Pa. bill on fetal remains is anti-choice legislation in disguise | Opinion

For patients undergoing the physical and emotional pain of pregnancy loss, this bill would only add cost, paperwork, and the potential for more confusion and grief.

Pro-choice activists hold placards during a rally at the Supreme Court in reaction to the passage of bills in Alabama, Georgia, Missouri, and other states that restrict access to abortion on May 21, 2019, in Washington, D.C.Read moreOlivier Douliery / MCT

by Sarah Gutman and Alhambra Frarey, For The Inquirer

Published Mar. 15, 2021, 8:50 a.m. ET

Anti-choice legislation can be deceptive. When lawmakers pass laws to make abortion illegal after six weeks (as they did in Georgia), or illegal in all cases including rape and incest (as they did in Alabama), a Pennsylvania bill imposing requirements on how fetal remains are handled seems nearly quaint. But it is all part of the same assault on reproductive health care, and as OB-GYNs, we know firsthand how damaging this legislation could be.

House Bill 118, introduced by Francis X. Ryan, a Lebanon County Republican, would require health-care facilities to provide cremation or burial services for every miscarriage or abortion. This requirement would force the provision of a death certificate even in cases such as a miscarriage occurring within days of a missed period, or an ectopic pregnancy implanted outside the uterus and therefore never viable. The bill states that any health-care facility would bear this responsibility or face fines, imposing additional costs to care and potentially reducing access to lifesaving, reproductive health care.

According to a cosponsorship memorandum circulated by Ryan in December, he introduced this bill in response to his and his wife’s experience with miscarriage in the 1970s. Because up to 20% of pregnancies result in a miscarriage, his family is not alone in going through this experience. In a speech on the House floor, Ryan stated that he felt that the inability to bury the remains contributed to his pain. But the response to pregnancy loss is deeply personal and varied. We know this because discussing recovery from a pregnancy loss, both physical and emotional, is a conversation we have every day with patients. While the families we care for already have the option to make personal arrangements for the remains of their pregnancies, many do not even want to consider this; they simply want to move on. This bill would force Ryan’s personal belief system on the thousands of Pennsylvanians who will experience a miscarriage or abortion each year.

Pennsylvania already has legal requirements for the processing of remains from second-trimester pregnancies. All pregnancy tissue is disposed of safely and responsibly and in compliance with Pennsylvania state health regulations. If HB 118 becomes law, it will mean asking Pennsylvanians whose pregnancies never developed into an embryo or fetus, or even those with ectopic pregnancies, to make additional decisions about what happens to the tissue. This is an intrusion on an individual’s personal and private medical decision-making. For our patients undergoing the physical and emotional pain of pregnancy loss, this bill would only add cost, paperwork, and the potential for more confusion and grief.

It is not by chance that State Rep. Ryan is an adamant anti-choice lawmaker. This session he introduced a resolution to celebrate the work of John Stanton, a man who founded the pro-life movement in Pennsylvania and raised tens of thousands of dollars for fake pregnancy centers (also known as crisis pregnancy centers). He previously supported the most extreme restrictions on abortion that were introduced in the Pennsylvania House, including a so-called “heartbeat ban” last session that would have prohibited abortion after a heartbeat has been detected, which can happen as early as the sixth week of pregnancy. In addition to intruding on the physician-patient relationship, and imposing additional costs and emotional burden on patients, HB 118 uses incredibly broad language that introduces “personhood” at the moment of conception. The bill defines an “unborn child” as starting from fertilization, which would include embryos that have not yet implanted, ectopic pregnancies, and pregnancies that are many months away from reaching the point where they can be considered viable. HB 118 is yet another politically motivated attack on abortion, and we adamantly oppose it.

The bipartisan vote for the bill in the House last session shows the danger of anti-choice legislation in disguise. It is up to all of us to inform our representatives that we do not want our reproductive health decisions being manipulated by coercive legislation and misguided politicians. Pennsylvania lawmakers should be focused on improving the health of Pennsylvania families. This bill does nothing toward that end.

Sarah Gutman and Alhambra Frarey are OB-GYNs in Philadelphia.