Meeting Public Comments
Subcommittee meeting and times are as follows:
A bill for an act relating to abortion complications and statistical reporting, and providing penalties.
Subcommittee members: Osmundson-CH, Lundgren, Wessel-Kroeschell
Date: Wednesday, February 9, 2022
Time: 5:00 PM - 5:30 PM
Location: RM 102, Sup. Ct. Consult
Names and comments are public records. Remaining information is considered a confidential record.Comments Submitted:
Lori De Simone 
My body, my choice! Medical privacy and accessibility should be my right! HIPPA!
Kathryn Crowl 
I do not support 2210.Women have the right to medical privacy!! HIPPA. This bill is abhorrent to the rights of Women. We have a right to our HEALTHCARE FREEDOM.!!!
TRACY CREASON [personal]
HF2210 is an invasion of a persons right to privacy and violates the US Constitution. Requiring a data base be kept and such data including sex of the fetus, race of the person having the abortion, number of live births, number of prior pregnancies and a multitude of other data is reaching and asking for data that has no purpose other than to place a burden on the patient and the medical facility. In addition, reporting complications would place an undue burden on medical professionals. By definition alone according to HF2210 a complication means ANY adverse physical or psychological condition arising from an abortion. This could as easily be a complication of having a headache or as severe as depression but the requirements of this bill would mandate a report. A massive overreach of power and causing a person harm. HF2210 is nothing more than the Republicans in power wanting to limit reproduction healthcare by any means possible by continuing to place unrealistic, unnecessary, inhumane restrictions and burdens on the people of Iowa. I urge you to vote NO on HF2210.
Rue Monroe 
As someone who has had a medication abortion, I oppose HF2210. This bill states the intent to report complications arising from abortion. However, serious complications from abortion requiring hospitalization for infection treatment or transfusion occur in less than 0.4% of patients*. Other ailments outlined in this bill are broad enough in nature to be able to be attributed to a wide range of causes. I did not experience any complications as a result of my medication abortion. In fact, the medical intervention I received improved my quality of life. Additionally, as of 2017, the Iowa legislature already created its own state family planning network; to exclude any clinic that provides abortion, makes referrals for abortion care or has any other connection to abortion for funding*. Wherein, Iowa is already one of the worst states in terms of spatial access to abortion* passing HF2210 would only serve to increase the financial burden on reproductive health centers, and further deny healthcare access to Iowans around the state. The most egregious aspect of this bill states a mandatory inclusion of detailed personal information, as well as recording a reason for the abortion. Specifically in section 4: The specific reasons for the induced termination of pregnancy, including but not limited to is followed by eight different reasons; none of which are anyones business except for the pregnant individual to know and consider. A person seeks an abortion when they do not want to be pregnant; same as a person who wants a breast reduction or a liver transplant. Does the state demand to know that a persons breasts are hurting their back and interfering with their daily life? Or an alcoholic who has done irreparable damage to their liver? No. The state allows the doctor to make the determination and proceed with their private treatment. This database is an outrageously intrusive notion, which further pries into the personal medical aspects of citizens lives. I urge you to protect the right to privacy of Iowans and vote no on HF2210. *All stated statistics are verifiable via research from The Guttmacher Institute*
Mica Doolan 
My body. My choice.
Anna Behrens 
HF 2210 is a governmental overreach that invades the medical privacy of individuals, places undue burden onto healthcare professionals, and attempts to interrupt an individuals right to reproductive healthcare. A persons reproductive choices and healthcare are theirs to share with their healthcare provider. I do NOT support HF 2210, and urge you to vote NO.
Judah Richardson 
Forcing women to have children they don't want only condemns them and that child to a lifetime of poverty and creates a significant state assistance burden on taxpayers. Stop making the ability for women to choose more difficult. I am strongly opposed to this bill.
Mary Kennard 
NO to House File 2210. NO BIG GOVERNMENT. My husband and I are for SMALL government. And please stay out of women's health care decisions.
Kim Callahan 
I am strongly opposed to this bill. Besides the obvious invasion of privacy, it is another attack on women and their rights over their own body. I do have some suggestions for data points that are missing in the bill. What about the abortion fathers? How many abortions has the man fathered? Did he pressure the woman to get an abortion? Did he pay for the abortion? Did he make sure the woman was presented with all the options for the pregnancy? Was he present for the abortion? Was he willing to sign legal documents taking full custody of the child if the pregnancy was carried to term? Did he pay the hospital bills for his baby and the mother? How many children does he have? Is he actively fathering those children or paying child support for his children? Does he have a record as a sex offender? How many accusations have been documented against him?WHEN WILL MEN BE FACTORED IN TO ABORTION? Women do not get pregnant without the contribution of a man.
