Abortion Insurance Mandate Hearing Set for Tuesday

A bill to force every private insurance policy to cover abortion, sterilization, and controversial contraceptives (HB 1647) has been scheduled for a public hearing on Tuesday, February 10th, at 8 am in the House Health Care Committee.

 This bill essentially makes it illegal to buy or sell a private insurance policy that doesn’t cover abortion.

Many people oppose abortion generally. Many more do not want to pay for someone else’s abortion regardless of how they feel about the right to have one.

But this bill ignores the strong differences of opinion on this divisive issue and forces everyone to become a financial partner with the abortion industry.

This bill is primarily about forcing employers to pay for their employees’ abortions.

Proponents of the bill claim that because a woman has the right to an abortion, she should never be in a situation where she wants an abortion but can’t pay for it.  In their mind, forcing employers to do things they believe are immoral is the solution.

If we apply this logic to any other situation in life, it doesn’t pass the straight face test.

I have the right to transportation and rifles, but I do not have the right to force someone else to buy me a car or rifle if I find myself short of cash.

While the bill primarily targets employers, it also requires that every individual or family insurance policy will also be required to pay for abortion regardless of how the individual or family feels about the issue.

Proponents of the bill claim that is “discriminatory” to have some insurance policies that don’t cover abortions while other policies do.

In a sense, they’re right.

It is discriminatory in exactly the same way my order of mahi mahi discriminated against the beef, chicken, and vegetarian options that were also on the menu.

The power to choose is a recognition of each persons’ inherent dignity, but once you call it “discrimination” it gives politicians license to micro-manage.

And the moment you dare point out that it’s the same thing, they’ll tell you you’re hurting their feelings and end the conversation.

Your human dignity ends where my feelings start.

If the leftists in the legislature get their way, we will soon be in a world where a florist must celebrate same-sex weddings and must pay for her employee’s abortions as a condition of being in business.

In their mind, this is all part of ending discrimination.

Seriously.

I bet they would have passed the ball with one-yard to go too.

This bill may not make sense, but in the legislative arena, it isn’t the best ideas that become law, it is the ideas with the most political support.

If you like an idea, your voice has to be louder and clearer than those who oppose it.

The best way to make a statement is to show up at the hearing on Tuesday morning. Call ahead and schedule an appointment with your legislators so you’ll have a chance to meet with them in person. Personal communication is the best communication.

If you can’t make it, call your legislators through thelegislative hotline at 1-800-562-6000 or email them to share your thoughts. Then encourage your friends to do the same.

It’s shockingly easy, and if we all do our little part, it makes a big difference for the world we leave behind.

You contribution of $5 or more makes it possible to keep you aware of issues like these.

Parental Notification: Why You Should Care & Hearing Information

On Monday, February 2nd at 1:30 PM in the Senate Law and Justice Committee, there will be a hearing on SB 5289 which will require parents to be notified before a minor has an abortion.

The United States is one of only six nations in the world that allow abortion on demand into the third trimester and Washington is one of only thirteen states currently where a minor can get an abortion without her parents awareness.

We are on the fringe of the fringe.

Abortion is the only procedure a minor can get without her parent’s consent, much less notification. In Washington State, a minor cannot get a tattoo or go to a sunbed even with parental permission. She cannot go to an R rated movie or get an aspirin from the school nurse without parental permission.

However, she can get an abortion without their awareness.

There are a couple problems with the lack of parental notification. First, it isolates girls from their parents in moments when they most need parental involvement.

Second, the lack of parental notification makes it possible for abortion providers like Planned Parenthood to assist in the sex trafficking of minors, as documented here, here, and here.

Since medical providers are not obligated to notify parents when a minor indicates she wants an abortion, they are only required to report if a rape has occurred. In the case of a pregnant minor, that means the father is more than 5 years older than the mother.

Unfortunately, the mandatory reporting requirement for rape is easily avoided by serial abusers.

Under the threat of abuse, pimps teach the girls they abuse to lie about the age of the father and organizations like Planned Parenthood tell clients to say as little as possible so they can maintain plausible deniability. As a result, those who claim to be –and should be– looking out for the best interest of these girls are in reality assisting in the abuse of children. Our lack of parental notification makes it possible.

Opponents of the bill claim that parental notification endangers girls whose parents might become abusive when they learn their daughter is pregnant. They say the girl should decide what her parents know.

