Ann Bukacek

Dear Members of the Senate Judicial Committee

I want to dispute some points of testimony of the opposition to SB 46 heard today.

One opponent described her difficult pregnancy involving hyperemesis gravidarum, a grave sounding condition she said required “extraordinary medical measures.” She used the Latin term for her distressful situation but did not explain what it means. Emesis is the medical term for vomiting. Gravidarum refers to the pregnancy state. Hyperemesis graviderum refers to pregnant women who have severe nausea and vomiting. Though it is no doubt highly unpleasant, even at its worst, it would be exceedingly rare for it to be a life threatening situation. As a physician, I have never heard of a patient dying from it, yet this woman says she personally knew “two that died and many others that came close.”  The “chemotherapy” she referred to was probably an anti-nausea medication. Yes, it is usually used for chemotherapy cancer patients, but she made it sound like she was on chemotherapy; it is used for the nausea often associated with chemotherapy. Though I don’t know the specific details of her case because I was not the attending physician, I cannot imagine a physician giving a pregnant women chemotherapy to treat nausea and vomiting. I am not a mind-reader who can judge people’s intentions, but I believe this woman was intentionally trying to deceive you. I conclude this for a reason. In my almost twenty years of medical practice, I have known many women who have had hyperemesis graviderum. I have never heard one of them call it by its Latin name. Rather, they would make comments like, “I can’t stop throwing up,” “I vomit all day,” or “I puked my guts out.” Using the Latin term, not telling you what this means, making it seem like it was a life-threatening condition when it is not, requiring “extraordinary medical measures (IV fluids and anti-nausea medications!)” saying she was on chemotherapy…This is highly suggestive of intention to deceive.

The other points have to do with abortion for the sake of saving the mother’s life and investigating miscarriages. Before Roe v Wade, abortions were allowed if the mother’s life was truly endangered from the pregnancy. It is exceedingly rare for pregnancy to endanger a mother’s life; but in the event of that rare occurrence, women could get abortions prior to 1973 (other than in some Catholic hospitals). If it was allowed then, it would certainly be allowed if the people voted in SB 46! The same with miscarriages… Miscarriages before Roe v Wade, when abortion was illegal in most states, were not investigated. They certainly would not be investigated based on SB 46 which would not even be a law. These are moot points that keep surfacing and warrant clarification.

I so appreciate the opportunity to clarify these medical points and even more so to be able to partake in the political process as we citizens did today. Thank-you very much!

Sincerely,

Annie Bukacek MD