Julie Russell-Steuart [Disability Caucus of the Iowa Democratic Party]
Vote NO on HF 2210. This bill will not only make it more difficult for women to access abortion in the long run by enforcing unrealistic and burdensome reporting on medical facilities, designed to create more hurdles for women's healthcare, but it a major invasion of privacy to collect data on:The race and ethnicity of the womanThe woman's county of residence if in stateState of residenceCitizenship StatusCountry of OriginHer Personal Reproductive HistoryDate of abortionReason PerformedMethod UsedIdentification of Abortion ProviderMedical FacilityReferring Physician, Agency, ServiceComplications that led to the abortionComplications resulting from the abortion including mental and vague any all all termsCostWho Paid for it, Ins infoCollecting such information in a database, even aggregate, serves no purpose than opening up interpretation of the data in numerous discriminatory ways. And serving to burden the the healthcare providers with yet more reporting that takes them away from doing what they should be doing, providing care.In addition, this bill does not ask the father in the pregnancy for his own medical history, or any facts surrounding the his situation or status as father, while demanding her entire reproductive history and personal information such as race or citizenship status. To say this is unfair to the woman and showing a "handsoff" practice to the man is an extreme understatement.There is also absolutely no rationale or justification offered for this bill. That should tell you its a bad bill. Vote NO.
DeAnne Butler 
Covid vaccine is My Body, My Choice but access to and privacy from an abortion is not my choice and right? This bill also offends on a gender level. Where is the paragraph regarding fathers? Finally, I thought that God was judging me at the end of my time on earth, not the GOP. PLEASE reconsider this bill and its consequences.
Jennifer Herrington 
I oppose H2210. Horrible piece of legislation that violates a womans right to privacy!
Lissah Beglinger 
I do not support HF2210. Medical privacy is a right that should not be taken away. I strongly oppose this bill.
Dana Reedy 
If you have no uterus, you have no right to create invasive legislation to those who do. If you do have a uterus, take care of yours, but leave everyone else's alone!
Jackie Cordon 
The goal of this bill is clear to discourage medical providers from facilitating abortions. When you do that you may think you cut down on abortions. You dont. This bill is only designed to intimidate and is a threat to the health of the women of Iowa. My healthcare should be between me and my healthcare providers.
Gregory Christensen 
VOTE NO! Shame on Reps. Boden and Salmon for introducing this bill. It's clear this bill is intended for one purpose: to limit the accessibility of women's reproductive healthcare and to disincentivize women from receiving the care they want/need. Conversations on access to women's reproductive healthcare is an issue that belongs between the woman receiving the care and her/their doctor it is NOT an issue to be debated by the state legislature. This bill undermines the basic protections many Iowans take for granted the ability to receive care with privacy. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) is a federal law that created national standards to protect sensitive patient health information from being disclosed without the patient's consent or knowledge. HF 2210 would be an abhorrent disregard for HIPPA protections, ensuring unfair treatment to Iowans based on gender/sexual orientation. Recognizing that there are provisions in this bill to keep records confidential, there is clearly no medical need for records to be provided to a public database. One final point no man has a say in women's reproductive rights (again, the issue belongs solely between a woman and her/their doctor) so I hope every male representative recuses themselves from the voting process...after first pointing out how ludicrous this bill is and how politically onesided the discrimination will be on those who are added to this database should this terrible bill move forward. Vote No!
Lynsey Hart 
We shouldnt be going backwards as a society to once again have women dying on dining room tables. There are a multitude of issues that could be addressed so women feel more secure carrying a child to term. Living wages, childcare, affordable health care, a sustainable climate, clean water, well funded public schools, even a well functioning foster and adoption system, to name a few. Forced birth without a prolife society is cruel punishment.
Sarah Wearin Smith 
I am opposed to HF 2210. I am perplexed why the State of Iowa no longer wants to collect data on Iowans with COVID19, even if they die from the virus, but the State does want to collect data on abortions, a perfectly legal health care procedure that for 50 years has been left to the pregnant woman, her family, and her health care provider to choose. Please stop your interference in private health care decisions. Iowas women do not deserve this.Sarah Wearin SmithRed Oak, IA
Kathy McLain 
It is no one's business what medical choices another person makes anymore than it is any religious, political or other choice. This bill is ludicrous. Where does it stop once something like this takes hold? A medical decision; any medical decision is between a person and their doctor and people they chose to include. The public should not be involved nor should their life be billboarded. This bill would legalize descrimination and target people for harassment or worse. Please return to legislating laws that progress the state, not send it backwards. It's time to bring Iowa back to the great state it once with that valued workers, education, and the land. Legisilation like this won't bring people to Iowa. We need a minimum wage that meets the needs of the people, at least in line with most other states. We need quality education again where teachers teach and aren't saddled with unnecessary legislation and oversight. We need a rebuilt infrastructure and environmental soundness. Make Iowa a state to grow in again. Stop this bill. I can't believe anyone would consider introducing something so blatantly discriminatory towards the women of this state.