We now have two meetings scheduled.
May 7th @ 2:30 p.m. with the Department of Health. Specifically, Mike Landen and Donna Dossey of Vital Statistics.
May 16th @ 11 a.m. with our opponents and supporters. So far Planned Parenthood (Marta Edmands), the Southwest Women's Law Center (Jane Wishner), the Coalition for Choice (Joan Sanford), and the MISS Foundation (Joanne Cacciatore, via conference call) have all agreed to come. We have invited Rep. Keith Gardner and NARAL (Heather Brewer) but haven't heard a definite answer from either yet. We are also inviting Rep. Gail Chasey and Rep. Mimi Stewart.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Monday, April 16, 2007
Clarification, Please
Deborah Busemeyer called me back today. After explaining what I want (an explanation of the insurance fraud theory) she said she's probably not the person to talk to about it—she only handles the media. She'll find out who that might be and have that person call me.
I told her that we want to understand the insurance fraud reasoning. We want this legislation to pass. How are we supposed to address the issue if we don't understand it, and right now, we don't understand it at all. So the wait continues.
I told her that we want to understand the insurance fraud reasoning. We want this legislation to pass. How are we supposed to address the issue if we don't understand it, and right now, we don't understand it at all. So the wait continues.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Interesting choice of words
An aide in Gov. Richardson's presidential campaign was quoted as saying "It's dying down and will be over soon".
Dying. I have a little bit of experience with that word. My son knows it better than I, and so I will not let this rest until it Gov. Richardson is convinced that he was wrong.
Please, feel free to email the governor, too. The more voices we have speaking the easier it will be to hear us.
info@richardsonforpresident.com
Dying. I have a little bit of experience with that word. My son knows it better than I, and so I will not let this rest until it Gov. Richardson is convinced that he was wrong.
Please, feel free to email the governor, too. The more voices we have speaking the easier it will be to hear us.
info@richardsonforpresident.com
Thursday, April 12, 2007
I said "almost."
I am almost speechless. Almost. It turns out, these are the opinions the governor’s office listened to (excerpts from the AP story by Barry Massey and one from the Abq Journal):
1. Deborah Busemeyer, a spokeswoman for the Health Department, said that the bill created the potential for insurance fraud because it would have required the agency to issue the certificate of birth to parents retroactively if they presented medical records of a stillbirth. Parents could have sought a certificate without regard to how long ago the death occurred. . . . Busemeyer said it was inappropriate to have the department's vital statistics staff try to verify the medical records.
Uhhhh . . . what? I understood the identity theft argument. But this one baffles me, utterly. There are no insurance benefits for a child who is born still. None. No insurance for someone without a certificate of live birth. No life insurance for someone without a social security number. No real doctor is going to bill an insurance company for a child they haven’t seen. I so don’t get this argument, and I’m hoping that Ms. Busemeyer can explain it more.
This hasn’t been a concern in 19 other states. I have to agree wholeheartedly with Joanne at MISS, what kind of fraud can you prepetrate with a “Certificate of Birth Resulting in Stillbirth”? Maybe I’m just not criminally minded enough, or maybe Ms. Busemeyer is just making stuff up because she can’t find anything else. Hmm.
2. Martha Edmands, Director of Public Affairs for Planned Parenthood of New Mexico, said the legislation could have had "unintended consequences" on a woman's right to an abortion. . . . If the state issued a certificate of birth resulting in stillbirth, she said, "you're conferring personhood on the fetus at that point."
Martha Edmands also said—quoted in the Albuquerque Journal (4/11/07, p. C3, Veto Fuels Abortion Debate)—“I don’t see a nefarious intent. But we had concerns that there might be consequences down the road — that it might conflict with the rights to a legal abortion in New Mexico.”
So let me get this straight, she has no problem with the specifics of SB17 and sees no “nefarious” purpose? So exactly what is the problem? If we make sure that a stillbirth is clearly defined (um, spontaneous?), state that the CBRS is not to be used to calculate live birth statistics, and even add in that the CBRS does not convey any of the rights that are associated with a certificate of live birth (which *will* be in the next piece of legislation), then we’ve done everything we can to protect abortion rights in this state. Neither Carin nor I want to do anything to jeopardize those rights either now or in the future. We don’t want any “unintended consequences” either.
3. Jane Wishner, of the Southwest Women's Law Center in Albuquerque, said, "It would require that women, who have just miscarried well into their pregnancies, be told they could request a certificate of birth for their fetus even though they never gave birth to a child. We think that is very inappropriate and adds trauma to an already traumatic moment."
Ok, well I almost feel like this is not even worth my breath. I said almost. Except that her response makes me so furious I have to. She so clearly does not understand this at all. Did she even *read* the bill? First, a miscarriage, by definition, is not a stillbirth. And vice versa. I did not miscarry “well into my pregnancy,” my son was stillborn at 41+ weeks. The very end. Past when most women even expect to be still pregnant.
“ . . . even though they never gave birth to a child . . . . “ and “ . . . adds trauma to an already traumatic moment.” Well that just says volumes about what she understands, now doesn’t it? But then she’s still talking about a miscarriage, not a stillbirth.
I don’t know a single, solitary mother who has delivered a stillborn baby who would be further traumatized by the hospital telling them that there is official, permanent documentation that acknowledges their child, their pain, their effort. Not one. I can’t speak for those who have had miscarriages. But by the time most women get to 20 weeks they are deeply, emotionally invested in their pregnancy and their child.
When I spoke to Ms. Wishner on the phone today—before reading this article—she said that she had spoken to several women she knows who have “gone through this.” The first thought that came to my mind was that she was talking about miscarriage. I defy her to find women who have suffered a stillbirth and ask them the same question. I think she’d be getting a much different answer.
I’m still seething about the whole “never gave birth to a child” remark. 36 hours of labor. 8 lbs 7.4 oz. 19.5 inches long. Never gave birth to a child?
So, who's the bigger moron? These people for their seriously lame and unfounded positions? Or Governor Bill Richardson for listening to them and never asking those who actually knew what the bill was about?
1. Deborah Busemeyer, a spokeswoman for the Health Department, said that the bill created the potential for insurance fraud because it would have required the agency to issue the certificate of birth to parents retroactively if they presented medical records of a stillbirth. Parents could have sought a certificate without regard to how long ago the death occurred. . . . Busemeyer said it was inappropriate to have the department's vital statistics staff try to verify the medical records.
Uhhhh . . . what? I understood the identity theft argument. But this one baffles me, utterly. There are no insurance benefits for a child who is born still. None. No insurance for someone without a certificate of live birth. No life insurance for someone without a social security number. No real doctor is going to bill an insurance company for a child they haven’t seen. I so don’t get this argument, and I’m hoping that Ms. Busemeyer can explain it more.
This hasn’t been a concern in 19 other states. I have to agree wholeheartedly with Joanne at MISS, what kind of fraud can you prepetrate with a “Certificate of Birth Resulting in Stillbirth”? Maybe I’m just not criminally minded enough, or maybe Ms. Busemeyer is just making stuff up because she can’t find anything else. Hmm.
2. Martha Edmands, Director of Public Affairs for Planned Parenthood of New Mexico, said the legislation could have had "unintended consequences" on a woman's right to an abortion. . . . If the state issued a certificate of birth resulting in stillbirth, she said, "you're conferring personhood on the fetus at that point."
Martha Edmands also said—quoted in the Albuquerque Journal (4/11/07, p. C3, Veto Fuels Abortion Debate)—“I don’t see a nefarious intent. But we had concerns that there might be consequences down the road — that it might conflict with the rights to a legal abortion in New Mexico.”
So let me get this straight, she has no problem with the specifics of SB17 and sees no “nefarious” purpose? So exactly what is the problem? If we make sure that a stillbirth is clearly defined (um, spontaneous?), state that the CBRS is not to be used to calculate live birth statistics, and even add in that the CBRS does not convey any of the rights that are associated with a certificate of live birth (which *will* be in the next piece of legislation), then we’ve done everything we can to protect abortion rights in this state. Neither Carin nor I want to do anything to jeopardize those rights either now or in the future. We don’t want any “unintended consequences” either.
3. Jane Wishner, of the Southwest Women's Law Center in Albuquerque, said, "It would require that women, who have just miscarried well into their pregnancies, be told they could request a certificate of birth for their fetus even though they never gave birth to a child. We think that is very inappropriate and adds trauma to an already traumatic moment."
Ok, well I almost feel like this is not even worth my breath. I said almost. Except that her response makes me so furious I have to. She so clearly does not understand this at all. Did she even *read* the bill? First, a miscarriage, by definition, is not a stillbirth. And vice versa. I did not miscarry “well into my pregnancy,” my son was stillborn at 41+ weeks. The very end. Past when most women even expect to be still pregnant.
“ . . . even though they never gave birth to a child . . . . “ and “ . . . adds trauma to an already traumatic moment.” Well that just says volumes about what she understands, now doesn’t it? But then she’s still talking about a miscarriage, not a stillbirth.
I don’t know a single, solitary mother who has delivered a stillborn baby who would be further traumatized by the hospital telling them that there is official, permanent documentation that acknowledges their child, their pain, their effort. Not one. I can’t speak for those who have had miscarriages. But by the time most women get to 20 weeks they are deeply, emotionally invested in their pregnancy and their child.
When I spoke to Ms. Wishner on the phone today—before reading this article—she said that she had spoken to several women she knows who have “gone through this.” The first thought that came to my mind was that she was talking about miscarriage. I defy her to find women who have suffered a stillbirth and ask them the same question. I think she’d be getting a much different answer.
I’m still seething about the whole “never gave birth to a child” remark. 36 hours of labor. 8 lbs 7.4 oz. 19.5 inches long. Never gave birth to a child?
So, who's the bigger moron? These people for their seriously lame and unfounded positions? Or Governor Bill Richardson for listening to them and never asking those who actually knew what the bill was about?
Other news coverage
You can find the links to the Albuquerque Journal story and the Las Cruces Sun Times story under News Links on the right.
A note on the LC Sun Times story. They ran the AP story with only one paragraph removed. Except that the paragraph they removed was the one that explains how SB17 defined stillbirth. And it was pulled off the wire before Barry Massey was called to remove the "or miscarriage" portion of his story lead. Speaking of "unintended consequences," the resulting article makes it sound as if we are **trying** to include miscarriages into our law. That is not the case; never was, never will be. And they will be informed of their mistake.
A note on the LC Sun Times story. They ran the AP story with only one paragraph removed. Except that the paragraph they removed was the one that explains how SB17 defined stillbirth. And it was pulled off the wire before Barry Massey was called to remove the "or miscarriage" portion of his story lead. Speaking of "unintended consequences," the resulting article makes it sound as if we are **trying** to include miscarriages into our law. That is not the case; never was, never will be. And they will be informed of their mistake.
The full AP Wire story
Because for some reason the Santa Fe New Mexican hasn't published this online, yet—even though it appears on the front page of their print version.
SANTA FE — Gov. Bill Richardson is drawing criticism for vetoing a bill that supporters say would help families coping with a stillbirth [or miscarriage].
However, Planned Parenthood of New Mexico and other critics of the measure contend it might have undermined abortion rights in the state. They urged the governor to veto the proposal. The state Department of Health also recommended a veto.
The legislation would have allowed the parent of a stillborn to obtain a "certificate of birth resulting in stillbirth" from the state as well as a "certificate of fetal death."
Currently, hospitals or the medical examiner must file a report of "spontaneous fetal death" with the state Health Department's Bureau of Vital Records and Health Statistics. The agency will provide a copy of the report at the request of parents.
But there's no provision in current law for any birth record to go to parents coping with the loss of a pregnancy, said Carin Dhaouadi of Albuquerque, who worked on the legislation.
She said the proposed legislation wasn't intended to affect abortion rights in New Mexico.
"Some people think this could be a controversy — pro-life, pro-choice. But it can't," said Dhaouadi. "For ... us and a lot of other mothers, it's not that issue."
Dhaouadi, who had a stillborn daughter a year ago, recalls calling the state to try to obtain a copy of the death report.
"I called there, and the lady that I spoke to ... told me I didn't have a baby, that I had a fetus even though my daughter died four days before her due date," said Dhaouadi.
She and Halo Golden of Los Alamos, another supporter of the measure, complained that the governor's staff never asked them questions about the legislation, despite their repeated calls to the Governor's Office to inquire whether it would be signed or vetoed.
The legislation would have applied to stillbirths, which the measure defined as deaths occurring after the first 20 weeks of a pregnancy or when the fetus weighted 500 grams or more.
Richardson, in his veto message last week, said the term "fetal death" rather than "stillbirth" is used by health agencies for statistical reporting.
The bill "would require production of two documents for a single event — both a certificate of fetal death and a certificate of birth resulting in stillbirth. Having two documents for a single vital event can lead to confusion and potential fraud, and is not sound policy," Richardson said in the veto message.
Deborah Busemeyer, a spokeswoman for the Health Department, said Tuesday that the bill created the potential for insurance fraud because it would have required the agency to issue the certificate of birth to parents retroactively if they presented medical records of a stillbirth. Parents could have sought a certificate without regard to how long ago the death occurred.
Busemeyer said it was inappropriate to have the department's vital statistics staff try to verify the medical records. There were 84 fetal deaths reported in New Mexico in 2005.
Joanne Cacciatore, chief executive officer of the Arizona-based MISS Foundation, which supported the measure, said Richardson's reasons for vetoing the bill were "nonsensical."
"He's worried about fraud. That's odd. We passed the bill in 19 other states and this has never come up. It's a certificate of birth resulting in stillbirth. Exactly what kind of fraud can you perpetrate with that," she said.
Martha Edmands, director of public affairs for Planned Parenthood of New Mexico, said the legislation could have had "unintended consequences" on a woman's right to an abortion.
If the state issued a certificate of birth resulting in stillbirth, she said, "you're conferring personhood on the fetus at that point."
Jane Wishner, of the Southwest Women's Law Center in Albuquerque, said, "It would require that women, who have just miscarried well into their pregnancies, be told they could request a certificate of birth for their fetus even though they never gave birth to a child. We think that is very inappropriate and adds trauma to an already traumatic moment."
The vetoed bill is SB17.
SANTA FE — Gov. Bill Richardson is drawing criticism for vetoing a bill that supporters say would help families coping with a stillbirth [or miscarriage].
However, Planned Parenthood of New Mexico and other critics of the measure contend it might have undermined abortion rights in the state. They urged the governor to veto the proposal. The state Department of Health also recommended a veto.
The legislation would have allowed the parent of a stillborn to obtain a "certificate of birth resulting in stillbirth" from the state as well as a "certificate of fetal death."
Currently, hospitals or the medical examiner must file a report of "spontaneous fetal death" with the state Health Department's Bureau of Vital Records and Health Statistics. The agency will provide a copy of the report at the request of parents.
But there's no provision in current law for any birth record to go to parents coping with the loss of a pregnancy, said Carin Dhaouadi of Albuquerque, who worked on the legislation.
She said the proposed legislation wasn't intended to affect abortion rights in New Mexico.
"Some people think this could be a controversy — pro-life, pro-choice. But it can't," said Dhaouadi. "For ... us and a lot of other mothers, it's not that issue."
Dhaouadi, who had a stillborn daughter a year ago, recalls calling the state to try to obtain a copy of the death report.
"I called there, and the lady that I spoke to ... told me I didn't have a baby, that I had a fetus even though my daughter died four days before her due date," said Dhaouadi.
She and Halo Golden of Los Alamos, another supporter of the measure, complained that the governor's staff never asked them questions about the legislation, despite their repeated calls to the Governor's Office to inquire whether it would be signed or vetoed.
The legislation would have applied to stillbirths, which the measure defined as deaths occurring after the first 20 weeks of a pregnancy or when the fetus weighted 500 grams or more.
Richardson, in his veto message last week, said the term "fetal death" rather than "stillbirth" is used by health agencies for statistical reporting.
The bill "would require production of two documents for a single event — both a certificate of fetal death and a certificate of birth resulting in stillbirth. Having two documents for a single vital event can lead to confusion and potential fraud, and is not sound policy," Richardson said in the veto message.
Deborah Busemeyer, a spokeswoman for the Health Department, said Tuesday that the bill created the potential for insurance fraud because it would have required the agency to issue the certificate of birth to parents retroactively if they presented medical records of a stillbirth. Parents could have sought a certificate without regard to how long ago the death occurred.
Busemeyer said it was inappropriate to have the department's vital statistics staff try to verify the medical records. There were 84 fetal deaths reported in New Mexico in 2005.
Joanne Cacciatore, chief executive officer of the Arizona-based MISS Foundation, which supported the measure, said Richardson's reasons for vetoing the bill were "nonsensical."
"He's worried about fraud. That's odd. We passed the bill in 19 other states and this has never come up. It's a certificate of birth resulting in stillbirth. Exactly what kind of fraud can you perpetrate with that," she said.
Martha Edmands, director of public affairs for Planned Parenthood of New Mexico, said the legislation could have had "unintended consequences" on a woman's right to an abortion.
If the state issued a certificate of birth resulting in stillbirth, she said, "you're conferring personhood on the fetus at that point."
Jane Wishner, of the Southwest Women's Law Center in Albuquerque, said, "It would require that women, who have just miscarried well into their pregnancies, be told they could request a certificate of birth for their fetus even though they never gave birth to a child. We think that is very inappropriate and adds trauma to an already traumatic moment."
The vetoed bill is SB17.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Los Alamos Monitor Story
To save some space, you can find the link to this story under News Links on the right.
Monday, April 9, 2007
Fighting Dirty
In our quest to get some media attention I've been inspired to call in some big guns.
We have sent the MISS Foundation and NSS press releases to the following media outlets:
Bill O'Reilly at The O'Reilly Factor
Chris Matthews at Hardball
Peggy O'Mara at Mothering Magazine
Hillary Clinton at her presidential campaign site
Barack Obama at his presidential campaign site
Not to mention most of our local (read: New Mexico) television stations, radio stations, and newspapers.
We have sent the MISS Foundation and NSS press releases to the following media outlets:
Bill O'Reilly at The O'Reilly Factor
Chris Matthews at Hardball
Peggy O'Mara at Mothering Magazine
Hillary Clinton at her presidential campaign site
Barack Obama at his presidential campaign site
Not to mention most of our local (read: New Mexico) television stations, radio stations, and newspapers.
Clarity
I want to be clear. A certificate of live birth recognizes a baby’s life, but it also recognizes a mother’s effort. The certificate of birth resulting in stillbirth is meant to recognize birth, the effort of all mothers; it is not meant to recognize life. It does not convey any of the rights that are associated with a certificate of live birth.
Veto Counter Arguments
It's Monday now. Yup, still pissed off. Still hurting. Starting to get really offended.
So I decided that we needed to address the specific "reasons" for the veto. If we are going to say he's wrong, we need to show how he's wrong. So here they are, in order of appearance . . .
1. . . . The term “stillbirth” is not used by statistical health agencies. Rather, “fetal death” is used. The bill creates a new category of “births” in New Mexico and authorizes the issuance of a formal state certificate for “birth resulting in stillbirth.” . . .
“Fetal death” can happen any time during the course of a pregnancy. Before 20 weeks, under 500 grams is termed a miscarriage. After 20 weeks, over 500 grams is termed a stillbirth. The State of New Mexico does not require the filing of a Report of Fetal Death for a fetus under 500 grams. That means hospitals and healthcare providers are only required to report stillbirths. We are not creating a new category of births; we are simply calling them what they are, still births.
State statutes don’t call live births simply “births.” They are called “live births.” So we are not redefining what is considered a birth in this state. Is there really no room to include stillbirths? We feel there is plenty of room.
2. . . . The amended bill would require production of two documents . . .
Actually, one of the two documents is already required by the state, we are simply asking it to be renamed. New Mexico is the only state in the country still using a Report of Fetal Death. Changing the title of this document to Certificate of Fetal Death does not effect the content of the document, but it does institute a consistency found across the country.
We are also asking that the Certificate of Fetal Death be a permanent document with no destruction date. Most other states do not require the destruction of these documents at any time. There is no reason they should be destroyed, but there are many reasons they should be kept.
The other document is completely optional and is generated only upon the request of the family. Families will not be forced to request either of the documents, in fact.
3. . . . two documents for a single event . . .
I have to say, this reason offends me the most.
My son died 4 days before he was born still. Those are not the same event. If the timeline were reversed and he had been born 4 days before he died, we would have received a certificate of live birth and a death certificate without anyone thinking twice about it. But because he died before he was born it is suddenly the same event?
It doesn’t matter if a baby dies 5 days, 5 minutes or 5 seconds before they are born, the two are still not the same event any more than they would be if the order were reversed.
4. . . . lead to confusion . . .
Confusion for whom? I’m not confused, Carin isn’t confused, any parent who has ever lost a child this way will not be confused. I don’t really care if some bureaucrat in an office somewhere is confused.
Really the only people who need to be clear on it are the people that it is going to effect. Families who have stillborn babies and the healthcare providers or institutions who have to walk them through the long, hazy, painful days following their loss. It doesn’t really matter if everyone else is confused by it.
Truthfully, those who are confused are probably the same people who assume we, as parents, already get a birth certificate and/or death certificate afterwards. Not that they are malicious in their lack of knowledge, but it never occurred to many people that we’d have to fight for this. And a part of me says, “That’s great. I’m glad you do not understand it or know the details of it because that would mean you’ve been through it. And I don’t wish that upon anyone.”
5. . . . potential fraud . . .
Identity theft is really what we are talking about here. Right? But the possibility for identity theft from these two documents is no greater than for any other birth certificate or death certificate.
In fact, it might be less. The title of each document is clear in its description of the outcome. Certificate of Fetal DEATH. Certificate of Birth Resulting in STILLBIRTH.
Insurance fraud is the other suggested crime related to these changes, but I am at a complete loss as to how that is even possible. Especially, again, when both documents clearly state that the child in question is dead.
So I decided that we needed to address the specific "reasons" for the veto. If we are going to say he's wrong, we need to show how he's wrong. So here they are, in order of appearance . . .
1. . . . The term “stillbirth” is not used by statistical health agencies. Rather, “fetal death” is used. The bill creates a new category of “births” in New Mexico and authorizes the issuance of a formal state certificate for “birth resulting in stillbirth.” . . .
“Fetal death” can happen any time during the course of a pregnancy. Before 20 weeks, under 500 grams is termed a miscarriage. After 20 weeks, over 500 grams is termed a stillbirth. The State of New Mexico does not require the filing of a Report of Fetal Death for a fetus under 500 grams. That means hospitals and healthcare providers are only required to report stillbirths. We are not creating a new category of births; we are simply calling them what they are, still births.
State statutes don’t call live births simply “births.” They are called “live births.” So we are not redefining what is considered a birth in this state. Is there really no room to include stillbirths? We feel there is plenty of room.
2. . . . The amended bill would require production of two documents . . .
Actually, one of the two documents is already required by the state, we are simply asking it to be renamed. New Mexico is the only state in the country still using a Report of Fetal Death. Changing the title of this document to Certificate of Fetal Death does not effect the content of the document, but it does institute a consistency found across the country.
We are also asking that the Certificate of Fetal Death be a permanent document with no destruction date. Most other states do not require the destruction of these documents at any time. There is no reason they should be destroyed, but there are many reasons they should be kept.
The other document is completely optional and is generated only upon the request of the family. Families will not be forced to request either of the documents, in fact.
3. . . . two documents for a single event . . .
