The Michigan Legislature, with the help of our representative Peter Pettalia, has passed legislation limiting a woman's access to essential medical care.
Abortion is a regrettable proposition but a procedure at times medically or otherwise necessary for reasons beyond any woman's contemplation or control. This recent legislation does not relieve a woman's need to face these unfortunate situations, or make easier the difficult decisions attendant to them, nor does it eliminate her need for appropriate medical care.
What it does do is exacerbate a situation where, as the result of violence or of a pregnancy's unhealthy progression, a women is forced from a position of having limited control to having close to none.
Our Republication governor recently vetoed virtually identical legislation because it treated the termination of a pregnancy involving rape, incest, or the health of the mother as an, "elective" procedure, not a necessary one. A standard medical policy is now precluded from offering abortion coverage relevant to these issues. Succinctly stated: if a lady is raped and hasn't purchased separate, "abortion insurance" prior to that rape, she has no medical coverage to terminate any resulting pregnancy; the product of the violence done her.
Gov. Snyder was recently quoted by The Detroit Free Press as remarking: "They (the legislature) went around me because I would stand by my (earlier) veto."
If our governor's valid concerns were recognized by Rep. Pettalia, he has either chosen to ignore them, or to act in derogation of them for reasons he may have believed were in his political best interest.
If the latter is true, then Rep. Pettalia has made an unconscionable choice where no valid choice exists: between what he believed to be in his political best interest and the best interest of many innocent victims.
Douglas A. Pugh