Reps clarify 'misinformation' on abortion bill

By Tessa Roy
Posted 2/23/17

By TESSA ROY Representatives Joseph McNamara, Evan Shanley, and David Bennett are speaking up after a reproductive rights bill they co-sponsored came under fire from pro-life leaders and activist groups. The Reproductive Health Care Act (H5343) was

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in

Reps clarify 'misinformation' on abortion bill

Posted

Representatives Joseph McNamara, Evan Shanley, and David Bennett are speaking up after a reproductive rights bill they co-sponsored came under fire from pro-life leaders and activist groups.

The Reproductive Health Care Act (H5343) was introduced by Representative Edith Ajello in response to concerns that the 44-year-old Supreme Court decision Roe vs. Wade could be overturned in the future. The bill’s text reads: “Neither the state, nor any of its agencies, or political subdivisions shall: Interfere with a woman's decision to prevent, commence, continue, or terminate a pregnancy provided the decision is made prior to fetal viability; Restrict the use of medically recognized methods of contraception or abortion; or restrict the manner in which medically recognized methods of contraception or abortion are provided.”

It goes on to define “fetal viability” as the "stage of gestation where the attending physician, taking into account the particular facts of the case, has determined that there is a reasonable likelihood of the fetus' sustained survival outside of the womb."

The bill was met with outcry from pro-life proponents in the state. Rev. Bernard Healey, Director of the Rhode Island Catholic Conference, released a lengthy statement on February 2 expressing the Conference’s intense opposition.

“This proposed legislation is a radical attempt to remove all state regulation from the unethical and questionable practices of abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood and the Kermit Gosnells of the Ocean State. Removing this regulation by the state disregards the health and safety of thousands of women and children in Rhode Island,” the statement said in part. “The RI Catholic Conference stands opposed to the proposed legislation that radically changes RI State Law to allow for unregulated and unrestricted abortion on demand. This extremist legislation is a direct attack upon defenseless and innocent human life and allows the abortion industry to be left unregulated and unrestricted. Human life must be protected and respected in the law at every stage, most especially from the moment of conception.”

Daniel Trafford, a publicist at the Legislative Press and Public Information Bureau, also said many messages regarding the bill were put into church bulletins.

Furthermore, an ad released by Rhode Island Right to Life (it can be seen in the February 16 issue of the Beacon) specifically singled out McNamara, Shanley, and Bennett. The ad claimed the bill “amounts to a virtually complete deregulation of the local abortion industry,” adding that it would “prohibit the state from banning any method of abortion,” “strike down informed consent requirements,” and potentially put abortion providers beyond the Department of Health’s regulatory oversight. The last claim was one similarly expressed by House Minority Leader Patricia Morgan in a statement she released to The Rhode Island Catholic.

McNamara, Shanley and Bennett refuted “misinformation” regarding the bill in a joint statement on released on Monday. In the statement, McNamara reported receiving emails and seeing materials (perhaps referring to the Right to Life ad) that suggest the bill would allow for “unregulated and unrestricted abortion on demand.”

“This is simply untrue. Rather, it would safeguard the concept that medical decisions are between a patient, her physician and her family. It also preserves the medical and legal concept of 'fetal viability'" he said.

Bennett said the same claims were “nonsense” as the bill states in its text that abortions could not be performed after the point of fetal viability.

"Roe vs. Wade has been the norm and the law for more than 40 years. It is a well-established precedent, and we want to ensure that it will continue being the law in Rhode Island, regardless of what happens in Washington,” he said.

Shanley said he appreciated hearing concerns from those alarmed by the “false information” surrounding the bill, but was unhappy with those he said “knowingly” put the information out in the first place. Assertions that the bill would radically alter Rhode Island’s existing state law are “untrue and irresponsible,” he said.

“It would not affect existing state law,” Shanley said. “It would not change the requirement of parental consent for minors, nor would it change anything related to the licensing of health care facilities."

The statement ends by saying McNamara, Shanley, and Bennett would be “happy to address the concerns of any constituents regarding the legislation,” and that they are open to changing language in the bill to prevent misinterpretation.

Trafford said that though 7 of the bill’s 37 original co-sponsors have dropped their names, Shanley, Bennett, and McNamara have not. He also clarified, like Shanley had said, that the three are opposed to “misinformation” being spread about the bill, not concerns raised by residents.

Comments

2 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here

  • davebarry109

    McNamara, Shaley.....Catholics in name only. Shame. If you are interested in educating us and would be 'happy' to address our concerns, PERHAPS YOU COULD RESPOND TO YOUR EMAIL. Dolts. See you in church Joe.

    Thursday, February 23, 2017 Report this

  • DanElliott

    All due respect to the three progressive Democrats here championing this bill, I didn't see any misinformation that was proven as dishonest or false. I've heard from several of my family and friends that they are concerned about this bill. The one point I have heard repeated is that women already have plenty of options, so why is there a need to expand abortions in Rhode Island and remove oversight protections?

    This bill removes all abortion oversight by the State of Rhode Island and its health regulatory agencies. It gives the abortion clinic police powers over themselves. The abortionist, not the Dept of Health or any other State authority, decides whether they are performing a lawful procedure by considering "fetal viability.". Fetal viability by definition provides no sharp limit of development, age, or weight at which a human fetus automatically becomes viable. There are generally accepted success percentages at different development milestones, but ultimately and FOR LEGAL PURPOSES, " fetal viability" is a declaration (an opinion) of the abortionist. In removing the protections of State regulators oversight, no one has any authority under law to question the abortionists determination of existence of fetal viability. The abortionist now has the power to approve an abortion at any day in the pregnancy, and there's no limit on how late in the pregnancy an abortion would be permitted. Its ALL up to the doctor under this bill.

    I stand in opposition to this bill. I think a majority of the people of Warwick do as well.

    Dan Elliott

    Greenwood

    Sunday, February 26, 2017 Report this