John Becker and the Phantom Ectopic Pregnancy (What the Actual Hell, Ohio?, Part 2)
On May 3, 2019, Ohio State Representative John Becker (R) introduced an abortion bill, HB 182 (the bill has 19 cosponsors). The bill is entitled: “Prohibit offering insurance for abortion services.” The bill was sent to the Insurance Committee, which held its first hearing on the bill on May 7, with Becker appearing as a witness before the committee. The bill seeks to do several things, including limiting insurance coverage for an abortion unless the mother’s life is in danger, and limit coverage for any medication or device (such as an IUD) that might inhibit or prevent implantation of an embryo.
At its core, Becker’s argument is that some people might object that some portion of their insurance premium might be covering someone else’s abortion. In his testimony before the Insurance Committee, Becker asks the Committee members to “join [him] in protecting the conscience rights of Ohio’s insurance policyholders by removing abortion services from insurance coverage in our state.”
However, Becker’s bill also covers the re-implantation of an ectopic pregnancy. The catch, of course, is that that cannot currently be done.
Ectopic pregnancies occur when a fertilized egg attaches somewhere other than the uterus. While the most common form is a tubal pregnancy, where it attaches inside the Fallopian tube, in fact, the egg can attach to any tissue inside the body, including “the ovary, cervix, and abdominal cavity.” According to Dr. William Shiel, about 1 in 60 pregnancies is ectopic. The most common treatment for an ectopic pregnancy: removal via laparoscopic surgery. Becker (and his cosponsors, presumably) wants to cover the re-implantation of that fertilized egg.
To be clear, the bill does not require the re-implantation. It carves out an exception to Ohio’s earlier “Fetal Heartbeat Bill” by defining surgery for an ectopic pregnancy as a form of “self-defense.” However, the very fact that Becker includes this provision demonstrates a couple of things.
For one, he’s not a doctor. He has little knowledge of medicine, in general, and obstetrics, in particular. So, why on Earth is he writing medical provisions into law (without consulting the medical profession)? An actual OB/GYN, Daniel Grossman, called Becker’s plan “science fiction.” As Grossman notes, we do have treatments to help a woman who has had an ectopic pregnancy become pregnant again, but Becker’s bill outlaws those very procedures. Even though Becker himself said in an interview: “When you get into the contraception and abortifacients, that’s clearly not my area of expertise,” he still calls his detractors “crazy.”
For another, his above statements demonstrate that his bill is driven by ideology and not by facts or science. He admittedly does not understand the science. He does not understand the procedures. He does not understand that what he’s suggesting is not currently possible. And, yet, there it is, because it confirms his worldview.
For another still, it ignores a fundamental principle of US society — that we create and fund things that benefit society as a whole, not just you. We fund highways systems, and you pay for them whether you have a car or not. We build and staff schools, and you pay for them whether you have children or not. We have laws and courts and jails and you pay for them whether you commit a crime or not. And in each of these cases, the fundamental principle is that having these things makes for a better society. A better place for you to live. So, your contribution may fund something you use, and maybe not. Your contribution may fund something you disagree with, and maybe not. But it’s how the system works.
Finally, what HB182 actually is is another way to limit access to abortion. While Roe v. Wade remains the law of the land, the pro-life agenda has found other ways to limit access to abortion services. (See my post on current abortion rates here.) Waiting periods, hospital admitting privileges, mandatory sonograms, fetal heartbeat are all strategies to render abortion unattainable even without touching Roe.
As Representative John Becker (unintentionally) demonstrates to us all — we really need to get back to science-based legislation.
Ritch Calvin is an Associate Professor of Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at SUNY Stony Brook. He is the author of Feminist Epistemology and Feminist Science Fiction and editor of a collection of essays on Gilmore Girls.
