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."

The Impact of Policy Change

If this law were to be in effect, it will have an impact on the larger scope of health care. Abortion clinics, gynecological offices, and hospitals can potentially face a larger amount of patients coming in to receive an abortion under their care. Since a huge barrier that keeps pregnant females from doing a medical abortion could be cost and accessibility, there may be more motivation to try to find ways to get an abortion in a clinic in order to avoid getting penalized. However, if cost and accessibility still gets in the way for pregnant females, there may be further action taken to produce an abortion through their own means and still try to avoid the penalty. As for health care systems, they may make the option of abortion more accessible to patients, possibly at a lower and reasonable cost. More awareness programs to promote abstinence, contraception, and other options to abortion such as adoption may increase to be directed towards pregnant females as well. Nurses can incorporate these options and more awareness and teaching on abortion to their patients' plans of care. Pregnant females may take this teaching more into consideration because of the penalty put in place.

In the article entitled “Legal Barriers to Second Trimester Abortion Provision and Public Health Consequences,” laws that make it difficult for a woman to get an abortion during the second trimester have a negative impact on the pregnant female and the physicians’ practice. One point that was made in this article is that the enforcement of a law would not change the fact that many women delay abortions because of many factors, such as: cost and access barriers, late detection of pregnancy, and difficulty determining whether to keep the pregnancy(Jones, & Weitz, 2009). Hopefully this new bill, which holds the pregnant female responsible for her actions, will motivate her to seek the prompt care of a medical professional. It is also expected that physicians and nurses will encourage their patients to seek their care and educate them. Although the rising costs of abortions coupled with the constant influx of new regulations is not an incentive for someone of low socioeconomic status to want to seek a legal form of abortion, the threat of a felony hopefully will prompt her to seek medical guidance.

Jones, BS, & Weitz, TA. (2009). Legal barriers to second trimester abortion provision and public health consequences. 99(4), Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=13&hid=11&sid=949f0dbf-9c41-443a-9c6f-8b09cf443d11%40sessionmgr11

Summary of HB 986:

Producing abortion or miscarriage; penalty. Provides that any person, including the pregnant female, who administers to, or causes to be taken by, a pregnant female, any drug or other thing, or uses means with intent to destroy her unborn child, or to produce abortion or miscarriage, and thereby destroys such child or produces such abortion or miscarriage, is guilty of a Class 4 felony. The bill excepts medically approved contraceptives or legally prescribed medication as a means of producing abortion or miscarriage. Current law does not with specificity include the pregnant female as a possible perpetrator.

Potential issues concerning this bill include:

• Determining what is an intentional abortion or miscarriage depending on circumstances.
• Determining guidelines for unintentional abortions due to lack of knowledge of pregnancy.
• Who exactly determines guidelines for an intentional abortion or miscarriage.
• Abortions may become less available and more expensive, potentially allowing more abortion bills to get passed through more in the pro-life favor.
• Determining whether the consequences of committing a non-medical abortion will influence women decision to do it.
• The potential health risk for women due to not seeking proper medical attention in fear of being charged with a felony.
• Determining differentiation between medical and non-medical abortion because of same end result but different consequences.
• Stigma and life consequences that women are left with following penalty.