“The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality” – Dante Alighieri
The Compassionate Care for Victims of Rape Bill (SB129/AB377) before the Wisconsin legislature, would require any hospital in Wisconsin that provides emergency medical services to victims of rape or incest to provide such victims accurate unbiased information about emergency contraception. And if the victim requests, the hospital must provide immediate access to such treatment. Why is this Bill in trouble?
The bill defines “emergency contraception” as medical treatment (approved by the FDA) that prevents a pregnancy after sexual intercourse. It specifically excludes any treatment that is prescribed to terminate an existing pregnancy. The FDA, the AMA, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists agree that emergency contraception will not induce an abortion in a pregnant woman. Nevertheless, no hospital will be required by this bill to provide emergency contraception to a victim who is already pregnant as indicated by test.
The average age of a rape victim is 15! Over 25,000 pregnancies result from rape in the U.S. every year. Emergency contraception could prevent approximately 22,000 of these pregnancies, and almost all of the 16,000 abortions that are a direct result of rape each year. Emergency contraception is recognized by the AMA as the professional standard of care for rape victims.
Over 80 percent of Wisconsin voters reported in a 2004 survey that they favored access to emergency contraception for rape victims. So what’s the problem? Are there one or two Wisconsin emergency care hospitals that haven’t yet heard of modern medicine, or are operated by the Taliban? Why is this bill even needed?
A 2006 survey revealed that 42 percent of Wisconsin hospitals do not offer emergency contraception to victims of rape, period. And only one out of three Wisconsin hospitals offers emergency contraception on site, without exception, to victims of rape.
The failure of so many hospitals to provide prompt care is especially a problem because time is a factor. If taken within 12 hours of a sexual assault, emergency contraception is 99.5% effective in preventing pregnancy. If taken within 72 hours, effectiveness is 75%. But the effectiveness drops to zero when the blastosphere attaches to the uterus.
Why are so many Wisconsin hospitals failing to provide this important treatment to mitigate and minimize and begin to heal the long-term effects of sexual assault on a victim’s life? The answer is, Pro-Life Wisconsin has decided it knows precisely when and where life begins, and is eager to claim the role of moral arbiter of the fate of others. Wisconsin Right-to Life “takes no position on SB-129” despite the fact that emergency contraception could prevent many thousands of abortions annually.
The controversy about Compassionate Care for Victims of Rape is extremely revealing. According to Wisconsin Pro-Life, “life” begins a little before a pregnancy begins. It does not begin with the living ova carried within a living woman’s body. It does not begin when she embarks upon her menses. It does not begin when ovulation drastically transforms an ovum and initiates it’s fateful journey into the fallopian tube. But (on the other hand) Pro-Life decrees that “life” did begin before the “…mulberry-like agglomeration of nucleated masses of protoplasm, termed vitelline spheres” becomes implanted on her uterine wall (Gray’s Anatomy).
Life, says Wisconsin Pro-Life, begins whenever a male “scores”. And a female has no right to say “no”, when and however he does, once he does.
Regardless of 21st Century biological and medical knowledge, and anything else, once that sperm gets into a female’s body, it suddenly becomes the sacred “right” of those happenstance couple of wandering cells to take over a large part of her body and the rest of her life. And that “right” means that the rape victim has no right, and can expect no help, to prevent a pregnancy from occurring. That’s what Pro-Life’s position against compassionate care for victims of rape boils down to. When life begins, and therefore whether a female has the right to control her own body, has nothing to do with the girl or woman, or all the many miraculous stages of life represented by female biology. That critical moment is determined by a single moment in male biology, according to this so-called “Pro-Life” ideology.
But the ideology that presumes to define when life begins is willfully ignorant of the fact that life is not that simple. Life does not begin in an isolated moment. Life is a continuum and a series of transformations. If life is to be properly and fully respected, as we wish and we must, then the continuum of life must be understood and cared for, not just certain individual expressions of life.
A crime victim’s rights should not depend on what hospital she finds herself at, or what practitioner happens to see her there. A very important aspect of healing the long-term injury of sexual assault is regaining a sense of control over her own body. And that process should include her unquestioned right to prevent a rape-caused pregnancy from happening.
Voting ”No” is a reprehensible, woman-hating position to take. It says that those licensed in the state to provide emergency medical services may deny knowledge and provision of safe, effective, standard emergency treatment to prevent a pregnancy from occurring to a girl or woman who has been raped.
Most men probably have difficulty comprehending and truly empathizing with either being pregnant, or with being a victim of rape … much less both, simultaneously. Yet most men grew up loving their mothers, falling in love with and marrying a woman, and having children of their own. Many fathers share the special magic and privilege (and fears) of raising a daughter. So despite the difficulty most men have gaining true comprehension of what it feels like to be a girl or a woman, most men (and women) have the instinct and enough empathy to place the common sense protection and well being of women and girls above knee-jerk allegiance to ideology and abstract definitions. That’s why this bill passed the Senate with such strong bipartisan support.
The State Senate approved the bill 27 to 6, with 60% of Republicans, and all Democrats voting for it. Glenn Grothman, Joe Liebham, Neal Kedzie, Scott Fitzgerald, Mary Lazich, and Daniel Kapanke, were the Wisconsin state senators who cast an appalling “No” vote. These six Senators’ votes and opinions against the Compassionate Care for Victims of Rape Bill cannot represent the will or the wishes of anything but a small minority of their constituents. Yet most of them may well run unopposed and unchallenged for re-election as state Senators.
It is interesting to note that 5 of the 6 Senate “No” votes came from five contiguous Senate districts (out of 33 total in the state) that encircle the city of Milwaukee, which finds itself captured in a kind of neo-con, religio-fundamentalist, racist, xenophobic, misogynistic halo of privilege and hubris.
Republican Assemblyman Terry Musser (who is not within this “halo of hubris”) sponsored and introduced the bill as AB 377 before the State Assembly. Now that the CCRV bill has been approved overwhelmingly in the state Senate, the Assembly Majority Leader Mike Huebsch (of LaCrosse County and Daniel Kapanke’s state Senate District) has intentionally assigned the bill to an irrelevant, unrelated committee chaired by wrong-wing ideologue Mark Gundrum (of New Berlin and Waukesha and Mary Lazich’s state Senate District). Gundrum has vowed to block this bill from ever getting a hearing in the Assembly “Judiciary” Committee he chairs, and thus to prevent it from getting an up-or-down vote in the state Assembly. Contact your Assemblyperson and urge her or him to co-sponsor AB 377 and get the bill assigned to a relevant committee (like “Family and Children” or “Public Health”) so Gundrum can’t single-handedly block a vote from occurring.
Although this bill obviously and understandably has very broad bi-partisan support, both in the public and in the legislature, it must be noted that all six state Senators who voted against SB129, the Majority Leader of the Assembly, and the state Assembly committee chairman who is threatening to kill AB 377 without allowing a vote, – all are members of the Wisconsin Republican Party. Also, Wisconsin should know that Assembly Majority Leader Huebsch and Judiciary Committee Chair Gundrum, both represent Assembly districts that are in one of the six (out of 33 total) Senate Districts that voted against this bill when it was approved by substantial majorities of both major parties in the state Senate.
Working class and rural Wisconsin is held hostage by these few ideologues, representing privileged suburban districts, unless we break their fanatical grip.
Call the Legislative Hotline 1-800-362-9472 to contact your state legislators now.
For more information, see:
Wisconsin Alliance for Women’s Health
Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault
League of Women Voters of Wisconsin
Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin