The Internet brouhaha over this insane piece of proposed legislation in Virginia has started to reach a fevered pitch, and rightly so. Getupgrrl and this article by Maura at DailyKos argue far more eloquently than I ever could about how obscenely offensive and appalling this bill truly is. However, I have a few points I would still like to make regarding this issue.
I feel compelled to respond to the points raised by the few dissenters who have apparently taken the position that this bill is pretty harmless. So here it is in no particular order.
1. Does anyone really think that this bill will actually pass? This bill is no different from any other piece of junk legislation that quickly dies a quiet death.
It is true that plenty of legislators introduce ridiculous bills all the time, and that these bills do not make it into law. We've all seen that School House Rock bit about how a bill becomes a law and it's true that bills have a long way to go before they actually become law. On the other hand, plenty of laws make it through committee and onto the President or Governor's desk after someone secrets them away in another piece of legislation. While it's also true that many states have legislative rules in place that seeks to prevent this kind of situation from occurring, I must admit that I don't know if Virginia also has such a law. In the end, I do think that any legislator that is crafty and resourceful enough can find ways to still make their proposed legislation see the light of day and official codification into law.
2. This bill was only proposed to clear the way for a more watered-down version that will probably still not pass and become law.
This may in fact be true. I can't see into the mind of Mr. Cosgrove, the delegate who proposed this bill, but I wouldn't be surprised if this is in the back of his mind. Either way, we still need to be vigilant and make sure that neither this version or a weaker incarnation of this bill ever becomes the law in any state. Because either way, it intrudes into the personal sphere for reasons that are completely unrelated to achieving its stated goal of preventing "trash can" babies from being discarded with impunity.
A quick perusal of Mr. Cosgrove's website reveals that this community college grad is not a board certified Maternal Fetal Medicine physician, nor has he completed law school, passed the bar exam, or been admitted to the bar in the great state of Virginia (or any other state for that matter.) Legislating medical issues is always a dangerous thing when it is done by non-physicians, and I submit to you that any version of this crappy legislation will not be grounded in sound medical principles, because it is obvious that the drafter(s) is completely ignorant of how human conception and the miscarriage really work.
It's also shockingly obvious that Mr. Cosgrove's knowledge of Constitutional rights is severely lacking, because this bill violates the fundamental principles of the Constitution that he has sworn to uphold. As someone else somewhere in cyberspace has already pointed out, Virginia's safe haven law does not require that a woman who surrenders her child to the authorities give any personal identifying information, let alone the specific medical information that must be disclosed under this law.
3. Who cares about some law in Virginia that doesn't affect me in my own state?
If only it were this simple. However, the simple truth is that this law would only pave the way for legislators in our own states to try and whittle away at our right to control our own persons and to keep the government out of issues that should remain within the purview of the physician/patient relationship. This law would create a precedent (assuming that it would not be struck down in the courts, which I still hope would eventually occur) that your or my state court may then rely on in upholding such legislation. The next thing you know, arguments to the U.S. Supreme Court will also point to the precedential value of these individual state laws in support of these laws that seek to diminish the scope of our Constitutional rights and rights under HIPAA. In law school I was introduced to the concept of the slippery slope, and (whether one agrees with this argument vehicle or not) this certainly seems to take us down that slippery road where our rights are eroded like dominoes slowly falling in succession.
4. Everyone keeps talking about how traumatic miscarriage is for the women having one, doesn't this undermine the pro-choice position?
No.
To imply in any way that a women should not have to right to choose because so many women have mourned a miscarriage is paternalistic and insulting. For one thing, the loss of miscarriage and the loss of termination are not necessarily the same thing. I'm sure that the vast majority of women who do exercise their right to terminate a pregnancy have thought through their decision thoroughly. I also wouldn't doubt that they mourn their choice and that some may eventually regret the choice she made. But in the end this argument leads to the untenable position that a person's Constitutional rights can and should be violated so that the government can save her from herself. It doesn't work that way for a reason, and this bill only proves that no women should take for granted her fundamental right to control her own body.
Despite the complacency that so many seem to have that access to safe, legal (and yes, hopefully rare) abortion is secure, this bill once again reveals how those in power are actively seeking to abridge this right and generally stick their noses in our personal business. I also believe that it's also a cautionary tale about an arrogant and uneducated individual who is only motivated by his political aspirations yet who has somehow found his way into a position of significant power.
