RI Legislation More Religious Than Rhode Islanders


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Religion in Rhode Island is a political force to be reckoned with, according to conventional wisdom, but reality demonstrates otherwise. The only opposition to marriage equality in the state is based on the medieval religious beliefs of a small number of Catholics and Evangelicals who somehow hold an inordinate sway over key members of our General Assembly.

Rep. Karen MacBeth has reintroduced the odious and embarrassing ultrasound bill meant to erect new barriers between a woman and her right to access legal health care. The motivation for this bill is religious, and has nothing to do with preserving women’s health.

This state of affairs is doubly ridiculous because Rhode Island is just not that religious. A Gallop Poll released yesterday  shows Rhode Island as being tied with Oregon as the fifth least religious state in the country. Only Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont are less religious.

In all, 29% of Rhode Islanders identify as very religious, 27% identify as moderately religious, and a whopping 44% identify at nonreligious. I know that the nonreligious don’t want religion warping politics and legislation in our state, and I also know that many who identify as moderately or even very religious also respect the Constitution of the United States and the sanctity of the separation of church and state.

The message to our legislators and other elected officials could not be more clear: Rhode Island is a secular state, our religious beliefs are our private concerns, and we don’t want religion in our laws.

On Choice, Rhode Island Not Far from Mississippi


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

If abortion is legal in a state, but there’s nowhere to have an abortion performed, is it really an option? This hypothetical is quickly becoming a reality for those living in Mississippi. While the situation in Rhode Island isn’t quite that dire, some female leaders here say they are saddened and frightened for the lives of women who may not be granted the same privileges and access as others in New England.

The Mississippi Case

A federal judge on July 11 ruled to temporarily block a state law that would force the sole abortion provider in the state of Mississippi to close its doors. The TRAP law requires physicians performing abortions in the state to be OB/GYN certified and to have hospital admitting privileges.

Critics say that the TRAP law was specifically crafted with the intention to close the doors of the Jackson Women’s Health Organization, where 2 of its 3 OB/GYNs are not currently qualified to access hospital privileges. Essentially this would mean the closure of the state’s only abortion provider.

Rhode Island Out of Line with Other New England States

In 2012, a nationwide report by NARAL Pro-Choice America gave Rhode Island a D+ on its “choice-related laws.” The report highlighted the Rhode Island House as “mixed-choice,” the Rhode Island Senate as “anti-choice,” and 7 anti-choice state laws.

One of those anti-choice laws is in fact a TRAP law, which specifies where abortion services may be provided.

Susan Yolen, a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood of Southern New England, said NARAL Pro-Choice America’s grade for RI was “quite out of line with other New England states” that earned marks of A (Maine and Connecticut), A- (Vermont), and B- (New Hampshire and Massachusetts). Mississippi, on the other hand, earned an F.

Current Abortion Legislation Efforts in Rhode Island

According to Yolen, of Planned Parenthood, every year for over 15 years there’s been a multifaceted bill proposed in the Rhode Island that seeks stricter mandates for abortion providers — additional counseling for patients, printed information instead of a website, and harsher penalties for physicians who do not adhere to the laws.

In January, Rep. Karen MacBeth (D-Cumberland) introduced legislation that would require a woman to review her ultrasound before the procedure is performed. Opposed to such legislation is Rep. Edith Ajello (D-Providence) who said in an interview the physician would be required to describe the ultrasound image, including the “gestational development of the fetus, the size, and the parts,” to the woman seeking an abortion. Rep. Ajello explained, “There was nothing in the legislation that allows her to say, ‘I don’t want to hear it.’”

In Rhode Island, there are already laws enforcing informed consent, which ensures women are knowledgeable about the abortion procedure and alternatives. “When legislators talk about informed consent, they are making it even more detailed,” said Rep. Ajello. “And this is unusual, in that it would be legislators putting in law how doctors practice their profession,” Rep. Ajello commented.

Low-Income Women Most Affected by Abortion Providers Shutting Down

What affect would it have on women if abortion providers were to shut down within a state?

Rep.  Ajello imagines, “abortion will become more expensive, just because of the increased travel time.  Difficulty because of the time away from home, time away from care of other children, or time away from work — making it a lot more expensive.”

Yolen added, “Think about that person without resources, the young person, the college student, the single mom, the woman who is in a battering relationship and can’t escape from home long enough from her husband’s control to really take that kind of a trip… it always hits low-income women the hardest.”

Currently, Rhode Island law does not allow insurance plans to cover abortion care for women on Medicaid or state employees. Yolen argues, although these laws are not given the title, they are certainly “traps” for women seeking an abortion.

