An Open Letter To John Becker, From A Conservative Woman Against HB 182

I have always had a conservative mind. For the most part, I believe in conservative values. Keeping that in mind, it has come to the point to where it doesn't matter if you are conservative, Republican, Democrat, or liberal. This is about the health of your mother, daughter, sister, and best friend.

This is about Ohio House Bill 182.

This is a war against women and their choice to control their bodies.

This bill forces women of all ages to continue a pregnancy even in rape cases if they don't have the funds for an abortion (after 6 weeks it is illegal to get an abortion in Ohio). This bill will end any insurance funding of certain birth controls that women count on. The government has crossed the line, and when I am put into a position where I have to choose in between womens' health and rights or pro-life, I will choose pro-women every single time. I am pro women's health. I am here to protect the rights that women have fought for, for centuries.

House Bill 182 is flaw-ridden, rather confusing, and it is not based on factual information. Here's the explanation.

The "long title" of Bill 182 is "To amend sections 9.04, 1739.05, and 5101.56 and to enact sections 1751.95 and 3923.591 of the Revised Code to prohibit insurers from offering coverage for abortion services."

The simple translation of the long title is "Prohibit offering insurance for abortion services."

Under this bill, nontherapeutic abortions that include "drugs or devices used to prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovum," will not be covered by most insurance companies (it will prohibit insurance companies from covering it.)

John Becker is the sponsor of this bill. While speaking about the bill and answering questions (Q&A) Becker says "The intent is to save lives and reduce the cost of employers and employees health care insurance."

Becker claims that this bill will also change the way doctors go about ectopic pregnancies. An ectopic pregnancy is when the fertilized egg attaches outside of the womb and begins to grow. During the same Q&A that I mentioned earlier, Becker says that "women will have to undergo a procedure to move the embryo into the uterus" before she gets an abortion (which will put her life at high risk.)

Part of that treatment would be removing that embryo from the fallopian tube and reinserting it in the uterus so that is defined as not an abortion under this bill.

According to Jaime Miracle, deputy director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, it is not possible to re-insert the embryo into the uterus. She also states that women in this situation would have to wait until their lives were in serious danger to get an abortion.

After some research, I found out that it is possible to "re-insert" the embryo elsewhere, although it is extremely dangerous to both what could be a child and the mother carrying the child. Statistics say that 1 out of 3 million ectopic pregnancies are successful after surgery. The surgery to relocate the embryo consists of moving the embryo to somewhere in the abdomen. As I said before, it is extremely rare that the baby will "make it" and it also puts the mother at high risk. The mother is at risk during the entire pregnancy, and especially during delivery. Due to "re-inserting" the embryo into the abdomen, doctors have to watch out for major organs and blood vessels (during delivery).

Thirty percent of ectopic pregnancies have no medical signs or symptoms in the early stages. The symptoms include vaginal bleeding, sudden lower abdominal pain, pelvic pain, and a tender cervix. An ectopic pregnancy that goes unterminated for too long will also put the mother at extremely high risk, by causing her to bleed internally. It is also nearly impossible to save the fetus at this point.

Therefore, as Jamie Miracle said, the mother would have to wait until her life is truly at risk to abort in a situation like this. She also says that this bill will greatly increase infant and maternal mortality rate.

Not only will this bill put women's lives at risk if they have an ectopic pregnancy or another medical/important reason to abort before six weeks, but it will also prevent women all over the state of Ohio from receiving affordable birth control.

With past experience of my own, the birth control that I used to take (the daily pill) was approximately $125 a month with insurance. Aside from my experience, "the shot" can cost up to $250 initially and $150 for visits after that. The birth control implant could cost up to $800, and the IUD can cost up to almost $900. Those are without insurance and not including what the doctor's office charges for appointments, so that is what women would have to pay out-of-pocket under this bill.

John Becker says that he expects the drug manufacturers to reformulate the medication so it is considered "non-abortive." Reformulate, definitionally, means to make or develop. Therefore, Becker wants companies to recreate birth control. The first thing that comes to mind when I think of that is "how long will this cause birth control to be off the market as a whole?"

Some women cannot live without it for multiple reasons aside from sexual protection.

If a woman stops taking birth control, she cannot immediately start it back up again. This bill isn't sound and it has multiple flaws. Regulating women's bodies like they are some kind of material isn't possible, and anyone that has ever taken birth control knows this to be true.

Most women struggle to stay afloat in society as is. They, at some point, struggle to make ends meet. There is absolutely no reason to penalize women for being women. Especially when there are no rules, laws, or even comments made towards men and what they do with their bodies or when they do it.

Under this bill, women are picked out one by one and it is implied that they are 100% responsible for pregnancies. It also implies that their comfortability, health, and natural menstruation is punishable by law. This bill alone will increase the poverty levels in women all around Ohio. They will not be able to afford the basic needs for living a comfortable lifestyle.

Bill 182 is sponsored by John Becker. Becker is a Republican member of the Ohio House of Representatives. Becker is 58-years-old, he has a wife (Dottie) of 29 years and two adult children. He has accomplished a Bachelor of Science in Management and his MBA with "emphasis" on taxation.

Mind you, neither of those degrees have any correspondence with women, women health, childbirth, pregnancy, medication, etc. After hours of research, the only evidence I can find that relates to health is on, and it says,

Representative Becker has over 30 years' experience in the private sector, including the manufacturing, managed healthcare, banking, and finance industries. He is a Certified Treasury Professional who currently operates a tax preparation business for individuals and small businesses. Additionally, Becker holds a school district treasurer's license.

You may consider "managed healthcare" as enough experience when it comes to regulating birth control and abortion, but the information that is publically listed shows that his expertise are in economics and/or business, not women's health.

Politics, education and "experience" aside, John Becker has never experienced a number of things that women face on a daily basis. He never had to lay in bed all day due to severe cramping. He's never heard the words "carrying this child will put your life at risk." He has never been two or more months pregnant and essentially "walked out on" by the baby's father. He has never attended a pregnancy check-up/ultrasound alone. He was never raped at 11 years old and forced to keep the child of the rapist as a permanent reminder of what happened.

John Becker does not know what it is like to be in a woman's shoes, and he never will. He doesn't depend on birth control to make his life "easier," or at least less painful and tolerable. As I said earlier, he has two adult children. Therefore, it has at least been 18 years since he had to go through anything pregnancy-oriented with his wife, even though that doesn't even remotely count as "being in a woman's shoes."

It is reasonable for us to be OK with a man that hasn't experienced the pain he is going to cause by prohibiting funding for abortion and birth control? What can we do to prevent this from happening?

This is a cry for help, not only from me... but from all of the women in Ohio.

— A scared Ohio girl

Report this Content

More on Currently

Facebook Comments