They assume that in crisis you can trust the judgment of the typical pregnant 15-year old better than the judgment of the typical parent. While it is understandable why a girl would not want to tell her parents, it is equally understandable why it would be good for her parents to know despite the child’s reservations.

Acknowledging that there are too many abusive parents in the world, it is an insult to every parent in Washington that the abortion industry and their allies in the legislature act as though they have a duty to protect our daughters from us.

By requiring parental notification, this bill acknowledges that it is generally a good thing for parents to know what is going on with their children. However, it also contains a judicial bypass provision which would allow a judge to waive the parental notification requirement in the minority of cases in which a child actually could be in danger. It protects those truly at risk without assuming every parent is a danger. That’s what rational public policy should do.

The possibility that parents might respond poorly to news that their daughter is pregnant is an argument for keeping parents out of every decision. After all, parents might also respond poorly to news that their child has committed a crime or received bad grades in school. But for good reason, we still tell them.

The argument that we should favor keeping parents in the dark in order to protect the children is incoherent. That incoherence exposes the fact that the more likely explanation has much more to do with money the abortion industry makes off of children which eventually finds its way to political campaigns.

Parental notification is not an issue about abortion. It is an issue about parental rights and the well-being of our daughters. It is a disagreement between politicians who pretend they care more about our children than we do and the parents who know better.

Please attend the hearing on Monday at 1:30 PM in Hearing Room 4 of the John A. Cherberg building on the capitol campus. The hearing room is certain to be full, so show up early. Even if you do not wish to testify, your presence communicates the injustice of this issue to legislators who have been dragging their heels for years on this issue. Please bring friends as well and call ahead to schedule meetings with your legislators in person to share your thoughts on this issue.

If you cannot attend the hearing, please call your legislators directly or through the legislative hotline at1-800-562-6000. You can also email them by clicking here.

Thank you for rejecting passivity and standing for what is just.

Telemedicine Bill Introduced This Morning

This morning, a telemedicine bill (SB 5175) was introduced into the Senate. A similar bill was introduced last year that would have allowed payment for medical services done remotely. This is generally seen as an advance in health care because it makes it easier for people who live in rural areas to access health care.  While SB 5175 does not normally fall under our four core issues (life, marriage, parental rights, and religious freedom), one little detail caught our attention: webcam abortions.

Reasons for concern with webcam abortions:

  • Webcam abortions would give doctors the ability to prescribe more chemical abortions with fewer qualified staff
  • Washington State does not require parental notification for abortion, so potentially, young girls could be prescribed a chemical abortion without the parent’s knowledge
  • There is the possibility that young girls could be hundreds of miles away from the medical professional who prescribed the chemical abortion

This is simply dangerous.

Although suggestions were made to remove sections which included webcam abortions in last year’s bill, no changes were made during the session. Thankfully, the bill died in the Senate. However, the section concerning webcam abortions seem to still be the same as last year’s bill.

While last year’s bill was stopped in the Senate, it has come back this session and will be on our “bills to watch list.” We will continue to keep you updated on this bill and other in our Legislative Center.

Forced to Sell Abortion Drugs? Olympia Pharmacy in Court Today

This afternoon in Portland, OR the owners of Olympia based Ralph’s Thriftway will be in front of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals defending their right not to sell Plan B, a drug that causes early term abortions.

No CGs – ADF: Govt shouldn’t force Christian pharmacists to dispense abortion-inducing drugs from ADF Media Relations on Vimeo.

 Ralph’s Thriftway has been embroiled in a legal mess with Washington State since 2007 after the state took the position that Plan B be sold by every pharmacy.

Their policy was to refer customers looking for Plan B to nearby pharmacies that carried it.

In 2012, a federal district court in Washington suspended the state’s regulations requiring them to sell Plan B. The court said the regulation existed “primarily (if not solely)” to ban religiously motivated referrals.

The court noted that while attempting to require Ralph’s Pharmacy to stock Plan B, they permit pharmacies to refrain from stocking and delivering drugs for “almost unlimited” business, economic, and convenience reasons.

Attorneys for the state were joined by attorney’s from Planned Parenthood in appealing the decision.

Organizations like Planned Parenthood have been working hard to leverage their political influence gained through political organization and campaign contributions to create state policies that prohibit people who do not share their enthusiasm for abortion from making a living on an equal playing field with those who do.

Their primary argument is that it is “discriminatory” for pharmacies not to sell abortion drugs. Of course that’s true in the sense that the pharmacy is making a choice not to sell something they disapprove of.