I have to say, this reason offends me the most.
My son died 4 days before he was born still. Those are not the same event. If the timeline were reversed and he had been born 4 days before he died, we would have received a certificate of live birth and a death certificate without anyone thinking twice about it. But because he died before he was born it is suddenly the same event?
It doesn’t matter if a baby dies 5 days, 5 minutes or 5 seconds before they are born, the two are still not the same event any more than they would be if the order were reversed.
4. . . . lead to confusion . . .
Confusion for whom? I’m not confused, Carin isn’t confused, any parent who has ever lost a child this way will not be confused. I don’t really care if some bureaucrat in an office somewhere is confused.
Really the only people who need to be clear on it are the people that it is going to effect. Families who have stillborn babies and the healthcare providers or institutions who have to walk them through the long, hazy, painful days following their loss. It doesn’t really matter if everyone else is confused by it.
Truthfully, those who are confused are probably the same people who assume we, as parents, already get a birth certificate and/or death certificate afterwards. Not that they are malicious in their lack of knowledge, but it never occurred to many people that we’d have to fight for this. And a part of me says, “That’s great. I’m glad you do not understand it or know the details of it because that would mean you’ve been through it. And I don’t wish that upon anyone.”
5. . . . potential fraud . . .
Identity theft is really what we are talking about here. Right? But the possibility for identity theft from these two documents is no greater than for any other birth certificate or death certificate.
In fact, it might be less. The title of each document is clear in its description of the outcome. Certificate of Fetal DEATH. Certificate of Birth Resulting in STILLBIRTH.
Insurance fraud is the other suggested crime related to these changes, but I am at a complete loss as to how that is even possible. Especially, again, when both documents clearly state that the child in question is dead.
Saturday, April 7, 2007
Letter from National Stillbirth Society to Media
AN OPEN LETTER TO ALL NEW MEXICO MEDIA
The unthinkable has happened!
Presidential candidate Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico has vetoed The Missing Angel Bill. In doing so he has become the first and only U. S. Governor not to sign the Bill, which was overwhelmingly passed by both the New Mexico Senate 33-3 and the House 59-0.
As a result of his ill-considered veto, New Mexico stillbirth mothers have fallen victim to crass political pandering. The Governor's veto is an insensitive act that ignores interests of his own constituents, in favor of his presidential aspirations.
As enacted, The Missing Angel Bill, introduced as H1227 & S17, permits the state to issue to New Mexico mothers who give birth to a stillborn baby, a "Certificate of Birth Resulting in Stillbirth". Twenty nine states so far have enacted a version of the act, and all 29 of those state governors have signed it into law! (In the states where it has already passed - New Mexico included - it has done so with either unanimous or near unanimous votes.)
We have attached a copy of a letter sent by our organization to California legislators who have The Missing Angel Bill under active consideration.
It is possible to view the legislation status state by state at this link:
http://www.missingangelsbill.org/stchart.html.
Please contact the undersigned for additional information or comments. For local input contact Ms. Halo Golden of Los Alamos, who became a stillbirth mother in 2003 when she lost her son Jesper at full term (41 weeks!). She is also able to put you in touch with other New Mexico stillbirth mothers.
Richard K. Olsen, Founder & Executive Director
The National Stillbirth Society
The unthinkable has happened!
Presidential candidate Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico has vetoed The Missing Angel Bill. In doing so he has become the first and only U. S. Governor not to sign the Bill, which was overwhelmingly passed by both the New Mexico Senate 33-3 and the House 59-0.
As a result of his ill-considered veto, New Mexico stillbirth mothers have fallen victim to crass political pandering. The Governor's veto is an insensitive act that ignores interests of his own constituents, in favor of his presidential aspirations.
As enacted, The Missing Angel Bill, introduced as H1227 & S17, permits the state to issue to New Mexico mothers who give birth to a stillborn baby, a "Certificate of Birth Resulting in Stillbirth". Twenty nine states so far have enacted a version of the act, and all 29 of those state governors have signed it into law! (In the states where it has already passed - New Mexico included - it has done so with either unanimous or near unanimous votes.)
We have attached a copy of a letter sent by our organization to California legislators who have The Missing Angel Bill under active consideration.
It is possible to view the legislation status state by state at this link:
http://www.missingangelsbill.org/stchart.html.
Please contact the undersigned for additional information or comments. For local input contact Ms. Halo Golden of Los Alamos, who became a stillbirth mother in 2003 when she lost her son Jesper at full term (41 weeks!). She is also able to put you in touch with other New Mexico stillbirth mothers.
Richard K. Olsen, Founder & Executive Director
The National Stillbirth Society
Press Release from MISS Foundation
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson Stuns Tens-of Thousands of Bereaved Parents and Vetoes the MISSing Angels Bill
Parents nationwide outraged at indifference and ignorance!
Albuquerque, NM. (April 7, 2007)--- Just last month, the New Mexico MISSing Angels Bill (SB17), passed the New Mexico legislature with unanimous, bipartisan support. Yet, today, April 7, 2007, presidential hopeful and Governor Bill Richardson vetoed this important piece of legislation, making New Mexico the first of nearly 30 states to reject the will of its citizens and legislators regarding the way in which the birth of a stillborn baby is recognized and recorded.
The MISSing Angels Bill (SB17) was created to help provide much-needed comfort, dignity, and legal documentation to women and their families experiencing the death of a baby just prior to or during birth. Currently, New Mexico law requires reporting of stillbirth/fetal deaths and demands that families pay funeral costs for their deceased baby, yet provides no acknowledgement that the baby was born. “It’s an unthinkable tragedy,” says Carin Dhouadi, New Mexico resident and constituent. “I gave birth to a full term baby who died, and the state says I must bury her. But they won’t say she was born? How can you die if you never were?”
Joanne Cacciatore, CEO of the MISS Foundation and a PhD Candidate who studies stillbirth, passed the first bill in Arizona in 2001, and has worked to pass it in other states since. She says that families around the nation are outraged at Richardson’s move. “Richardson has just flippantly driven a stake through the heart of this legislation that addresses the ultimate woman’s issue . . . .Women give birth. And their babies—about one in 100—are dying as a result of stillbirth. He’s perpetuating the ignorance,” she says.
