Fetal death reporting - are they at it again in MN?

While skimming through recently introduced bills in the Minnesota legislature, I came across HF947.  The bill's description - "Optional record of birth resulting in stillbirth provided" - jumped out at me because of Maura in VA's recent efforts to prevent a potentially disastrous bit of legislation in Virginia.  So I took a closer look.

The text of the bill seems relatively harmless.  It provides for the recording of stillbirths if the parents so desire.  I'm not sure what the benefits of choosing to have a stillbirth recorded would be, or the drawbacks of opting out of the recording.  Maybe someone can enlighten me here, as I'm new to reading bill-speak and may be missing something.

The part that seems strange to me is section 2 of the bill, which proposes an amendment to a 2004 statute requiring the reporting of fetal death.  It seems that all miscarriages after 20 weeks gestation would be required to be reported within 5 days.  This can be done by a physician or by the parents if the miscarriage occured outside of the care of a medical professional.  The current version of the statute makes no reference to gestational age.  However, it doesn't say what will happen to a parent who fails to report a miscarriage within 5 days or how a parent would know to do so in the first place.

This doesn't seem too terribly wacky, but I'm afraid there's something I'm missing.  The bill's author is a Republican.  The companion bill in the Senate is authored by the state's wingnuttiest wingnut, Michelle Bachmann of Stillwater.  Bachmann is known primarily for her relentless (and so far failed) pushing of a hate ammendment and for wanting to rename a freeway the Ronald Reagan Beltway.  Having her name attached gives me shivers and makes me think there's more to this than I'm seeing.

I have written to Rep. Klinzing for clarification, but I'm not sure if or when I'll hear back.  Can any of you more well versed in legalese let me know if this is anything to be concerned about?

•  Bill

  There is a bill somewhat similar to this in the Texas legislature.  The one in Texas is about doctors reporting on patients having complications from abortions, and being required to report the patient's history including natural miscarriages, etc.  Very invasive bill.

  I diaried it, which led someone to tell me about Maura's diary.

  Maybe we should keep start keeping track of these.

  Here's my diary about the Texas bill.   http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/8/75920/00735

  by Carolyn on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 07:31:56 AM PDT

  •  Invasive, indeed

    In my email to Rep. Klinzing I asked what the state does or will do with the information recorded on stillbirths.  My gut suspicion is that this "optional recording" is intended for parents to cover their butts - if they don't report it they can reasonably be accused of something sinister related to the ending of the pregnancy.  

    by kaelamantis on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 07:37:56 AM PDT

  •  Your diary on the Texas bill

    was great, as that is a very sinister piece of legislation. However, aside from their focus on uncompleted pregnancies, the Texas bill and this one seem to have little else in common.

    As you laid out so well in your diary, the legislation proposed in Texas is designed to destroy the medical confidentiality of women who have abortions and threaten the doctors who provide them.

    by moiv on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 08:45:42 AM PDT

•  Thanks for bringing this bill to our attention

  I will email some of our 6th District (Mark ugh! Kennedy's district) dems sending along your link.  Also it should be sent to the Minneapolis and St. Paul DFA groups are very active in the legisture agenda.

  Unless they can clarify, and I bet they don't want to, this bill should be revealed for what it is.  Invasion of a women's health issues.

  by GrandmaJ on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 07:53:54 AM PDT

•  Departments of Public Health

  have an interest in these matter.  Many, if not most, have fetal death reporting requirements once the fetus reaches 20 weeks or 350 grams in weight.  Generally, there are separate provisions for miscarriage in the presence of a physician, miscarriage in a hospital, and miscarriage without a physician present (e.g., at home).  
  Massachusetts, for example, has had longstanding requirements on the books for such matters.  When I worked in health care, if a woman reported a miscarriage at home at 20 weeks or more, we would instruct her to collect the fetal contents in a container and go to the emergency room.  The fetal remains were then sent to pathology.  

  As for the proposed Minnesota legislation, the devil will be in the detail.  Hope this is helpful.

  by lightiris on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 07:57:08 AM PDT

•  IIRC

  the object of this bill and its companion is to establish by statute that a lost 20-week fetus is not a miscarriage but a stillbirth -- a sneaky way of setting 20 weeks as the point of fetal viability in Minnesota.  That is medically inaccurate, but good to have on the books if you want to limit abortion.

  The most curious part of the Senate bill is its retroactivity clause.  It sounds as though some doctors are being set up for "wrongful death" charges.

  by moiv on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 08:33:24 AM PDT

  •  Thank you

    That was the kind of sneaky thing I was looking for and missing.  

    by kaelamantis on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 08:51:55 AM PDT

  •  Not only does it roll back

    viability, but it appears to establish personhood on a fetus at any gestational age.  The misuse of vocabulary you astutely point out is telling since a miscarriage is fetal death prior to 20 weeks and a stillbirth is delivery (either surgically or vaginally) of a fetus showing no signs of life at that time.  

    There certainly seems to be something rotten in the state of Denmark here.  An effort similar to the one so successfully launched by Maura in VA may be in order if this proposed legislation gains any traction.  

    by lightiris on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 09:16:49 AM PDT

•  I had read something about this...

  A very liberal mother of two in Minnesota, who's a friend, posted something favorable about this bill. It was in the past couple of days. What I think I remember is that this is a well-intentioned bill to allow parents to claim delivery-related health insurance benefits for stillbirths, which were previously only available for parents of babies born alive. The parents were being denied appropriate insurance coverage for the stillbirths.

  Other things may well have been tacked onto this, and the woman who mentioned this may not have been aware of them.

  by Kitsap River on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 11:26:30 AM PDT

  •  I posted an update

    to this story here - I heard back from the bill's author.  She doesn't mention anything about insurance benefits.  

    by kaelamantis on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 11:49:37 AM PDT