Taco Bell doesn’t sell hamburgers. Christian books stores don’t sell the Koran.

If you’re looking for an item that one particular store doesn’t sell, you’re free to go to another store. At least that’s how it used to be.

All choice (which abortion advocates once claimed to support) is discrimination.

For groups like Planned Parenthood, discrimination isn’t the real problem. After all, they discriminate against birth and mammograms.

They object to the fact that people still have the freedom to make choices that reflect moral disapproval of abortion. Which also explains why, for three years, they have been working hard to require every private insurance policy in Washington State to cover abortion.

So today, they’ll be partnering with the Washington State government doing their best to make sure that businesses and citizens in Washington State have fewer freedoms than they did yesterday.

Unless you’re one of the lawyers or one of the judges, there isn’t much you can do about this case.

But what you can do as a citizen is make sure you know how those you vote for feel about conscience rights. This case could be done away with immediately if Washington State passed legislation protecting the rights of businesses owners not to violate their conscience.

But for years, the majority in the state legislature has been either cheering or standing idly by while state agencies harass grandparents because of their beliefs about marriage or abortion.

We can do something about that.

We better.

Dying with Dignity

While the recent election has captured most of America’s attention over the past week, another event occurred this week which has reignited the debate on physician-assisted suicide, or “Death with Dignity” as it is often called. Brittany Maynard, a young woman struggling with terminal brain cancer, chose to end her own life on November 1, at the age of 29.

Prior to her planned death, she unleashed a campaign through Compassion and Choices, to expand “Death with Dignity” laws in the United States. In regard to those who do not agree with her view, she told PEOPLE magazine recently,

“For people to argue against this choice for sick people really seems evil to me…they try to mix it up with suicide and that’s really unfair, because there’s not a single part of me that wants to die. But I am dying.”

However, Katrina Trinko at the Daily Signal recently wrote a thought-provoking article that urges further consideration of this issue. Compassion and Choices and PEOPLE both neglected to mention two women who begged Brittany not to take her life but to embrace each day she had left. Maggie Karner and Kara Tippetts are both suffering from terminal cancer as well, but they also believe that there is dignity in natural death, no matter how great the suffering. Maggie Karner filmed a special message urging Brittany to reconsider her decision, and Kara Tippets wrote a letter to this effect, even offering to fly out to Oregon to talk with her. Why would these women feel so strongly about this issue? Are these women “evil” because they wanted Brittany to make a different choice? To the contrary, their perspectives are worth considering because Brittany’s choice is also a reflection on our society. As Katrina Trinko writes,

“…if we reject that dignity is inherent in every human being at every moment, what else will we cut off? If a death of terminal cancer, with all the terrible suffering it brings, isn’t dignified, what else will be classified as undignified?”

Take a moment in the middle of this election cycle to read Katrina Trinko’s article, then watch this video and consider the message that these women are sending to our culture about death and dignity.

 

Forcing Churches to Pay for Abortions

The internet has helped us all develop a healthy skepticism.  We read certain headlines and automatically assume they’re either misleading or totally false.

Sure, I have my concerns with President Obama, but I’m not buying that he’s now the High Priest of the Church of Satan.

Then there are other stories that we hope are fake only to find out that they’re actually true.

There were two of those this week.

First, in England, British education officials have told a Christian school that they are violating the “British value” of “tolerance” because only Christians are providing the instruction at their Christian school.

That’s like having art classes taught by actual artists. We can’t have that.

The school was told “to invite a leader from another religion, such as an imam, to lead assemblies.”

This new policy was a response to a scandal in which several government schools in Birmingham, England had been taken over by Muslim managers who began using them for Islamic instruction.

So…their response to too much Islamic instruction in government schools is apparently to require Islamic instruction in Christian schools.

If they refused to provide non-Christian instruction for their students, the school was told it could be downgraded or even closed.

“But that’s in England,” you say.  “Here in the United States we still respect religious freedom.”

Or maybe not.

The other story comes from the land of fruits and nuts — California.

The state of California has decided that churches must now pay for elective abortions.

Not businesses or not private individuals, which would be bad enough.  Churches.

At the urging of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which once defended religious freedom and individual rights, the Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC) has decided that elective abortions must be covered under “basic health services”.

As a result, insurance companies have begun notifying churches that abortion must be included in their insurance coverage.

This is precisely the outcome many in the Washington State legislature have been working toward for three years unsuccessfully.  But, having failed in the legislature, we should probably be looking out for rule changes from bureaucrats to accomplish the same purpose.

