Final Thoughts

As described in our political action plan, we have contacted through email the key stakeholders that we have identified for HB 986. Currently, we have not received any responses from these stakeholders. We hope to hear from them soon because they will be greatly impacted by this bill. As future nurses, we believe that Chief Patron S. Chris Jones should provide us professional understanding about this bill and how he feels this will impact our patients and their families.

We will keep you updated about future developments of this bill and the responses from our stakeholders.

The National Abortion Federation on Unsafe Abortions

There is not very much information on the National Abortion Federation website that strictly pertains to this bill that intends on making unsafe abortions a felony. It did, however, provide information about New York passing a bill last year to prevent harassment of abortion clinics (Saparta, 2009).

This blog has not yet explored the impact of abortion clinic harassment on the women who seek abortion. There may be a significant amount of women who chose the unsafe route because they want to avoid the harassment and embarrassment of protesters and pro-life advocates. If it is found that many women who seek abortions either rethink getting an abortion or, even worse, seek out an unsafe abortion, maybe it would be more beneficial for Virginia to pass a similar bill to the one the New York passed (Saporta, 2009). The more protection, assistance, and options we give to women who seek abortions, the more likely they will be to chose the safer option.

Saporta, V. (04/06/2009). New York City Council Passes Clinic Protection Bill. Retrieved from http://prochoice.org/blog/labels.safety.html.

Key Stakeholders Rationale

The Harrisonburg Pregnancy Center is identified as a key stakeholder because this bill directly affects their clientele population. If this bill were to be passed, it would have an effect on their services and how they implement their care and education to clients. It also deals with clients in the region of Harrisonburg and Rockingham County, an area that has been rising in teen pregnancy rates. This center serves as a crucial asset to teen moms who need advice and counseling during their pregnancies and their services and resources are probably used often.

S. Chris Jones is a key stakeholder because he is the chief patron of the bill.

The National Abortion Federation (NAF) is identified as a key stakeholder because it supports a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy or not. The mission of NAF is to ensure safe, legal and accessible abortion care to promote health and justice for women. If this bill were to be passed it would also have an impact on the clientele of this organization. By forcing abortion to be done by a medical professional in order to be considered legal, the clientele of organizations like NAF would probably increase.

Status of the bill:
After being offered to the House on 1/13/10, the bill was then referred to the Committee for the Courts of Justice. About a month later on 2/16/10, it then left the Courts of Justice.

Key Stakeholders

The key stakeholders we identified are:

The Harrisonburg Pregnancy Center

Phone: (540) 434-7528

Email: info@hburgpc.org

Website: http://www.hburgpc.org/index.html

Delegate S. Chris Jones (R) - House District 76

Phone: (804) 698-1076
(757) 483-6242
Email: DelCJones@house.virginia.gov

Website: http://www.schrisjones.com/

National Abortion Federation

Phone: 202-667-5881

Email: naf@prochoice.org

Website: http://prochoice.org/default.htm

Political Action Plan

As a group, we have chosen not support this bill because their is a lack of guidelines on what determines pregnancy, and intentional abortion versus miscarriage and unintentional abortion. This could also make abortion clinics harder to access to women and potentially become more expensive. We think that instead of having a harsh penalty for abortion, there should be more education and resources for women in schools and in low-income communities. There is a increased health risk for women who choose not to seek medical attention after unintentional and intentional abortions in fear of being charged with a class 4 felony.

The steps that we took to develop our political action plan include:

• Seeking information and relevant legislature on the topic from the National Abortion Federation and other organizations.
• Identified key stakeholder that are affected by a change in the policy
• Wrote to congressman supporting the bill and a therapist from a local pregnancy center

"Congressional attacks on reproductive rights have intensified in recent years, and opponents of choice continue to introduce legislation that would restrict access to safe abortion for low-income women and teens, promote political agendas over sound medical science, and interfere with the physician-patient relationship. Pro-choice advocates are also seeking new opportunities to expand access to abortion care and family planning services and to ensure that women receive comprehensive, medically accurate information."

Source: www.prochoice.org

Political Influence

The political influences seemed to be geared to the right side of the political spectrum. It also appears that this bill is geared toward the pro-life argument. After finding out that Chris Jones is a republican, it is clear to see why he would feel so strongly to pass this bill.

However, if Chris Jones is pro-life, it is interesting that he has a pharmacology degree. I cannot help to think that politics are the fuel for this bill. With the implications and the health risks that come along with this bill, one would think that someone with a strong medical background would not support something that could potentially make someone feel as though they could not seek medical care. This is why this bill has to have been influenced by politics.

If this bill were to be passed, there would be a lot more ammunition given to the pro-life cause that could potentially act as a catalyst to the the pro-life movement. The end result could lead to strengthening the Republican party and a weakening of the pro-choice movement. All of these things raise the question; Is this bill for the protection of women or is this an attempt to get more power back into the Republican party?

Government Objectives:

It is reported that "every year, twenty million—mostly poor—women around the world are driven to unsafe abortion. More than 95% of these abortions occur in low-income countries. And every year, complications from these procedures claim the lives of some 70,000 women. Untold millions more suffer serious injuries and permanent disabilities." With Pro-Choice and Pro Life in constant dispute there are no laws in effect to punish those who unsafe practices as a means of abortion. The "global gag rule, a U.S. government policy that prevents foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that receive family planning assistance from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) from advocating for or providing abortion-related services, even with their own, non-U.S. government resources."