Testimony in opposition to HB 154
Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for allowing this opportunity for the people of Idaho to speak on such an important issue.
My name is Lauren. I was born in Idaho Falls, Idaho- and raised in Egin. Usually when I tell people I am from Egin it results in them giving me a perplexed look and I then realize that 99.9% of people have no clue where Egin actually is. So I further explain that Egin is a tiny little city next to St. Anthony, a small town with one stop-light. Sometimes even then, I strike out and I end up naming Rexburg or Idaho Falls.
Representatives, it is because I have lived in a rural community, and because I believe that a woman’s zip code and her salary should not define her access to care that I stand in opposition to house bill 154.
There are three main points I would like to discuss today: first the safety of medical abortions, second the potential for telemedicine, and third the over-stepping of governmental power in an area which should remain between a woman and her doctor.
First, medical abortion practices are safe. Indeed, medical abortions have actually been found to be safer than child-birth. According to the Guttmacher Institutde, Fewer than .5% of women obtaining abortions experience complications. Mifepristone and misoprostol have been on the list of essential medicines of the World Health Organization since 2005. It is also important to note that there are more deaths from Tylenol use and Viagra prescriptions than there are deaths from “chemical” abortions. Yet despite this fact, this bill is specifically targeting medical abortion- which seems to suggest that this bill is more about decreasing access then it is about protecting women.
This brings me to my next point: Lack of access poses a greater risk to women than medical abortions. If the goal is female protection, this bill is misguided. The opportunity for telemedicine should be celebrated in Idaho, not pre-empted.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, in 2011, 95% of Idaho counties had no abortion clinic. 69% of Idaho women lived in these counties. Access to abortion clinics is already limited in our state. As it stands now, women already have to travel far distances for care. Single mothers or women with low wages may have a more difficult time accessing care when considering the prices for childcare and transportation. Thus, the opportunity for telemedicine would allow women in rural areas greater access, insuring a higher likelihood for earlier and safer terminations.
Finally, I am against this bill because it is an intrusion in the doctor-patient relationship. I am shocked that a state that prides itself on conservative values is willing to allow such an invasion on privacy and personal autonomy. This bill denies women their legal right to terminate a pregnancy safely, early, and in accordance with their health care providers’ advice. This bill doesn’t offer protection; it offers restrictions on women’s right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Additionally, I argue that it goes against the tenants of the Idaho medical consent act, which reads: “The legislature recognizes the established common law and the fundamental right of competent persons to control the decisions relating to the rendering of their medical care.” Thus, I stand in opposition to this bill because women are competent persons, capable of rendering their own health decisions. Women should be able to have the option to have a less invasive method of ending pregnancy in a setting where she is most comfortable. This bill stands as an unnecessary barrier to that decision.
It is for these reasons that I hope you vote against HB 154. Women’s access to healthcare, and her ability to render her own decisions about her reproductive health should not be a partisan issue. Access to care is a health and safety issue- with no room for political motives. Please vote for personal autonomy, vote on the facts, and vote for accessibility.