Iowa Legislative 2017 Session Ends!

The Iowa Legislature has been busy this session. Now that the session has ended, it's time to summarize what has happened. Many of the bills associated with the same major issue tended to be addressed in the same week as other bills that address the same issue. Although there was some activity on the abortion bills earlier in the session, most of the activity took place in the final week of the session, which just ended. At this point, all pro-life bills await the approval of the Governor, who has been supportive of the bills.

20-week Abortion Ban & New Rules

The 20-week abortion ban (SF 471) was passed. The 20 weeks are measured post-fertilization. Abortions cannot be performed after 20 weeks, with very few exceptions. As medical science advances, the bill also provisions for the ban to adjust for viability if viability occurs before 20 weeks--it's whichever comes first. This bill goes beyond moving up the limit of when abortions can be performed. It also adds several rules that have been in place in other states. It is the largest change in abortion policy in Iowa in decades.

The exceptions that would permit an abortion include: doing so to save the life of the mother, performing the abortion in a medical emergency, and when performing the abortion intends to prevent the death or preserve the life of the pregnant woman. Exceptions for rape and incest are not included in this bill, so more lives will be protected in those cases.

The bill added a 72-hour (3-day) waiting period before women can get an abortion. The 72 hours begin once the physician obtains written certification of the following:

• An ultrasound of the child has been done
• The woman was given an opportunity to see the child (if she wanted to)
• The woman was given the option of hearing a description of the unborn child based on the ultrasound image and hearing the heartbeat of the child
• Information developed by the department of public health was provided to the woman
• Materials that offer the woman alternatives to abortion

Allocating Funds Away from Abortion Providers

The budget for the Health and Human Services has been passed (HF 653). The bill codifies the creation of a state-run program to handle what the federal Medicaid Family Planning Network Waiver addressed in the past.

Federal funds usually match state funds 9-to-1 to cover reproductive services. But in exchange for that, the state has to follow all of the federal rules. This has forced the state to fund Planned Parenthood and any other abortion provider in Iowa in the past. In order to avoid funding the abortion industry, the state decided not to participate in that program. So they replaced it with their own program. The only difference that presently exists is that Iowa will not fund abortion providers.

The media has been repeatedly defending Planned Parenthood by saying that taxpayer funds aren't paying for abortions today, so such a change is not necessary. If the bias was removed, they would simply state that the funds are not permitted to be spent on abortions. But lawsuits like Sue Thayer's lawsuit against Planned Parenthood of the Heartland alleges that funds ARE being used for most of the steps of abortions in Iowa. The media has been careless in their words. They cannot state with certainty that our money isn't paying for abortions given such lawsuits exist.

But the more common criticism is that any payment to an abortion provider for other services could allow them to divert their other sources of income to abortions, and thus indirectly fund abortions. They supporters who give money to provide various other services might have the majority of their donation pay for abortions when the government ends up paying for the services they hoped to cover.

Abortion providers often build up a client base by providing services paid for by taxpayer funds. Unfortunately, when they offer birth control that's not 100% effective, many women get pregnant with a mindset of not wanting a child. This creates a fairly ideal situation for selling abortions. And those same clients already have the relationship with the abortion provider. It's been a marketing system that has worked very effectively for decades, thanks to taxpayer funding and the strings tied to the "free" money from the federal government.

For several years, Planned Parenthood has bragged about the way they serve women regardless of "regardless of their ability to pay". They build sympathy and support from people who see this as a generous act on the part of Planned Parenthood. But when there are efforts to withhold taxpayer funds from abortion providers, we see the truth. They make it clear that large numbers of women will no longer receive healthcare. I guess they never shifted their rhetoric from when they tried to explain what happens if they were defunded. But the money will go to other healthcare providers. So women will still be served. And it's not their generosity, but OUR taxpayer money that they are using to pay for those services. Without OUR money, they sound like they aren't willing to stand by their offer to provide services regardless of the ability of their clients to pay. It's easy to appear generous when you receive tons of money per client or service. If they believe their rhetoric of serving women regardless of their ability to pay, then they should stand by that even when the government stops funding them. Many other organizations help people without receiving taxpayer funds. But I guess they believe they are "too big to fail" and demand our money.

Yes, there could be a strain in the first few years as other providers adapt to the increase in clients. But in a city like Cedar Rapids, consider how we estimate that a staff of 2-3 people are all that it takes to serve women at Planned Parenthood who are on Medicaid. If 2-3 new workers in a county of 200,000 people is a huge strain, then we have other issues. Smaller towns should have less demand. The other providers will get funding for the additional clients.

This bill, once enacted into law should eliminate at least 90% of the government funding for Planned Parenthood in Iowa. The other 10% pays Planned Parenthood to educate our children in our schools with their materials. That could not be addressed easily in the same bill. But many people don't like Planned Parenthood being in their schools. Communities in Southwest Iowa kicked them out a few years ago. Planned Parenthood tried to get back into the schools and faced more opposition. It's troubling to see them educating our children. They have previously made it clear that they are in the schools within Linn County. The more children approach reproductive health the way they do, the more clients they may have in the future. Again, it's another very effective marketing strategy.