The Indiana Senate and House are again poised for a tussle over an anti-choice bill that would require doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital in the county in which the abortion is performed.  SB89 has been around the block before and has failed to pass muster.

Remember this is the same legislation that Allen County anti-choicers couldn’t quite manipulate by the Allen County Commissioners.  The Commissioners soon realized that the bill that they were presented this past year was simply a pretext to curtail access to abortions by requiring that the doctor have admitting privileges at a local hospital.  The regulation presented to the Commissioners was gussied up to look like the proponents really cared about those who were having out-patient procedures.

Trouble was, on a closer review of the regulation, it was discovered that the only procedures that were covered were those typically associated with first trimester abortions.  Nary a provision was included that protected men from a failed out-patient procedure by doctors.

In fact, Cathie Humbarger, executive director of Allen County Right to Life made the following uninformed comment:

“All of us want to make certain that if a woman is bleeding at midnight after an abortion and comes into an emergency room, she can have the same quality of medical care that women of Indiana deserve and receive in virtually every other circumstance.”

Now, I have to ask – is Ms. Humbarger actually suggesting that if a woman appeared at an emergency room at midnight in dire circumstances that the personnel would blow off  the Hypocratic Oath and turn her away?  Nah – she surely couldn’t be suggesting that someone with a life-threatening emergency would be shunned and left to stand at the sliding doors of the emergency room.

Senate Bill 89 is simply another step in the direction of ultimately curtailing a woman’s choice.  Perhaps Ms. Hunbarger and those concerned with the incidence of abortion should focus on educating people about how to prevent pregnancies in the first place.


About Charlotte A. Weybright

I own a home in the historical West Central Neighborhood of Fort Wayne, Indiana. I have four grown sons and nine grandchildren - four grandsons and five granddaughters. I love to work on my home, and I enjoy crafts of all types. But, most of all, I enjoy being involved in political and community issues.
This entry was posted in Health Care, Indiana, Rights and Liberties, Women's Interests and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. tim zank says:

    I;m just curious, why the euphemisms. Why not just call it what it is? Pro-abortion or Anti-abortion? Either you are for abortions or you are against abortions, right?

    I always thought the phrase “The Right To Choose” sounded more like it belonged in a Baskin Robbins.

  2. Actually, I use anti-choice and pro-choice because the “Right to Life” group calls themselves Pro-Life when they are really referring to only opposing abortions. They have taken a very broad term and applied it to a very narrow situation. If one utters the phrase “pro-life” the issue that comes to mind is abortion and that term is inextricably linked to opposing abortion.

    My usage was a counter to their constant use of Pro-Life (which they are not if you take into consideration their stances on rape and incest), so I chose to use pro-choice and label them anti-choice.

    In addition, the Pro-Lifers aren’t truly anti-abortion if they believe that exceptions should exist. Someone who is pro-abortion also runs into the same issue if you throw in the traumatic issue of partial birth abortions. Both sides suffer from inconsistencies.

    Pro-choice is not the same thing as pro-abortion. I believe that the woman along with the doctor should make the choice – that doesn’t mean I am pro-abortion. Anti-abortion is also a misnomer since those who call themselves anti-abortion will many times make exceptions for rape and incest, again providing the woman and the doctor the right – the choice – to make that decision.

  3. Andy says:

    “Either you are for abortions or you are against abortions, right?”

    Its not that black and white Tim.

    There a multitude of reasons and viewpoints as to why people are for or against something, depending on the circumstances. There are many people who are pro-choice, but who are against late term abortions. Someone who previously may have not been for an abortion, or right to choose to have one, may change their mind IF their daughter was raped and impregnated by an absolute stranger when she was just 12 yrs old. Others, who may be against abortion, may reconsider the option if after finding out the birth mother’s health was seriously in question if she was to proceed with her pregnancy.

    Some on the anti-abortion side of the coin define the morning after pill as an abortion, while others do not. The argument has even spilled over into contraceptives and birth control pills. I think you will find a varied degree of definitions on both sides of the issue as to when and why an a abortion is appropriate or not.

    So to say one is “pro abortion” or “anti abortion” is painting with a very broad brush stroke what can be a very difficult, personal and complex decision.

  4. tim zank says:

    You’re both missing my point, I am referring to the “glaring” ommission of the actual name of the procedure. I know both sides obfuscate the term, I’d like BOTH sides to be honest and acknowledge it for what it is.

  5. Andy says:


    If your issue is with semantics, then there are a whole host of other topics this can pertain to:

    Creationism OR Intelligent Design

    Estate Tax OR Death Tax

    Operation The
    Iraqi OR Invasion
    Freedom of Iraq

    Interrogation OR Torture

  6. tim zank says:

    Andy, you are correct.

  7. Iceironman says:

    “Perhaps Ms. Hunbarger and those concerned with the incidence of abortion should focus on educating people about how to prevent pregnancies in the first place.”

    You are serious?
    If these people getting their first or tenth abortion dont know what caused it– our govt schools have failed.

    These are the same people(D) that cant get it straight after one full year of being inadated by ads and commercials to go get a damn converter box. Did you know that digital tv is here? Of course, but personal responsibility took a hike in the 60s. Now BO has to extend the freaking digital change over because of idiots. And now when their tvs dont work–they will get board, have sex and the abortion rate will go even higher. It is time to pull the plug on idiots.

Comments are closed.