by Margaret Harrington ¦ Green Bay Press Gazette ¦ 6 May 2008

As the grandmother of a rape survivor, I find it deeply troubling that providing "unbiased and medically factual information" to rape victims is too much to ask of a few Green Bay area doctors. Part of why they may be averted to the bill is because media coverage, like the Green Bay Press-Gazette's April 22 article, "Law Stirs Up Medical Community," tends to sensationalize the Compassionate Care for Rape Victims Act.

Thanks to Compassionate Care, all rape and incest victims will be assured information about and access to time-sensitive emergency birth control approved by the FDA to prevent pregnancy. The law also guarantees that information about reporting the crime to law enforcement and options for collecting evidence are discussed with each victim.

A simple reading of the law makes it clear that medical professionals do not face fines for failure to comply with the law. Institutions face fines, not individuals. If compliance will be a logistical problem for hospitals, they would have been at the Capitol registering against the bill months ago. Not a single one did.

Instead, the Senate and Assembly hearings were filled with survivors, their families, advocates, nurses, clergy and doctors who supported the legislation. They explained that Wisconsin's Compassionate Care Act mirrors the minimum standard of care advised by the American Medical Association, the American College of Emergency Physicians, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services.

So why is this law perceived to be controversial?

People who oppose the law are either misled or misinformed about the extent of the law's reach. Dr. Amy Schueckler, who provided the opposing view in the recent article, is not beholden to Compassionate Care. Her facility is not an emergency room — she works at an anti-abortion rights "crisis pregnancy center." This is where Dr. Schueckler belongs, since she personally believes that birth control "kills a young life." Like the handful of other doctors who oppose the law, she sees the world in a very particular way and believes we all must live in accordance with her view.

But in emergency situations hospitals need to deliver the best possible care to patients facing a range of needs. Those of us who have seen someone we love cope with the complicated, long-lasting trauma of sexual assault understand the onus must be on emergency rooms to ensure that rape victims are afforded informed consent, which does not exist when responsible medical options are withheld from patients. As the first place some turn for help, ERs should also let victims of a crime know how to report to the authorities in those critical first hours.

Compassionate Care is a proactive, bipartisan law we should celebrate. It does not mandate that my choices or your choices extend to anyone else. Instead, it ensures that every victim in Wisconsin has the chance to make personal decisions about preventing pregnancy, reporting the assault and collecting evidence. By design, the law ensures that each victim makes these decisions based on the particularities of the crime perpetrated against her and her own conscience.

Rape victims who seek emergency care are incredibly brave. They overcome much difficulty to see the crime for what it was, and they overcome their present anguish to believe in a better future.

In a moment of profound doubt in themselves and others, they humbly ask for help from strangers after their most fundamental trust has been violated. Providing them with "unbiased and medically factual information" is the least hospitals can do to honor their dignity.