loss of my family, ”said Kern.
Republicans and Democrats criticized the bill drafted by Rep. Karen Engleman, R-Georgetown, for taking no action, but the bill was passed by a narrow majority (6: 4) by the Pensions and Labor Committee, with Democrats running the bill backed and the Republicans parted.
Democrats said they hoped the Senate bill could be changed to provide effective protection.
Just a few rooms away, the Senators of the Committee on Health and Care Provider Services had a similar debate on fetal health and took a different approach than their colleagues.
Senator Liz Brown, R-Fort Wayne, introduced House Bill in 1577 with several controversial provisions, such as: For example, the requirement that parental consent for minors must be notarized, and the obligation for medical professionals to share information about an unproven “abortion reversal protocol”.
Sally Dixon, a coordinator for fetal infant mortality screening in South Bend, compared the two bills in her maternity shelter certificate.
“[HB 1577] is willing to mandate what a doctor does, although the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists denies its safety [“abortion reversal”] … I could see where anyone thinks that is reasonable, ”Dixon said. “And yet, if the same woman develops pregnancy complications four or five months later, we are unwilling to ask her employer to provide adequate maternity shelter … to protect her baby and pregnancy, and perhaps even her own health. ”
Two medical providers who testified against HB 1577 also criticized the claim, saying that the anti-science law was based on anecdotes, not the science of the Abortion Reversal Protocol.
When asked Tracey Wilkinson, a pediatrician and researcher at Indiana University’s School of Medicine, to pick the worst part of the bill, she said she couldn’t make up her mind.
“As a pediatrician, it would be certification,” said Wilkinson. “But as a doctor, it lies to the patient [about the abortion reversal drug]. We, as doctors, should always give accurate information to our patients, and I find it incredibly uncomfortable to tell them about a medical practice that has not been scientifically proven – that we would be mandated by the state to tell them. “
Brown defended the practice, which essentially asked women to stop taking prescribed abortion pills, which come in multiple doses. Brown cited two studies that confirmed the use of the method and that were labeled “inferior” by medical professionals.
“We are very concerned about the informed consent [for] Anyone who designs a procedure for their body. Now we’re talking about two places here so we want to make sure they have all the information they need, ”said Brown.
With a lack of medical consensus, Senator Jean Breaux, D-Indianapolis, voted against the bill, saying it does not support “false science”.
“I’m embarrassed – this is one of the worst laws I’ve ever seen on the subject,” said Breaux.
The bill was passed 7: 4 and must be heard before the entire Senate.