MIN 07-05-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

such a gross violation of privacy. I applaud Councilmembers Kepple and Schachner for proposing Ordinance 135.17. 1 wish we lived in a time when such protections were a given and needed not be legislated, but this is our new reality. I urge its passage. Our residents need it. Katya Wilkins Location: Submitted At: 1:48pm 07-05-22 Abortions are medical procedures and should not be regarded as anything else. If you do not support abortions, simply do not get one. Limiting an individuals right to choose is abhorrent and I am fully in support of any ordinance that will protect the rights of uterus havers. Rebecca Shofar Location: Submitted At: 12:33pm 07-05-22 Pregnancy is one of, if not the most, determinative decision in life a woman can make. Pregnancy inevitably impacts a woman's health, ability to proceed with her education, her employment, it impacts finances, and family life. Further, we know pregnancies resulting from traumatic circumstances have severe and long-lasting consequences to both the physical and mental health of the woman, and that women caught in a cycle of domestic violence are more at risk during pregnancy. Murder is the second leading cause of injury related death for pregnant women, second only to automobile accidents. Women have the right to bodily autonomy, and to follow their own moral values when making this deeply personal and nuanced choice. As a tax paying Lakewood resident, I urge the City Council to adopt this ordinance and to vote in the affirmative to enact Section 135.17, in order to protect Lakewood residents from interference in the private healthcare choices of women, and to protect women from the landslide of wrongful prosection that is sure to follow. Madelyn Moberg Location: Submitted At: 9:10am 07-05-22 As a member of the Lakewood community, I oppose this ordinance as it currently is written. This ordinance does not distinguish between intentional abortions (non-medically necessary terminations of pregnancy) & natural abortions (often summarized as miscarriages & hereafter referred to as miscarriages). Miscarriages in themselves come in a variety (inevitable, complete, incomplete, etc) not to mention other forms of natural pregnancy loss such as ectopic pregnancies, molar pregnancies, and having a blighted ovum (all to be included in this comment's definition of miscarriage). This ordinance should clarify the language- separating miscarriages from intentional abortions. Some miscarriages do require medical assistance for the safety of the mother (examples: Dilation & curettage after incomplete miscarriage & ectopic pregnancy). Information on these types of medical procedures should only be disclosed according to the Healthcare Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA). However, if there is a suspicion of illegal elective abortions, that information should be collected & investigated by the proper law enforcement. While I support bodily autonomy of a singular person, pregnancy does not involve a singular person & thus we must also consider the constitutional right to life of the developing person. In an elective abortion there is an intent to end a life before its natural conclusion. In a miscarriage, a life has naturally ended. The two are different in intension just as letting someone outside the uterus die naturally is different from that same person being intentionally harmed or killed. In summary, I think this ordinance should be opposed today. If it were to be resubmitted to the counsel, it should include revised language to protect both the HIPPA components of the mother's healthcare & the life of the developing person in the uterus through language distinguishing miscarriages from intentional abortions. Thank you for your time Madelyn Moberg A�.r�.,� . ..,. fda N,r,.,oira. , City Ikairirri r,,t t ; irgridiufgfl!,m