Theres also a robust literature on Mental Health problems following abortion. These problems include, anxiety, depression, so on number two. State abortion restriction regulations are medically unwarranted. States have a compelling interest in protecting the health of their citizens and they have the authority to do so including state medical boards and departments of health. Historically states have regulated procedures by establishing standards that protect patients from injury and death. The fact is the patient physician interactions do not occur within a vacuum. The issue whether patients have access is a two sided edged issue. This is because you can have access to care which is inadequate being performed by incompetent practitioners or have access to good care. Zip codes do matter. In many zip codes in the United States patients have access to care which is inadequate. This bill would not protect the rights of patienstients because would remove the ability of states to regulate the practice of medicine. In addition, the scope of practice for different types of clinician is carefully defined. Recently there have been attempts by mid level practit n practitioners in several states to assume the role of providing abortions. Again, this particular bill would remove the ability of states to monitor and supervise the practice of medicine through abortion. One of the question that comes up in any of these discussions regarding the need for improved regulation, including monitoring of the access to clinics with widths of hall ways so that Emergency Personnel can enter buildings, is what is is there to fear from complying with the law . If laws are enacted in order to protect the health of patients and the health of patients in to protect really practitioners as well by providing they will with propt conditions to practice in, what is their to fear in this circumstance . The question really is to what extent are we willing to ve surrender states ability to regulate laws regarding the provision of medical care. Finally, the fact that the state does have an interest in prot t protecting unborn life is not acknowledged in this particular bill. Theres no mention of unborn children at all despite the fact that the purpose of the bill is to eliminate most regulations or restrictions on abortion. The Supreme Court has recognized since row w. Wade that the state has an interest in the potentiality of unborn like throughout the pregnancy because children and their mothers subject to exploitive matters. If we do believe that pregnancy begins at conception, rather than at implantation which is our standard medical definition, we need to begin to consider how to best practice the fetus at early gestational ages. This bill does not take into can the scientific vaient icientifi. So my conclusion i would like to say that this is a measure that seeks to overturn longstanding procedures in the courtsment it ignores Scientific Evidence but also Supreme Court rulings but clearly targeted state regulations which protect the most vulnerable citizens pregnant women and their children. All access is not equal. Zip codes do not matter. We want patients zip codes to provide care that is sensitive, affordable, comprehensive and competent. Thank you. Thank you, doctor. Dr. Parker. Good morning senators. I consider it a real privilege to speak before this body this morning. My name is dr. Willy par y park. Im here to offer testimony on support of the womens protection act. I have provided women with Sex Education, contraception, access to care and safe abortion care. If theres a war to defend the right to safe and legal abortion, then mississippi where i practice is on the front line. The front recently passed laws restricting the provision of abortion to gynecologist and those with hospital admitting privileges. This law which is cleompletely medical unnecessary shut down the one clinic in this state and would deny women access to abortion. On top of this this state has also mandated delays that are both costy and burdensome to the women speaking care. I woman should not be denied access because she lives in mississippi or anywhere else for that matter it should be determined by medical evident not her zip code. The proponents of their health say they are protecting the health of women but the facts suggest otherwise. There are far too many teen and unintended pregnancies. The infant mortality are extremely high. Far, far too many mississippians live in abject poverty. These confront every woman whether she was a desired pregnancy or not. What women need is safe compassionate medical care of the that need is urgent. That care should include abortion. These of facts. I made what i consider to be the moral decision to provide abortion care in this state. Now, invarably given the climate around abortion in this country, i feel questions from people regarding that decision. The most frequently asked question is why do you do this . Well the short answer is because if i dont, whose going to do it . If women in mississippi and states surrounding can find a way to travel from rural areas under hostile circumstances to access the abortion care that they are entitled to then i made a personal decision that i wanted somebody to be at that clinic to meet them when they came. One pash entient that i often t of is one of the first patients i took care of. A 35yearold pregnant women with five children. This woman found herself with an unplanned pregnancy. She confided in me at this particular point in her life she couldnt care for another child economically or emotionally. She had already travelled extensive distance to come to the mandated counseling that she was to receive. While she was completely resolute when she walked in the door and knew what was best for her and her family, she was still desired to be delayed in her decision to be political reasons that had nothing to do with her or her medical care. Other women that i saw owe that same day were returning for their procedure after having made the