|Posterized lege bio photo|
The article referred to in this post is several days old now, but the bill being discussed was recently passed by both of the houses of the legislature, and it's currently sitting on the governor's desk.
The situation is a wonderful example of the junior high debate and theatrics society often referred to as the "Republican-controlled Minnesota House of Representatives."
This bill would require that a woman would have to have two in-office visits with a physician to take the abortion-inducing RU-486: one to get he prescription, and one, apparently, to make sure she puts it in her mouth and not in her ear -- or, heaven forfend, up her nose.
"Simple women's health measure," says Rep. Joyce Peppin, Republican from Rogers, and author of the bill.
Baloney, replies Tina Liebling, DFLer from Rochester. RU-486 is safer than Viagra and Tylenol, and you don't need a doctor present to pop one of those in your mouth. It's just another transparent effort to limit access to a constitutional right. If there were going to be side effects, they would occur long after the woman washed down the pill with a glass of water and left the doctor's office, anyway.
Whereupon, Duane Quam, the Cicero from House District 29A, wherever that is, rises and says comparing RU-486 to Tylenol trivializes his wife's miscarriage.
I'm sorry that happened Duane, I really am, but this is what is called a non sequitur. The issue was whether the RU-486 pill is dangerous and requires extra medical supervision; plainly it does not. Liebling remarks were right on the point: women's health. Yours were wildly disconnected.
But bless your heart Duane; by being honest, you really did give up the game:
"My wife and I lost our first child through a miscarriage early in the pregnancy," Quam said. "Some of us ... believe that each occasion (RU-486 is used), there is a death. That is why I believe this is not a trivial prescription for Tylenol or anything else. That's where I'm voting on this, is from that conviction and belief."