Comparing Rhode Island and Mississippi

Rhode Island and Mississippi share significant similarities in the abortion debate as there is an increased amount of anti-abortion legislation being proposed, there are a limited number of abortion providers currently available, and both state senates are pro-life.

The big difference between the two states is that Rhode Island’s House is mixed, whereas Mississippi’s House is overwhelmingly pro-life. Rhode Island is not facing as extreme impacts against abortion because of the split between pro-choice and pro-life house members.

The multifaceted bills that pro-life activists and legislators have proposed every year for over 15 years are not gaining enough support to be passed.

In order to be certain that Rhode Island does not turn into the next Mississippi, progressive representatives are working together to create a strong presence on the legislative floor with pressure and support from community members.

Yolen said she believed legislators in Mississippi are setting themselves up to be a state where a constitutional right doesn’t apply, “you certainly do hope that it is doesn’t materialize in other states.”

Ultrasound Bill Gets State House Vetting Today


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Rep. Karen MacBeth’s ultrasound bill has already made a lot of noise in the media – including a condemnation by Nick Kristof of the New York Times – and today the House Judiciary Committee takes up the proposal. And if Committee Chairwoman Edith Ajello is any indication, legislators won’t be any kinder than has the media.

“I think it’s intrusive and unnecessary,” said Rep. Ajello, D- Providence. “We have already in law what has to happen in the procedure of an abortion including a doctor or medical staff talking with the patient … about making sure that there are alternatives to having an abortion. It really has nothing to do with medicine.”

Susan Lloyd Yolen, of Planned Parenthood, plans to testify that MacBeth’s interest in the bill are moral rather than medical.

“It is not lost on us that the sponsors of this bill are well known as opponents of abortion,” according to a draft of her prepared remarks. “The intent of this legislation is to dissuade women from choosing abortion by requiring them to listen to a description of the image of the developing fetus, even if she has chosen not to view it.”

MacBeth’s bill would require that doctors do an ultrasound on a woman before performing an abortion, and then describe the fetus to her. Doctors would be fined $100,000 for not doing so, and $250,000 for a second offense.

In this video, she talks about why she thinks it’s important to fine doctors.

Ultrasound Bill Bad Idea for Women, Dr.’s, RI


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Here at RI Future, we give the Providence Journal editorial board no small amount of grief for their reasoning and positions. But we were very pleased to see them take a strong stance against Rep. Karen MacBeth’s bill that will legislate mandatory ultrasounds for women who have decided to have an abortion.

“This approach is a very bad idea,” they wrote in their editorial on the bill this morning. “Doctors and women should be able to make these often difficult decisions with a measure of privacy, and without the cumbersome imposition of the state dictating what should be said and done. Regulations should be based on the health of patients, as much as reasonably possible, rather than on trying to enforce particular religious or moral views of politicians.”

We couldn’t agree more.

As Paula Hodges of Planned Parenthood told us when we first broke this story: “Politicians forcing doctors to use an ultrasound for political – and not medical – reasons is the very definition of government intrusion. Rhode Island lawmakers should not be interfering with personal, private medical decisions that should be best left to women and families and their doctors.”

The Projo points out, as we did last week, that doctors who don’t comply would be subject to fines starting at $100,000 and go up to $250,000. This is a ridiculously large fine, considering there is no medical issue here – only a political one. I suspect the high dollar amount is more about State House politics than anything else in that they might be able to get a few votes be negotiating down the fine.

That said, given the lack of support in the legislature for reproductive rights it might not be all that hard to win over votes on this bill. Less than a third of the Democratically-controlled General Assembly is on record as being pro-choice.

To that end, local women need everyone to let their elected officials know how they feel about this issue that seems to be doing little more than distracting government from dealing with the stuff that is really plaguing our society.

RI Called ‘Hostile’ on Pro-Choice Issues


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
A Guttmacher Institute map shows in dark red the states that it lists as "hostile" on pro-choice issues, including Rhode Island.

If it’s true, as Nancy Pelosi said recently when  she was here in Rhode Island, that the recent dust-up over reproductive freedom for women is an election year tactic, it might just prove to be a successful one in Rhode Island.

While we may like to fancy ourselves a left-leaning state, such is not the case when it comes to abortion rights.

The Guttmacher Institute, a public policy group that specializes in reproductive health, has listed Rhode Island as being the only northeastern state listed as being “hostile to abortion.” And it’s been listed that way since at least 2000. Check out these three maps to see how the country has become more hostile to abortion rights since 2000.