The change might not seem significant to many. However, to those who have experienced the anguish of losing a baby—SB17 is an important step in allowing grieving parents the same respect given to the woman leaving the hospital with a healthy infant in her arms. “This bill had support from everyone, including pro-choice legislators like Representatives Gail Chasey and Mimi Stewart, who understand this as an important woman’s issue,” said Halo Golden, volunteer lobbyist for the NM bill and the mother of a stillborn baby. Richard Olsen of the National Stillbirth Society believes that this move was ‘political pandering’, stating that the “governor’s veto is an insensitive act that marginalizes women and ignores the interests of his own constituents in favor of his presidential aspirations.”
Cacciatore agrees, saying, “Richardson just vetoed a critical woman’s issue, for no sound reason, and with unilateral authority…Is this the type of person we can trust to represent women’s interests across America? Richardson won’t get the votes of hundreds of thousands of our grieving parents across the country . . . . The vetoing of this bill is a ham handed misjudgment on the governor’s part.”
“He clearly doesn’t understand this bill, and didn’t take the time to inform himself. It’s shameful. He’s slapped grieving mothers and father in the face, not just in New Mexico, but across the country,” says Daryl Logullo, National Legislative Liaison for the MISS Foundation. “He owes them, and the people of the state, an immediate apology and a commitment to this important law that parents dearly want.”
Approximately 30,000 babies are stillborn each year in the United States. The cause of death for more than half the number of full-term (40-week) stillbirths is unknown, even after autopsy.
The MISS Foundation and the National Stillbirth Society are getting ready to launch an awareness campaign targeted at educating the governor so he wholly understands the issue. The organizations are also calling for the governor to request a special session to address it and issue an apology to bereaved parents whose babies were stillborn. For more information on the MISSing Angels Bill visit www.missingangelsbill.org or www.missfoundation.org.
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson Stuns Tens-of Thousands of Bereaved Parents and Vetoes the MISSing Angels Bill
Parents nationwide outraged at indifference and ignorance!
Albuquerque, NM. (April 7, 2007)--- Just last month, the New Mexico MISSing Angels Bill (SB17), passed the New Mexico legislature with unanimous, bipartisan support. Yet, today, April 7, 2007, presidential hopeful and Governor Bill Richardson vetoed this important piece of legislation, making New Mexico the first of nearly 30 states to reject the will of its citizens and legislators regarding the way in which the birth of a stillborn baby is recognized and recorded.
The MISSing Angels Bill (SB17) was created to help provide much-needed comfort, dignity, and legal documentation to women and their families experiencing the death of a baby just prior to or during birth. Currently, New Mexico law requires reporting of stillbirth/fetal deaths and demands that families pay funeral costs for their deceased baby, yet provides no acknowledgement that the baby was born. “It’s an unthinkable tragedy,” says Carin Dhouadi, New Mexico resident and constituent. “I gave birth to a full term baby who died, and the state says I must bury her. But they won’t say she was born? How can you die if you never were?”
Joanne Cacciatore, CEO of the MISS Foundation and a PhD Candidate who studies stillbirth, passed the first bill in Arizona in 2001, and has worked to pass it in other states since. She says that families around the nation are outraged at Richardson’s move. “Richardson has just flippantly driven a stake through the heart of this legislation that addresses the ultimate woman’s issue . . . .Women give birth. And their babies—about one in 100—are dying as a result of stillbirth. He’s perpetuating the ignorance,” she says.
The change might not seem significant to many. However, to those who have experienced the anguish of losing a baby—SB17 is an important step in allowing grieving parents the same respect given to the woman leaving the hospital with a healthy infant in her arms. “This bill had support from everyone, including pro-choice legislators like Representatives Gail Chasey and Mimi Stewart, who understand this as an important woman’s issue,” said Halo Golden, volunteer lobbyist for the NM bill and the mother of a stillborn baby. Richard Olsen of the National Stillbirth Society believes that this move was ‘political pandering’, stating that the “governor’s veto is an insensitive act that marginalizes women and ignores the interests of his own constituents in favor of his presidential aspirations.”
Cacciatore agrees, saying, “Richardson just vetoed a critical woman’s issue, for no sound reason, and with unilateral authority…Is this the type of person we can trust to represent women’s interests across America? Richardson won’t get the votes of hundreds of thousands of our grieving parents across the country . . . . The vetoing of this bill is a ham handed misjudgment on the governor’s part.”
“He clearly doesn’t understand this bill, and didn’t take the time to inform himself. It’s shameful. He’s slapped grieving mothers and father in the face, not just in New Mexico, but across the country,” says Daryl Logullo, National Legislative Liaison for the MISS Foundation. “He owes them, and the people of the state, an immediate apology and a commitment to this important law that parents dearly want.”
Approximately 30,000 babies are stillborn each year in the United States. The cause of death for more than half the number of full-term (40-week) stillbirths is unknown, even after autopsy.
The MISS Foundation and the National Stillbirth Society are getting ready to launch an awareness campaign targeted at educating the governor so he wholly understands the issue. The organizations are also calling for the governor to request a special session to address it and issue an apology to bereaved parents whose babies were stillborn. For more information on the MISSing Angels Bill visit www.missingangelsbill.org or www.missfoundation.org.
Call to Action
Attention New Mexico residents and MISS families!!!
Governor Richardson has vetoed Senate Bill 17 despite it passing unanimously with bi-partisan support in both the Senate and House.
SB 17 spent more than two weeks in the Governor’s office. Despite our numerous attempts to get information from the Governor’s office on the status of the bill and to offer assistance to staff, we were consistently rebuffed. We were told by the Governor’s office that if they had questions or needed help understanding the bill they would ask those parties affected. The MISS Foundation and The National Stillbirth Society were never contacted.
