By Maria Gallagher, Legislative Director, Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation
Maria Vitale Gallagher
The abortion industry and its allies are lobbing another legislative weapon in their War on Women.
The weapon of choice, in this case, is a deceptively named Pennsylvania bill called the “Patient Trust Act.” It more accurately should be labeled the “Patient Mistrust Act.”
The bill, which was introduced in both the state House and Senate, is being touted by abortion advocates across the state. They claim the bill would “keep politicians out of examining rooms.” But actually it could keep women in the dark about abortion risks and alternatives.
House Bill 2303 is sponsored by known abortion advocate Rep. Dan Frankel (D-Allegheny County). The Senate version, Senate Bill 1456, is sponsored by a one-time pro-life legislator who is now running for Lieutenant Governor on a pro-abortion platform, Senator Mike Stack (D-Philadelphia County).
The sponsors, who are being championed by a pro-abortion blog which partners with the nation’s largest abortion operation, Planned Parenthood, claim they are trying to rid politics from the doctor-patient relationship. But the legislation would do exactly the opposite—insert politics where it does not belong.
The bills state that health care practitioners should not be required to provide information to a patient that is not “medically accurate.” The legislation also says that the government should not require a health professional to perform a medical service that is not “evidence-based.”
Who could argue with that? Even pro-life legislators, if not properly informed, could be deceived into sponsoring it.
But the devil is in the details.
In their quest for legitimacy, the sponsors are pointing to a report by the National Partnership for Women & Families, which claims that a political agenda is “undermining women’s health care.”
One problem here. The group has a radically pro-abortion political agenda of its own. The organization—and the legislation’s sponsors—are upset with common sense protective laws that inform women about the risks of abortion. That is their real aim—to prevent women from obtaining critical information about abortion-related health risks.
And this points to the radical nature of the pro-abortion movement. It is obvious that the abortion industry and its advocates do not trust women with critical information about the medically-proven risks of abortion.
They want to declare an information blackout in abortion facilities. They want to ignore scientifically-based research showing that abortion can increase a woman’s risk of sterility, substance abuse, depression, and premature delivery of subsequent babies. If a woman knows that, she might think twice about having an abortion—and that could hurt the abortion facilities’ bottom line.
Keeping women uninformed leaves them vulnerable—weak, rather than empowered. Beware of “patient trust” legislation which may be coming to your state. It’s not about good medicine. It’s about preventing the kinds of protective laws which can help women make sound health decisions that positively impact themselves and their families.