Friday, February 25, 2011

Bill Critique Continued

Now for the rest of the bill.

Section 4: Now this point has been made multiple times, including at the state capital when this bill was proposed in front of the committee.

Let's say you went to go buy just a plain old cheeseburger at a fast food resteraunt. You go up to the counter knowing what you want, but before you ask for the burger the cash register lady gives you a menu with the following: "We do not sell indian food, pizza, fettuccini alfredo, frog legs, wines, beer, or any order in the realm of the disgusting besides Doctor Pepper. We do not provide anything other than food and beverages. We do not..." You get the point. Not only that, you noticed on the way in a ridiculous poster on the wall with the entire menu of what they DO provide, eventhough it's clearly visible above the counter. On top of that, the poster is in six or seven different languages.

Section 5: These precautionary measures can be beneficial, but again, what is the reason to enforce them by law if Care Net did not violate them?

Section 6: If none of the previous sections have made your blood boil, this one should. If this section passes Care Net will likely go bankrupt in a matter of months. Notice that there aren't any provisions defending Care Net. And it wouldn't matter if these same ridiculous figures were required of Planned Parenthood to pay because of its multi-million dollar industry. Care Net on the other hand is non-profit.

Section 7: This is a small taste of politics. Of course, if pro-abortionists don't get all that they want, at least they'll get some or most of it.

Section 8: For those of you who are wondering, Title 70 RCW is a title on Washington State public health and safety.

Now it's very likely that this bill will not pass the House and Senate. It is so badly written and "full of holes" that pro-abortionists would have a tough time supporting it. Problem is, they'll just make a new one next year, and the next year, and the next year, until something does pass. So the battle isn't over even if this bill is struck down.

Thursday, February 24, 2011

Faulty Premise=Faulty Bill

I have an article below this one summarizing House Bill 1366. If I missed anything important let me know (I actually have a copy of it). Don't read this article until you've read the bill.



Now to look at each section of House Bill 1366 in a little more detail.

Section 1: Notice that limited service pregnancy centers is a universal concept. If I were to introduce a new pregnancy service provider but only have half the recources or services as Planned Parenthood, I would have to undergo the following restrictions/applications as Care Net if this bill and others like it were to pass. Notice also that abortion providers like Planned Parenthood or abortion promoters like NAF (national abortion federation) have subtly set themselves as the pregnancy service standard. Why? Because PP supposedly isn't "limited." Nowhere in this bill do PP or other aboriton providers have to undergo the same requirements.

Section 2: I agree that Health Care is important and that private information must be protected, but here's the problem. "Some limited service pregnancy centers have misled people about the nature of their services and improperly used patient health care information." This is a direct quote. Now I as an observer would like to know HOW limited service pregnancy centers (LSPC's) have deserved this accusation. Be specific! Understand that this is THE premise for the entire bill. It could just as well have read, "Since some LSPC's have misled people about their services and improperly used patient health care information, they must..." And another thing, notice the big word "some." Are there any LSPC's in particular they would care to mention?

"Limited pregnancy centers operating in WA state must provide truthful information about services they offer and properly respect a person's health care information." I love hypocritical statements like these. Have you seen the youtube video a couple articles below this one? It would be a nice thing to check up on.

Section 3: These are definitions applied to the rest of the bill.

1. "Comprehensive birth control services" means the medical evaluation and care related to the prescription or provision of contraceptive drugs/devices, and includes the provision of nondirective counseling on methods and efficacy of contraception, and the prescription or provision of contraceptive drugs or devices." Blahblahblah.

2. "Limited service pregnancy center" means an organization that advertises, offers, or provides pregnancy tests/ultrasounds, and information about adoption or abortion, whether for a fee or as a free service, but does not provide the following: prenatal medical care, comprehensive birth control services, and abortion or referrals for abortion. "LSPC" does not include health care entities licensed under Title 18 RCW, hospitals and entities licensed under Title 70 RCW, or health care providers licensed under Title 18 RCW. A LSPC remains subject to provisions of this chapter notwithstanding the presence of a licensed health care provider in the governance of, on the staff of, or acting as a volunteer with the LSPC. Whew! Told you I couldn't summarize it!

3. "Primary languages" means the most frequently spoken languages in the county in which the LSPC is located, and includes at a minimum English, Spanish, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Laotian, and Chinese. (This part about "primary languages" is particularly important for future reference.)

Okay, why am I listing all of this for you? It's to show how these people target limited service pregnancy centers specifically. Once they are sure that LSPC's are misguiding people, they are very detailed in their requirements. We'll proceed with the next sections shortly.

Sunday, February 13, 2011

Care Net Crisis

House Bill 1366 is the newest approach pro-abortionists have taken action against our Care Net centers. The issues in this particular bill are being debated upon in our state of Washington, but there are many forms of it circulating around the country. I have the bill right here in front of me and I will try my very best to summarize it for you.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
Section 1: This chapter may be known and cited as the limited service pregnancy center accountability act.

Section 2: Seeking or obtaining health care is fundamental to public health and safety; Health care information is personal and if improperly used may do significant harm to the patient; and some limited service pregnancy centers have misled people about the nature of their services and improperly used patient health care information.

Limited pregnancy centers operating in WA state must provide truthful information about services they offer and properly respect a person's health care information.

Section 3: (This section is beyond my ability to summarize without rewriting it in its entirety. It provides definitions used in the rest of the bill, which we will cover in a later article.)
Section 4: A limited service pregnancy center shall make the following disclosures to those who seek services: 1. a)doesn't provide abortion/birth control services; b)does not give referrals to abortion providers/birth control services; c) does not provide medical care for pregnant women. 2. they must also provide verbally and in writing information about their services in all primary languages, thirty-point font size +, on eight and one-half inch by eleven inch paper +, posted inside and outside the building. 3. a LSPC (limited service pregnancy center) shall inform visitor that the pregnancy test is an over-the-counter product and may be self-administered.
Section 5: 1. A LSPC may not disclose health care information to any but the owner without recipient's written authorization. 2. A LSPC shall provide person tested with a free written statement of pregnancy test results in English and in the person's primary language immediately after completion of the test. 3. A LSPN shall provide a recipient's recorded health care information if requested for examination or copying, and inform recipient if it does not have said information.
Section 6: 1. Any person aggrieved by a violation of this bill may bring a civil action against a LSPC in SUPERIOR COURT to enjoin violations, recover damages sustained, together with costs of the suit and reasonable attorneys' fees. The court may, in its discretion, increase the award of damages to an amound not to exceed THREE TIMES the actual damages sustained. For the purpose of this section, "person" includes counties or other municipalities. 2. The court may in addition to damages impose on a liable party a civil fine of one thousand dollars max. to be paid to the plaintiff.
Section 7: If any part of this act is held invalid the remainder of the act is not affected.
Section 8: Section 1-7 of this act constitute a new chapter in Title 70 RCW.
House Bill 1366 passed the Committee on Health Care & Wellness Thursday Feb. 10, 2011. I assume it will now be debated in the House.