mappndated wait and th had recently completed a second trip from hours away to receive their care. These women made it to the clinic distance distance and travel costs. Child care considerations. In the 24 years that ive practiced medicine ive learned a few things. Every patient is unique. Every woman is different. When it comes to abortion every one of them is grappling with a dilemma. A define a dilemma as one has to make a decision between two undesirable outcomes and yet one does not have the luxury of making that decision. While the stories of women that i see might deliver what they all have in common is for them it is increasingly difficult for them to access abortion. As i said earlier, people ask me why do you do it . Well, i think the answer is very simple. I want for women what i want for myself. I want a life of dignity. Good health. Self determination and i want the opportunity to excel and contribute in a manner that i best can. We know when women have access to abortion, contraception and Sex Education they thrive in the matters that i mentioned. It should be same for all women because the ability to live the life that you imagine should not be limited by your zip code. Thank you. Thank you dr. Parker. Themr. Chairman p. Members of the committee. Thank you for giving me the right to testify. It is a nation wide federation of 50 state affiliated right to life organizations. We are the nations largest and oldest prolife organizations. We find the formal title or marketing label womens protection act to be highly misleadingly. The bill is about one thing stripping away elected lawmakers to provide even the most protections for unborn children. The proposal is so sweeping and extreme that it would be difficult to capture its full cope in any title. In it 1980 ruling in harris v. Mccray, the u. S. Supreme court said abortion is inherently different from other medical procedures because no other procedure involves the purpose termination of a potential life. Even americans who identify as prochoice struggle with the abortion issue because they see it as a conflict involving life itself. Many while not fully sharing our view that the unborn child should be directly protected inlaw, nevertheless support the kind of laws that this bill would strike down. Law that take into account what most americans recognize as a life or death decision. In contrast, the drafters of s 1696 apparently any woman considering apportion must be shielded from any information that may cause her to change her mind. Under s 6796 elected abortion would become the procedure that must all be facilitated. Never delayed. Never impeded to the slightest degree. What types of laws would the bill invalidate . The list includes, limits on abortions after 20 weeks, past the point in which unborn children can experience pain which are supported pi sizable majorities nation wide. Laws limiting abortion after vielet. Laws protecting individuals or private medical institutions from being forced to participate in abortion which about 3 4th of the people support and which the great majority of states have enactedment laws requiring that information be provided regarding alternatives to abortion which 88 pr88 of the c supported in a gallop poll. Laws providing periods of reflection. All of these would be invalid. Having failed in many cases to persuade the federal courts to strike down the laws they dislike. The extreme abortion advocates now come to congress and demand that this federal proabortion statutory bull dozer be unleashed to scrape everything flat. The bill would subject any law or government pollicy that affects the practice of apportion even indirectly designed to guarantee that almost none survive. T the same would be true of any law that is not abortion specific but has the affect or claimed affect of reducing access to abortion. It is apparent that those who crafted this bill believe that where abortion is involved, immediate ask is hes ccess to a any stage in preignancy is the only thing that matters. Mr. Chairman in a november interview with the news paper roll call, you said as the election approaches i think the voters will want to know will legislature stands on these issues. To know where every senator stand on s 96 would require a vote by the full senate. By all means lets see where they stand. In the spirit of prochoice how about giving the senate as choice as well. On may 13th, senator graham proposed april agreeme ed an ag would receive a full vote of the senate along with a separate vote on the Child Protection act s 1670 which has 41 cosponsored. The unborn Child Protection act would protect unborn children in the six month or later with narrow exceptions. By this stage in their development, if not sooner, there is abundant evidence that unborn babies will experience great pain in the second trimester mismemberment procedure. In response to senator grahams proposal, you made clear your opposition to his bill but you want onto say and my quote, i am more than happy to cast a vote on it along with the womens protection act. I hope they will be considered. This issue deserves to be before this body. End of quote. With agree. We challenge you and the leadership of the Majority Party to allow the American People to know where every senator stands on both of these major abortion related bills. Let the American People see which bill reflects the values of each member of the United States senate live or death for unborn children. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Taylor. Thank you so much. Good morning. My name is chris taylor. Im a state representative from the great state of wisconsin representing the 76 assembly district. I so appreciate the opportunity to testify in strong support of the Womens Health protection act. I thank you Ranking Member grassly and Committee Members for this opportunity today. I also want to thank my senator Tammy Baldwin who we are very proud of in wisconsin for coresponsing this important bill. There is a consensus in wisconsin about what legislatur. It is not on aboring tion restrictions. It is on the economic issues. We have stagnant wages. Working families are struggling. Those are the issues that we want the state legislature to focus on. Unfortunately that has not been the focus over the last three years and wisconsin has become one of the battleground states where fights over a womans ability to access abortion care are being waged. We have only a few Health Centers in wisconsin that provide abortions and we have over a dozen abortion restrictions which have nothing to do with the health and safety of women and everything to do with politics. It is on the verge of becoming a state like mississippi where abortion is not accessible. A womans ability to access safe, legal abortion should not be dependent on where she lives or subject to the political whims of her state leallege lat u, legislature. Since 2011 weve seen a proliferation of abortion issues in wisconsin include requiring physicians to perform abortions to have hospital emitting privileges within 30 miles of their practices. The hospital privileges mandate is only imposed on physicians who provide abortions. I am very fortunate to serve opt Health Committee in the state assembl assembly. In fact, there was no Health Care Provider or organization who advocated for this bill at all. In contrary, the medical community vocally opposed this manned ya mandate including the Wisconsin PublicHealth Association and society which states this requirement interferes with the patient physician relationship and places an unprecedented burden on physicians and women. The effect of the law is going to be to shut down one of four Health Centers that provides abortions because the two physicians at this center are in ineligible for these admitting requirements. That means that over 1 3 of the women who seek aborings is going to have to go elsewhere. The affect is to increase waiting times. Currently there are delays of three to four weeks to obtain an abortion in wisconsin. With the closure of that clinic they would be extended to eight to ten weeks. We would have no Health Care Provider providing abortions past 18 weeks. A delay of this magnitude clearly impacts all wisconsin women seeking abortion care but it has particular affects on low income women who rely on Public Transportation and cannot afford an uncompensated travel time and work costs. These additional barrier maze be unsurmountable. The provider must also describe and dismay the image to the women. This is the most humiliating and degrading law that i have seen in wisconsin. It is certainly the government at its biggest and most intusive. Women are not able to refuse an invasive vaginal ultrasound. Physicians have no ability to taylor their medical care to the unique situation of the individual woman or adopt the best standard of care. The medical Community Also vocally opposed that restriction. They said the mandatory performance of an ultrasound before an abortion is not an accepted medical practice or standard of care. Does not add to the quality or safety of the medical care being provide provided ultra sounds are being used as political bludgeons. Unfortunately my republican kol keyi colleagues did not listen to the medical community. As we talked about this issue prior to the debate, we realized we all had our own experiences that caused us to make very personal decisions about Reproductive Health care. We had members who had experienc experienced pregnancy loss, still births, high risk regul pregnancies, sexual assaults. We decided although we might be ignored by other our colleagues on the silent. We decided to tell why the laws are so harmful to women and nothing to do with the reality of womens lives and experiences. It is not my role as a legislature to dictate the most personal private decisions of my constituents. I have no business as a legislature dictating in supp t supporting medical practices aas a physician whose ethically obligated to provide the best care for women and patients. I am suppose to make sure the people that i represent are able to exercise their most fundamental personal decisions about their lives. With states ledge latigislating their lives, we need this more than ever. Women throughout this country cannot wait. Thank you. Thank you very much to all of our witnesses. Im going to ask without objection that all of your full statements be entered into the record along with a statement from our colleague senator fine 79 and finestein. There have been some very dismaying and sweeping claims about the breadth of this proposed legislation referring to it as the abortion without limits act. It is narrowly targeted to certain kinds of bogus legislation. Legislation that masquerades as Health Protection but really is designed to prevent access to Abortion Services that are constitutionally protected. So i wonder if you could seek a little bit to the limited nature of this legislation, the fact for example that it specifically prohibits restrictions and im quoting from the act that are more burdensome than those restrir restrictions imposed on medically comparable procedures in other words it saids medically comparable procedure. Could you speak to that issue. Yeah thank you for that question. I think we did hear a lot this morning about the alleged sweep of this law but in fact it is very targeted to whats happening right now in the country of the its very targeted to this new tactic of the last several years in which state legislatures have been passing laws that purport to be about health and safety but are not. That has shown to be defied in many ways. I would definitely commend to everyones reading from the executive Vice President and ceo of the well respected organizations to which the vast majority of oggyns relong belon country. They strongly support s 16996. They do so from a scientific and medical perspective, these laws are not warranted. I think whats really critical about the bill which you pointed out senator is right from the start if this is somethin