You know, if at first you don’t succeed, just circumvent the democratic process.

For those who live in California, this new change creates the bizarre situation where federal law protects their right not to pay for chemical abortions but state law is forcing them to pay for surgical abortions.

Obviously the elected officials in California know this violates the beliefs of millions of people in their state.  But here’s an important point to remember.

They don’t care.

The abortion industry helps them get elected.  People in churches don’t.  Ergo, the abortion industry wins.

Of course litigation will result.  We pray that some vestiges of the right to the free exercise of religion will remain.

Nevertheless, here we are.

In the very recent past, the left has been hysterical in explaining the need to maintain a rigid separation between church and state.  But that separation seems to be less important now if it would mean limiting the state from controlling the church.

Remember, just last week pastors in Houston were told to turn over their sermons on homosexuality and same-sex “marriage” to the government.

If you stayed out of the debate because you want to coexist with those who disagree with you remember this: they don’t want to coexist.  At least not the ones driving the political agenda.

They want you gone. They want you in the closet they claim to have resented so much.  They want the punishment for coming out of that closet to be so severe that you choose to keep your narrow-minded, hateful religion to yourself. For good.

Once that happens, they’re sure everyone will be happy.

After all, the only reason women feel bad about abortions or kids feel conflicted about their same-sex attraction is because of bigots like us.

Yes, they’re wrong.  But that doesn’t matter if the ones who know they’re wrong step aside and let them pass. It is possible to have peace through surrender, but then you’re the vanquished.  As Ronald Reagan always said, peace through strength is much, much better.  So be strong.

There is an election in 11 days.  The people who are elected will determine which direction Washington goes with respect to conscience rights, religious freedom, and real tolerance.

Be an informed voter and make sure your friends are as well.  If you see that they haven’t voted yet, send them a reminder.

Let’s not be California.

Washington Leadership Targets Hobby Lobby

Late last week, Gov. Jay Inslee and a group of Washington State Senators held a press conference  near a soon-to-be-opened Hobby Lobby store in North Seattle to assure voters they will do whatever they can to force businesses in Washington State to violate their conscience.

For the last two years, the Washington State Senate has been controlled by a Majority Coalition of Republicans and two Democrats. As a result, the Governor’s most radical proposals have failed to reach his desk.

In attempt to solve this problem, Gov. Inslee is pulling out all the stops.

Once again, he recruited his friend, billionaire Tom Steyer from California, to spend at least $1 million on Washington State legislative races.

Now, he’s hoping to persuade votes of the need to force businesses like Hobby Lobby to violate their convictions about abortion.

By way of review, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) mandated that every company provide 20 specific kinds of contraceptives in their health plans. Hobby Lobby was willing to pay for 16 forms of birth control but objected to four. The Supreme Court agreed with Hobby Lobby that federal law protects the rights of people not to violate their conscience even if they become employers.

The fact that you have a right to something, does not mean you have the right to make someone else buy it for you.

These lawmakers, however, believe Washington’s non-discrimination laws allow them to force businesses to buy abortion drugs in violation of their conscience.

Senator Karen Keiser believes Hobby Lobby’s freedom to choose is a real problem. “This has real effect on tens of thousands of Washington employees who are now at risk of losing access to their choice of birth control.”

Of course that’s just stuff you say at an election year press conference. No one actually thinks women are about to lose their birth control.

The Center for Disease Control’s own health statistics from 2013 show that 99% of women between the ages of 12-44 have used birth control. This was all before the ACA mandate. If 99% of the people are using it before anyone thought they could force their boss to buy it for them, there isn’t a crisis of access.

In the most ironic statement of the day, Sen. Kevin Ranker said that, “This partisan politics around women’s reproductive rights and core values is unacceptable.” Actually, that’s something we can agree on, but probably not for the reasons he’s thinking.

Sadly, efforts to force people to pay for abortion against their will is kind of an old story. For three years in a row, the Washington State legislature, led by Sen. Steve Hobbs in the Senate, has pushed a bill that would make it illegal to purchase an insurance policy that doesn’t cover abortion.

Fortunately, sanity has prevailed and-for now-women in Washington still have the choice of what kind of health insurance they want to purchase.

Still, the fact that our state’s leadership is mounting another assault to force people to violate their conscience and participate in abortion shows a disturbing lack of empathy.

Someone should propose legislation forcing them to idle their car for no reason at all, cut down a tree, or throw an aluminum can into the waste bin rather than the recycle container.

If you care about the freedom to run your business according to your beliefs, your freedom is on the ballot this November. At least they warned us.

So make sure you know which candidates on your ballot support conscience rights, religious freedom, and the autonomy of people to choose for themselves whether they will participate in controversial activities.

And then use Vote Finder to help your friends do the same. With Vote Finder you can find out if your friends, family, or fellow parishioners have voted before the election is over.

If we all make sure just 10 other people who share our perspective vote, the close elections will be decided in favor of people who value your freedom as much as you do. Or, you can do nothing, be frustrated, and watch Gov. Inslee and his billionaire friend toast to how much more control over your life and business they now have.

Another Broken Promise

Just over five years ago, an attempt to persuade the Congress and the public to support the Affordable Care Act (ACA), President Obama stood before a joint session of Congress and declared to the American people, “under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.”

A new report released today, prepared by the independent, nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO), demonstrates that despite the President’s unambiguous promise taxpayer dollars are being spent on abortion.

By way of review, the federal Hyde Amendment strictly prohibited the use of federal funds for abortion from 1976 until 2010, when the ACA was passed.

This longstanding federal policy became a major point of contention in the legislative debate as finding votes proved to be difficult, even among his friends.

Eight pro-life Democrats refused to support the ACA if federal funds were going to be used for abortion.

In order to secure those votes, President Obama proposed a rule that would require any policy covering abortion to charge an abortion surcharge and promised that other funds would not be used to pay for abortion.

In the end, this convinced those who were otherwise uneasy with the law to support it and final passage was secured.

However, this GAO report only confirms the suspicions of many that the proposal was a gimmick intended to secure votes, not an honest attempt to honor the conscience of the hundreds of millions of Americans who do not want to pay for abortions.

Some states took action to prohibit taxpayer funds from being used for abortion. But in states where that did not happen, the federal government has done nothing to ensure compliance with federal law.

The report found that five states (NJ, CT, VT, RI, HI) don’t offer a single plan that doesn’t include abortion coverage. That means that all subsidies in those states are covering abortion.

In the state of California, where 1.25 million people are receiving federal subsidies for their health care plans, 95% of all plans cover abortion.

In the state of New York, 405 of 406 plans cover abortion on demand.

Over 1,000 plans on the ACA exchanges cover abortion on demand, which would never have been allowed under the Hyde Amendment.

The accounting gimmick that was supposed to be the solution to this problem is largely being ignored. Of the 18 companies the GAO surveyed in their study, not one of them was collecting a separate abortion surcharge.

We are not aware of any evidence that the Department of Health and Human Services has made any attempt to require compliance with its own laws on this matter.

If you like your insurance you can keep it, period.

Your premiums will go down.

Federal funds will not be used for abortion.

Looks like none of it was true.

That’s why we should all be concerned that at the same time he was promising not to use federal funds for abortion he was also promising that federal conscience laws will remain.

Consider yourself warned.
Your contribution of $5 or more helps FPIW continue to defend life, marriage, religious freedom and parental rights.

Webcam Abortion Bill Dies as Session Ends

The Washington State legislature adjourned late Thursday night.  The end of session also ended discussion on a controversial bill involving telemed or webcam abortions as well.

This bill (HB 1448), which would have facilitated payment for medical services done remotely, is generally seen as an advance in health care because it makes it easier for people who live in rural areas to access health care.  Many health services, particularly in mental health, do not require a physical examination of a patient.  The ability to consult with your doctor without the need to drive hundreds of miles would be an improvement.

Nevertheless, after passing unanimously through the State House of Representatives, Planned Parenthood testified in support of the bill in the Senate, alerting people to the fact that this bill may not be as innocent as it appears.

It turns out that Washington is not the first case to facilitate telemedicine.  In Iowa, the legislature passed a similar measure.  However, one of the unexpected results was that the abortion industry began taking advantage of the measure in ways that were harming women.

Drugs that cause chemical abortions were being prescribed by medical providers who were hundreds of miles away from their patients.  These drugs, which have caused death and frequently cause severe abdominal pain, were leaving women to deal with serious complications far from any medical care to help them deal with it.

In the end, the Iowa Department of Health examined the evidence and banned the use of telemedicine for abortion. For similar reasons, eleven state legislatures have passed legislation banning telemed abortions.

Planned Parenthood has sued the state of Iowa challenging the Board of Health decision.