Despite what may seem like valid reasons for the veto, we suspect those are a cover for the sake of political appearances during the governor’s presidential bid. They have claimed that there are flaws in the legislation, but we believe this to be a cop out to minimize the negative impact of his action.
Our voices must be heard! We must make the Governor realize the full impact of his veto decision, especially since he is now a presidential candidate.
Please contact the Governor’s office beginning Monday by phone and fax (email as well). Let them know of your outrage in not passing this important legislation. Be sure to include that his decision to veto this bill is not just an issue impacting families who had a baby die, it is a women’s issue.
We need to demand a special session to readdress this issue.
Please help us!!!!
1. Read the Veto Message here.
http://www.sos.state.nm.us/Main/Elections/2007/SEM%2080.PDF
2. Contact the Governor’s office.
Governor’s Office:
Phone: 505-476-2200
Fax: 505-476-2226
Websites:
http://www.governor.state.nm.us/emailchoice.php?mm=6
http://www.ltgovernor.state.nm.us/contact.html
3. Check for updated New Mexico information here.
NM Blog site:
http://nmmissingangels.blogspot.com/
Thanks for your support,
Halo and Carin
Governor Richardson has vetoed Senate Bill 17 despite it passing unanimously with bi-partisan support in both the Senate and House.
SB 17 spent more than two weeks in the Governor’s office. Despite our numerous attempts to get information from the Governor’s office on the status of the bill and to offer assistance to staff, we were consistently rebuffed. We were told by the Governor’s office that if they had questions or needed help understanding the bill they would ask those parties affected. The MISS Foundation and The National Stillbirth Society were never contacted.
Despite what may seem like valid reasons for the veto, we suspect those are a cover for the sake of political appearances during the governor’s presidential bid. They have claimed that there are flaws in the legislation, but we believe this to be a cop out to minimize the negative impact of his action.
Our voices must be heard! We must make the Governor realize the full impact of his veto decision, especially since he is now a presidential candidate.
Please contact the Governor’s office beginning Monday by phone and fax (email as well). Let them know of your outrage in not passing this important legislation. Be sure to include that his decision to veto this bill is not just an issue impacting families who had a baby die, it is a women’s issue.
We need to demand a special session to readdress this issue.
Please help us!!!!
1. Read the Veto Message here.
http://www.sos.state.nm.us/Main/Elections/2007/SEM%2080.PDF
2. Contact the Governor’s office.
Governor’s Office:
Phone: 505-476-2200
Fax: 505-476-2226
Websites:
http://www.governor.state.nm.us/emailchoice.php?mm=6
http://www.ltgovernor.state.nm.us/contact.html
3. Check for updated New Mexico information here.
NM Blog site:
http://nmmissingangels.blogspot.com/
Thanks for your support,
Halo and Carin
SB17 Vetoed by Gov. Richardson
April 6 was the deadline for action on legislation. Anything not signed or vetoed by the end of the day would be "pocket vetoed," in other words ignored.
So we knew that we were down to the wire, and it wasn't a good feeling. But we were still hopeful that he would sign it. Then last night I made one final check of the Secretary of State's website. There it was, under "Vetoed Bills and Messages." It has a message attached to it. An attempt to explain why it was vetoed. (You can follow the link on the right to see the actual message.)
My first reaction was, "Well, if he thinks I'm voting for him, he's got another thing coming."
The body of the message reads:
"Pursuant to the Constitution of the State of New Mexico Article IV, Section 22, I hereby VETO and return SENATE BILL 17, as amended, which was enacted during the Forty-Eighth Legislature, First Session, 2007.
Senate Bill 17 in its amended form refers to both “certificate of fetal death” and “certificate of birth resulting in stillbirth.” The term “stillbirth” is not used by statistical health agencies. Rather, “fetal death” is used. The bill creates a new category of “births” in New Mexico and authorizes the issuance of a formal state certificate for “birth resulting in stillbirth.”
The amended bill would require production of two documents for a single event—both a certificate of death and a certificate of birth resulting in stillbirth. Having two documents for a single vital event can lead to confusion and potential fraud, and is not sound policy.
Accordingly, signature of this bill is not appropriate at this time."
**********************************************
They seem like logical arguments, those few at the end. Confusion. Potential fraud. Except that those were discussed as this bill went through its paces in the legislature. So there must be something else. Surely it isn't simply because we are making a new category of births.
We have been sacrificed on the altar of political appearances.
This might be the danger of bringing this bill before a governor who is running for president. He has a few too many people watching out for his image. We did everything we could, in the bill itself, to make sure that this could not be turned into a pro-life/pro-choice hot button. It would seem, however, that some people have done just that. It isn't that. It never was and never will be for those who know anything about it. But those who do not truly understand try it all the time.
We could not have had better support for this bill. We had sponsors that are pro-life. We had supporters in the House that are pro-choice. We were careful in the language of the legislation. We had nearly unanimous passage of the bill in both houses of the legislature. But he vetoed it anyway.
Could someone please remove the dagger from my back? I can't quite reach it, and it keeps knicking my heart everytime I breathe.
We have work to do.
So we knew that we were down to the wire, and it wasn't a good feeling. But we were still hopeful that he would sign it. Then last night I made one final check of the Secretary of State's website. There it was, under "Vetoed Bills and Messages." It has a message attached to it. An attempt to explain why it was vetoed. (You can follow the link on the right to see the actual message.)
My first reaction was, "Well, if he thinks I'm voting for him, he's got another thing coming."
The body of the message reads:
"Pursuant to the Constitution of the State of New Mexico Article IV, Section 22, I hereby VETO and return SENATE BILL 17, as amended, which was enacted during the Forty-Eighth Legislature, First Session, 2007.
Senate Bill 17 in its amended form refers to both “certificate of fetal death” and “certificate of birth resulting in stillbirth.” The term “stillbirth” is not used by statistical health agencies. Rather, “fetal death” is used. The bill creates a new category of “births” in New Mexico and authorizes the issuance of a formal state certificate for “birth resulting in stillbirth.”