It’s not surprising that Rhode Island would be listed as hostile as only a third of overwhelmingly Democratic House of Representatives are on record as being pro-choice, according to Planned Parenthood of Southern New England. The Senate is even more hostile to reproductive rights, with only seven of 38 members identifying themselves as being pro-choice or 18 percent – and one of the them is Republican Dawson Hodgson of North Kingstown.

Given this, it’s no wonder Rep. Karen MacBeth’s bill that would require Rhode Island abortion doctors to perform an ultrasound and to ask the woman if she would like to see the picture might gain traction – even though it carries very high fines for doctors who don’t comply: $100,000 fine for a first offense and up to $250,00o for a second offense.

A Republican legislator who is pro-choice but doesn’t go on record for political purposes recently told me that abortion issues are losers for social liberals. Abortion politics, they said, energize only the anti-choice side of the debate.

To that end, it is no surprise that FOX News told MacBeth, she said, they are ready to report on Rhode Island if and when her bill comes up for a vote. Seeing how well economic issues are going for conservatives, they may as well try to move the debate over to social issues.

Projo Pulls Controversial Doonesbury Cartoon


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The Providence Journal not only won’t publish a controversial Doonesbury cartoon that is running this week, its editors won’t even talk about it. When I called for a comment on why Garry Trudeau’s latest cartoons, which deal with Texas’ new abortion law, wasn’t in the paper yesterday two different editors hung up on me.

First some background.

Garry Trudeau, the creator of Doonesbury, decided to take on the Texas abortion law that requires women wanting an abortion to undergo, in Trudeau’s words to the Washington Post, “a vaginal probe with a hard, plastic 10-inch wand.” As happened in 1985, the last time Trudeau took on the subject of abortion, many newspapers across the country decided not to run the cartoon.

Evidently, the Providence Journal is one of those papers. Instead of running the new, controversial stuff from Trudeau, the Projo ran repeats.

The strip (which runs all week and  you can see here) was not in the Projo this morning, so I decided to call for a comment. I explained to the features editor who I was and why I was calling and he began telling me why they weren’t running the controversial cartoon this week. Then it occurred to him that he was talking to a reporter and he literally hung up on me. I called back but it went straight to his voice mail.

So I called Deputy Executive Editor Karen Bordeleau. I had sent her an email earlier, and since we have known each other for years, she knew right away why I was calling.

“I forwarded your email to the correct person,” she said. “If they want to respond, they will get back to you.”

I began to explain to her what happened when I called someone else for a comment. She said the first person I spoke with didn’t understand he was talking to a reporter. Okay, fair enough, so I asked her another question.

“I think I am going to hang up now,” she said.

And then she did.

So now we don’t know why the Providence Journal didn’t run the cartoon. Did the publisher in Dallas instruct them not to? Did they make an independent decision here in Providence that their Rhode Island readers shouldn’t know what Trudeau thinks about Texas’ new law? Did they just think the old stuff was funnier?

Who knows. Maybe they will tell us on the editorial page later this week…

RI Mulls Pre-Abortion Ultrasound Requirement


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

You might think that legislation requiring a woman to have an ultrasound before an abortion is something that would only happen in Virginia or Texas. Well, you’d be wrong. In fact, such a bill has been put forward for the last several years in the General Assembly.

You also might think, if you are a regular reader of the New York Times, that Rhode Island’s version of the bill is equally as invasive as the one that just passed in Texas or the original one that was put forward in Virginia that caused such a commotion around the country.

Well, you’d be wrong again.

“Alabama, Kentucky, Rhode Island and Mississippi are also considering Texas-style legislation bordering on state-sanctioned rape,” wrote Nick Kristof in The Times this weekend.

“Absolutely not,” said the sponsor of Rhode Island’s  bill, Karen MacBeth, D-Cumberland, when asked if this was an accurate account of her bill.

Her bill, rather, would require a non-vaginal ultrasound. MacBeth said she informed The Times of their error.

Even without being what Kristof called “state sanctioned rape,” Planned Parenthood of Southern New England thinks the bill is a legislative overreach.

“Politicians forcing doctors to use an ultrasound for political – and not medical – reasons is the very definition of government intrusion,” Paula Hodges, the group’s Rhode Island director, said. “Rhode Island lawmakers should not be interfering with personal, private medical decisions that should be best left to women and families and their doctors.”

MacBeth, who describes herself as being “very pro life” said she has sponsored the bill for the last three sessions since Rep. Arthur “Doc” Corvese, D- Providence, asked her to sponsor it for him when she took office. The bill has not made it out of committee since then, she said.