The abortion industry generally is having an increasingly difficult time finding medical providers to perform their abortions.  Applying this technology to abortion would make it much more efficient to prescribe the drug and get the taxpayer reimbursement.  Fewer medical providers would need to be involved.

The problem with telemed abortions is particularly acute in a state like Washington that has no parental notification law.  It would have created a situation in which a 14 year-old girl could get a chemical abortion without her parent’s awareness hundreds of miles from the doctor who prescribed the drug.  Not only would her parents not know, but perhaps the only adult who does know would be unable to help with complications.

The Board of Health in Iowa Banned the use of telemed abortions because they heard from women who had driven hundreds of miles, while bleeding in their car, looking for help.

In the end, there was general agreement on the vast majority of this bill.  Typically, in situations like this, the bill would simply be amended to remove the small part of the bill on which there is disagreement so the rest can be advanced.

Don’t let the best be the enemy of the good, right?

But nothing involving the abortion industry is very typical.

Once the issue was raised, the abortion industry took the position that if telemedicine would not be available so they could prescribe chemical abortions to children from hundreds of miles away, it shouldn’t be available to those needing mental health services in remote parts of the state either.

It’s really unfortunate.

Still, whenever the abortion industry loses a chance to expand its business, it’s a good day.

And you made it happen.  And not just on this bill.

From the Abortion Insurance Mandate, to the ban on Sexual Orientation Change Efforts, to telemed abortion, the thousands of times you reached out to legislators made all the difference.

Your voice is being heard and it is changing the debate in Olympia. Keep doing it.  And go recruit some friends.  There’s obviously a long ways to go.

Bad Bills Die

The Senate Health Care committee failed to vote on two separate bills with significant implications for conscience rights, religious freedom, and parental rights in their last committee meeting before today’s deadline.  This signals the likely death for an Abortion Insurance Mandate (HB 2148) as well as a bill to ban Sexual Orientation Change Therapy (HB 2451)

This represents the third-year in a row the Abortion Insurance Mandate, the top priority of the abortion industry in Washington, has died in the Senate after passing the House. It would have required every insurance policy bought and sold in Washington State to cover abortion, which would require every insurance customer to effectively subsidize abortion through their insurance premiums.

While many states, including Washington, pay for abortion with taxpayer dollars, no state has taken the step of requiring every individual, business, or church that purchases health insurance to become de facto partners in the abortion business in violation of their conscience.  Neither will Washington-at least for now.

A fuller list of concerns about the Abortion Insurance Mandate can be found here and here.

This was the first time a ban on Sexual Orientation Change Therapy (SOCE) was introduce in the Washington legislature.  A bill to study the issue was introduced in Washington in 2013 but failed to pass.

Similar bills passed in New Jersey and California last year and have been introduced in Maryland, Minnesota, New York, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania.

The ban on SOCE appears to be a new point of emphasis for the gay lobby.  It is likely that the bill will return again next year even if it does not pass this session.  A list of concerns with the bill can be found here and here.

A summary of the arguments made in support of and opposition to the bill in a Senate committee hearing can be found here.

In the legislature, no bill is ever completely dead until everyone goes home.  In fact, some bills become law without ever having a hearing in either the House or the Senate.  However, bills that fail to make it out of committee’s by the deadline are generally not heard from again during that session.

The fact that these bills did not become law can be attributed in large part to the number of people who reached out to their legislators on these issues.  Offices told us that they had received hundreds of calls on these issues and that communication from constituents made a significant difference.

Your willingness to take a few moments out of your life to write an email or make a quick phone call has made the world a slightly better place than it would have been otherwise.  So thank you.

You can and should continue to email your legislators about these or any other issue that concerns you by click here. Your conversations with lawmakers will become even more effective if they don’t only occur during a “crisis”.

You are encouraged to thank the members of the Senate Health Care committee for not advancing these bills that would significantly harm conscience rights.  It’s always nice to hear someone say “thank you”, especially when you’re a legislator.

Becker, Randi (R) Chair, (360) 786-7602

Dammeier, Bruce (R) Vice Chair, (360) 786-7648

Pederson, Jamie (D) Ranking Minority Member (360) 786-7628

Angel, Jan (R), (360) 786-7650

Bailey, Barbara (R), (360) 786-7618

Cleveland, Annette (D), (360) 786-7696

Keiser, Karen (D), (360) 786-7664

Parlette, Linda Evans (R), (360) 786-7622

Thank you for being part of the team.