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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)