Why I voted no

I write today to explain the reasons for my vote in opposition to House Bill 2700 on March 15, 2007. While I support the use of prescription birth control as a form of contraception, and recognize that available contraception will reduce unwanted pregnancies—and therefore reduce abortion—a number of flaws with House Bill 2700 made it impossible to support.

The definition of “emergency contraception” included in the bill is dangerously vague. The definition is “a drug or device that is approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration to prevent pregnancy after sexual intercourse.” Nothing in this definition restricts use of emergency contraception to a specific time period following intercourse. Nor does the definition strictly limit emergency contraception to a treatment that prevents conception from taking place. This vagueness could result in requiring health care providers to give treatment outside the scope of legislative intent. Any treatment performed after conception affects not just the patient, but also the human embryo growing within. Because of this vagueness, I could not support House Bill 2700.

Furthermore, House Bill 2700 includes a requirement that a “student health insurance policy” provide coverage or reimbursement for prescription contraceptives. Student health insurance policies are intended to provide medical insurance to college and university students who do not otherwise have available health care. However, not everyone attending college or university is over the age of 18. House Bill 2700 could require the dispensing of prescription contraception to children under the age of 18. This is incompatible with public policy and laws concerning sexual intercourse with minors. Sexual intercourse with a minor under age 18 is statutory rape, and is illegal in Oregon. I believe that House Bill 2700, by allowing minors to obtain prescription contraception, would amount to a state endorsement of sexual intercourse by children under the age of 18. Because I believe my duty as a State Representative is to protect our children and uphold the law, I could not support House Bill 2700.

Finally, House Bill 2700 is an unfunded mandate on health insurance providers. Unfunded mandates increase costs to consumers. Presently, employers can choose to offer employees health insurance plans that offer coverage for contraception. Likewise, individuals are free to obtain private health insurance plans of their own. Ultimately, every person can choose to purchase contraceptive drugs and devices out-of-pocket. The ability to choose which benefits will comprise a health insurance plan results in the lowest possible cost to the consumer. House Bill 2700 would take the power of choice away from the people. The net effect of the bill might help one segment of the population afford contraception, but would at the same time make the overall cost of health care more for all Oregonians. While I support more available and accessible contraception, a mandate that places a burden on health insurance providers is not the answer.

For all these reasons, I voted NAY on House Bill 2700.