The bill would require emergency rooms to provide information about the morning-after pill, or Plan B, to rape victims and give victims the drug upon request. When the bill came up for a vote (after taking six years to get that far) Rep. Vos, R-Racine, tried -- but failed -- to amend it to allow hospitals and their employees to opt out of providing the so-called morning-after pill on moral or religious grounds and require hospitals to notify the parents of minors under age 16 before they got the pill. Supporters contend the bill will help prevent unwanted pregnancies; critics liken the drug to abortion.
Vos voted against the bill, which nonetheless passed the Assembly on Dec. 12 by a 56-41 vote. It goes to the Senate this month.
After almost two weeks' delay at the Journal Times (attributed to an editor's holiday vacation) the newspaper told the letter writers: "We do not publish letters that appear to be like petitions." The newspaper offered to run the letter with one signature, but this was unsatisfactory to the women who signed it. Here, after the jump, is their letter, and the names of the women who signed it.
To the editor:
Imagine you are a woman who has just been brutally raped. Terrorized and battered, you enter the emergency room for care. Fearing disease or pregnancy, you ask the doctor for emergency contraception in case the unthinkable has happened. The attending physician tells you that he or she will not provide you emergency contraception based on their own personal moral or religious beliefs. The person who has sworn an oath to medically treat you has just said no to you in your most vulnerable moment as a woman and as a patient.
State Representative Robin Vos thinks this is not just reasonable, but on December 12th, he aggressively attempted to amend AB377 Compassionate Care for Rape Victims Bill to do just that. Perhaps, Robin Vos would have rape victims go from hospital to hospital looking for help or be forced to have an abortion later if pregnancy occurs as a result of sexual assault. How very compassionate he is indeed.
Each year approximately 1.2 million women are raped. It has taken six years for the Compassionate Care for Rape Victims Act to pass both the Wisconsin Senate and House of Representatives and yet there are those like Robin Vos who not only voted against it, but sought to deny rape victims medical care.
We don’t know exactly who Robin Vos thinks he represents, but as women and Racine County constituents, he does not represent us. The women of Wisconsin deserve better.
Signed by: Kelly Gallaher; Gabriella Klein; Carol Olson; Mary Gallaher; Debra Hall; Janet M. LeSuer; Nancy Holmlund; Katie Simenson; Jennifer Levie; Miriam Bugnacki; B.J. Dent; Dorothy Feeney; Linda Flashinski; Jane Witt; Sharon Erwin; Tamerin Hayward; Nancy Hennessy; Jill Rakauski; Pat Kardas; Meg Andrietsch; Patricia Ehlert; Mary Kedzie; Marcia Vlach Colsmith; Barbara Hardy; Betty Larsen; Mary Catherine Cashion; Sandra Pendell; Cindy Timmel; Betty Brenneman; Mercedes Dzindzeleta; Michelle McCarthy; Colleen Patterson
Here is the correspondence one of the letter writers had with The Journal Times:
From: kelly gallaher
To: Chris Bennett
Sent: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 8:20 pm
Subject: RE: Letter to the Editor
Chris,
Thank you for you reply. I am confused by the word "petition". Since the letter does not make any request, which is the definition of a petition, I do not see how it can be interpreted in such a way. I could have easily produced 50 or 100 signers who feel the exact same way as the original 31, but since the Journal Times gave virually no coverage of this vote or Mr. Vos' actions to subvert it, I doubt you are aware of the strong outrage by local women at his actions. The Capital Times and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal have accepted it as is with all the signatures.
I read your letter requirements and believed that we had followed your own instructions. I respect your right to deny printing this letter as it was intended, but it is a disappointment. This letter passed from friend to friend over 48 hours and it demonstrates the groundswell of disapproval for the actions of a State Representative who won't stand to defend the rights of rape victims from his own district!
Thirty one women who sought to speak out on behalf of rape victims signed this letter, but you'll only print one name? Why is one angry woman acceptable, but 31 too much? Perhaps it is a logic only someone like Mr. Vos can understand.
I would like you to add one final sentance to the letter signed by me that reads:
"Thirty other local women also signed this letter, but the Editor declined to print their names."
Sincerely,
Kelly Gallaher
Subject: RE: Letter to the Editor
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 17:37:19 -0600
From: Chris.Bennett
To: kkgallaher
Kelly:
We’re not going to publish this letter with 31 signatures, according to Editor Steve Lovejoy. We do not publish letters that appear to be like petitions.
We will publish the letter with your signature.
I was out of the office over the holidays, which is why I did not respond sooner.
Thank you.
CMB
From: Kelly Gallaher
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 10:32 AM
To: Chris Bennett
Subject: Letter to the Editor
Chris,
I am resubmitting my letter to the editor originally sent on December 21st. I have made one small change that reflects a reference to the date of the vote.
On behalf of the women who have also signed this letter, we believe it to be newsworthy and accurate. If there is a problem in the format or if you have any questions I am more than eager to assist you so that we may see it published.
Thank you for your time.
Kelly Gallaher
No comments:
Post a Comment