If you had an abortion in Missouri between 2010 and 2015, you’re on Missouri State Senator Kurt Schaefer’s hit list.

Schaefer, a Republican, demanded that  Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region turn over the list. He made the same demand of a St. Louis-area pathologist.

Schaefer’s excuse? He’s “investigating” those already-proven-bogus allegations that Planned Parenthood sells fetal tissues for profit.  Missouri’s Attorney General has already examined those charges against Planned Parenthood, and found no wrongdoing. Not to mention that the creator of the maliciously edited videos circulated to “prove” the case has been indicted in Houston, TX for creating the misleading videos.

Need I mention that a federal law passed in 1996 sets up strict guidelines for healthcare facilities and providers to protect the private of patients’ healthcare records? It’s a well-known law called HIPAA. And should Schaefer try to say that Planned Parenthood should be exempt from HIPAA protections, he’d be contradicting his party’s own view of Planned Parenthood. In other actions related to Planned Parenthood, Republican lawmakers have made it clear that they view Planned Parenthood as a medical facility. They’ve insisted on a vast range of changes that generally apply to healthcare facilities: hospital-admitting privileges for doctors performing abortions, ambulances on call, hospital-like hallways and driveways. There’s no question that HIPAA applies.

But none of these things has stopped Schaefer. He has not specified what he would do if he got the names, but it’s a scary prospect. One can imagine the abortion-shaming that would follow. And make no mistake, previous actions by Missouri Republican lawmakers demonstrate that they are quite capable and willing to go to extremes.

A St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial called this latest Republican gambit “a thinly veiled effort to expose the identities of abortion patients as a means of shaming and discouraging other women from exercising their constitutional rights.”

We can only hope that Schaefer is not really serious about this strategy: After all, he’s running for Missouri Attorney General, so attacking Planned Parenthood is good for arousing the base.  And one would expect cooler legal heads to prevail in the courts when this outrageous demand is challenged.

So far, Schaefer has not backed down, and he’s supported by the Missouri Senate’s Rules and Ethics committee, which last week approved a resolution to compel Planned Parenthood’s CEO to “appear before the whole Senate to explain why they should not be punished for failing to comply with the demand.”

He has threatened the CEO of Planned Parenthood with “contempt,” if she does not produce the desired list. That’s pretty ironic. What’s really contemptible is Schaefer’s behavior.

The post MO legislator wants names of women who’ve had an abortion appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Abortion opponents often like to dwell on minutia, such as whether or not Planned Parenthood profits from making embryonic organs available for life-saving research. If not that, then they like to have absolute answers to esoteric questions like what is the meaning of life. What most opponents of abortion do not do very well is to look at abortion as a vexing problems that challenges the mind and heart of any woman facing an unplanned, or even unwanted, pregnancy. Pro-choice supporters seem to have more empathy for the mother. And that is certainly needed, since there are few times in life when any individual faces a more difficult question than whether or not to terminate a pregnancy.

We are becoming more and more aware that one of the defining differences between progressives and conservatives is where they fall on the empathy continuum. There is clearly an empathy gap with progressives not only feeling far more than conservatives, but also looking for societal responses to aid those among us who need help..

Driven in part by a lack of empathy towards a woman facing a reproductive choice, conservatives have succeeded in making it much more difficult for American women, particularly those who are not wealthy, to have access to abortion facilities. First, they barred most hospitals that receive federal money from performing abortions, thus eliminating the most logical and convenient venue for a woman seeking an out-patient procedure where she could discuss and possibly terminate a pregnancy. Next, conservatives made the licensing of abortion facilities much more difficult and expensive than they were immediately following the Roe v Wade decision in 1973. Currently, six states have only one clinic providing safe, legal abortions (Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming). Combined with parental permission regulations, what is a fifteen year old pregnant girl to do if she becomes pregnant (possibly from someone living in her own household) and she lives miles from a clinic?

Most clinics, especially those run by Planned Parenthood, will not provide abortion services without first discussing options with the pregnant woman. The three options are (a) carrying the pregnancy to term, with the biological mother keeping the child, (b) carrying the pregnancy to term and placing the child for adoption, or (c) terminating the pregnancy. These are difficult decisions. Planned Parenthood tries not to overload pregnant women with arguments based on emotion and laced with guilt. Planned Parenthood respects the minds and hearts of the women who seek their services, offering comfort and supportive discussion as a woman moves towards a decision.

Organizations like Medical Students for Choice see abortion as part of mainstream medicine. As such, there should be a sufficient number of OB/GYNs trained to perform abortions. The doctors need support staff to help women with their decisions, and facilities should certainly be as numerous as there are fully-staffed hospitals in the community.

Conservatives drive our attention to superfluous considerations. By distracting us from the real needs of women, they allow the conversation to become vitriolic and accusatory. Empathy is thrown out the window. One could reasonably argue that progressives have more empathy for the fetus than opponents of abortion, because progressives support a lifelong safety-net for the child.

There are many reasons why a woman might seek an abortion. Who are we as society to judge which, if any, reasons are good and which are not? What we as a society can do is to be compassionate and understanding.That includes removing barriers to facilities where a woman can peacefully make her decision.

Those who are pro-choice need to move the conversation away from innocuous secret videos to the real concerns of women facing unplanned or unwanted pregnancies. As we do so, we must also make a variety of birth control available to women and men. We will show how much we value life by how much we value the quality of life.

Clinics that perform abortions are in the cross-hairs of those who oppose choice. These clinics must quietly go about their business and not engage in rhetoric, even dialogue that can inflame opponents of abortion. That is why those of us who are pro-choice, and who are not associated with a choice clinic, have a special obligation to advance the conversation by focusing on the real issues rather than the distractions.

The post Abortion: Focusing on the real issues, not the distractions appeared first on Occasional Planet.