The amended bill would require production of two documents for a single event—both a certificate of death and a certificate of birth resulting in stillbirth. Having two documents for a single vital event can lead to confusion and potential fraud, and is not sound policy.
Accordingly, signature of this bill is not appropriate at this time."
**********************************************
They seem like logical arguments, those few at the end. Confusion. Potential fraud. Except that those were discussed as this bill went through its paces in the legislature. So there must be something else. Surely it isn't simply because we are making a new category of births.
We have been sacrificed on the altar of political appearances.
This might be the danger of bringing this bill before a governor who is running for president. He has a few too many people watching out for his image. We did everything we could, in the bill itself, to make sure that this could not be turned into a pro-life/pro-choice hot button. It would seem, however, that some people have done just that. It isn't that. It never was and never will be for those who know anything about it. But those who do not truly understand try it all the time.
We could not have had better support for this bill. We had sponsors that are pro-life. We had supporters in the House that are pro-choice. We were careful in the language of the legislation. We had nearly unanimous passage of the bill in both houses of the legislature. But he vetoed it anyway.
Could someone please remove the dagger from my back? I can't quite reach it, and it keeps knicking my heart everytime I breathe.
We have work to do.
Friday, April 6, 2007
Welcome
Carin Dhaouadi and Halo Golden have established this blog to share information about the status and progress of the New Mexico Missing Angels Bill.
Missing Angels are babies born still. Stillbirth is defined as an unintentional, spontaneous fetal death occurring after 20 completed weeks gestation or over 500 grams.
Currently (early April 2007) when a child is born still in this state, the hospital or health care provider is required to fill out and send in a Report of Fetal Death. According to state statutes, this form is for statistical purposes only, and the Department of Vital Statistics is only required to keep it for one year. After that it is destroyed. (Although we have been told that they are generally kept for a few years for various reasons.) There is no individual permanent record of our children. They are a statistic only.
Our goal is to change the statute. We want a individual permanent record. We are seeking to create that in a database to be maintained by the Dept of Vital Statistics. It would be similar to the database that is currently maintained in regards to live births and post-natal deaths. The hospital will still fill out the Report of Fetal Death, but that form would be used to permanently "register" the fetal death. From that registration families will be able to request a Certificate of Fetal Death.
However, since our babies did not *just* die, we are also attempting to create a Certificate of Birth Resulting in Stillbirth. A birth certificate, but not a certificate of live birth. The CBRS would not count in the statistics for live births. It would not convey any of the rights that come with a certificate of live birth. The CBRS is not meant to recognize life; it is meant to recognize birth. Despite the fact that our babies were born still, they were still born. Each of us had to endure labor and delivery as any other mother has done. We have all had to recover from that birth. No one should be allowed to tell us that we didn't give birth simply because we didn't come home with a baby in our arms.
Why keep the Report of Fetal Death? If you have ever seen one, you will know that the RFD contains statistical information that is crucial to researching and understanding stillbirth. Information like: estimated gestation, estimated fetal age, when prenatal care was started, how much weight was gained, various risk factors (smoking, alcohol consumption, drug consumption), etc. Without this information and the understanding that comes from it the statistics will never change.
What about us? What about those who have already lost a child this way? Will we/they be able to get either or both of these documents? Yes. We are making sure that the legistlation that is passed is retroactive for those families who wish to request either or both. You will, however, need to provide proof of your loss. That proof can be either a copy of the Report of Fetal Death or the appropriate medical records indicating a stillbirth or fetal demise.
The current statutes in New Mexico are, in the most polite terms, inadequate for both families and the state. The recognition and validation that these simple documents offer families can make a huge difference in the healing process.
No one should ever have to lose a child. It is wrong of the state to denigrate or dimiss that loss.
Missing Angels are babies born still. Stillbirth is defined as an unintentional, spontaneous fetal death occurring after 20 completed weeks gestation or over 500 grams.
Currently (early April 2007) when a child is born still in this state, the hospital or health care provider is required to fill out and send in a Report of Fetal Death. According to state statutes, this form is for statistical purposes only, and the Department of Vital Statistics is only required to keep it for one year. After that it is destroyed. (Although we have been told that they are generally kept for a few years for various reasons.) There is no individual permanent record of our children. They are a statistic only.
Our goal is to change the statute. We want a individual permanent record. We are seeking to create that in a database to be maintained by the Dept of Vital Statistics. It would be similar to the database that is currently maintained in regards to live births and post-natal deaths. The hospital will still fill out the Report of Fetal Death, but that form would be used to permanently "register" the fetal death. From that registration families will be able to request a Certificate of Fetal Death.
However, since our babies did not *just* die, we are also attempting to create a Certificate of Birth Resulting in Stillbirth. A birth certificate, but not a certificate of live birth. The CBRS would not count in the statistics for live births. It would not convey any of the rights that come with a certificate of live birth. The CBRS is not meant to recognize life; it is meant to recognize birth. Despite the fact that our babies were born still, they were still born. Each of us had to endure labor and delivery as any other mother has done. We have all had to recover from that birth. No one should be allowed to tell us that we didn't give birth simply because we didn't come home with a baby in our arms.
Why keep the Report of Fetal Death? If you have ever seen one, you will know that the RFD contains statistical information that is crucial to researching and understanding stillbirth. Information like: estimated gestation, estimated fetal age, when prenatal care was started, how much weight was gained, various risk factors (smoking, alcohol consumption, drug consumption), etc. Without this information and the understanding that comes from it the statistics will never change.
What about us? What about those who have already lost a child this way? Will we/they be able to get either or both of these documents? Yes. We are making sure that the legistlation that is passed is retroactive for those families who wish to request either or both. You will, however, need to provide proof of your loss. That proof can be either a copy of the Report of Fetal Death or the appropriate medical records indicating a stillbirth or fetal demise.
The current statutes in New Mexico are, in the most polite terms, inadequate for both families and the state. The recognition and validation that these simple documents offer families can make a huge difference in the healing process.
No one should ever have to lose a child. It is wrong of the state to denigrate or dimiss that loss.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)