Impact of Legislation Requires Consideration

+ Enlarge

After 20 years of advocacy at the Utah Legislature, it is clear to me that while some things remain exactly the same from year to year, I always find something new to learn.

One of those lessons came last week – the first week of this year’s legislative session – during one of the more emotional debates, which occurred in a committee hearing of HB 205-Down Syndrome Non-discrimination Act.

Most committee hearings provide for public comment, and this committee is chaired by a legislator who is very committed to giving any member of the public who wants to speak that opportunity.  Thus, there were two long lines of individuals, one for the bill and one against, ready to speak.

What I learned from each speaker wasn’t so much about the substance of the bill, but about the difficult territory legislators enter when they propose legislation that impacts our families and our private lives.  

Almost every person who testified, for or against, told very personal and usually heart-wrenching stories. From women who felt pressured by a doctor to end a pregnancy and were belittled when they adamantly opposed the very idea, to women who felt ostracized after their decision to do so, the striking feature of the testimony was the pain on both sides. For the most part, the women who spoke about their fears upon hearing their baby might have a disability did not gloss over those very prevalent feelings. As they spoke of the joy their children bring them and how grateful they are that they fought to keep the baby, they did not pretend their lives were easy, but spoke articulately about the value of every human life.

Similarly, the women who spoke about having abortions did not suggest the decision, or its aftermath, was easy. None spoke with glee about her decision. At least two broke down in tears, one as she explained to the room full of strangers that she did not see how she could possibly care for another child while raising multiple kids with disabilities. The experiences of these women made the harms of abortion clear and also illustrated the need to reach out to women with compassion, not condemnation.

The majority of the dozens of women who testified were respectful of one another. What is hardest to accept about these testimonies on both sides, however, is that the women were compelled to share their deep fears, anxieties, regrets and joys with complete strangers, in testimony broadcast over the Internet, in response to a single legislative bill. It is this kind of impact legislators must keep in mind when they decide to run legislation, and one of the many reasons public office can be both in-credibly rewarding and difficult. Not every bill has this sort of effect on the public, but when legislators propose bills about marriage, family, sexuality or similar private and personal issues, they must do so fully cognizant of the fact that their efforts will require ripping the Band-Aids off painful personal experiences for more than a few constituents.

What we can hope, and perhaps demand, from legislators is that they propose legislation only for compelling reasons. Any bill, whether fraught with emotional and moral mine fields or not, should be brought to the legislative process only because a legislator has factual grounds to believe it will benefit the common good in our state.  Of course, people of good will may disagree on the benefits of a bill, but as the debate on HB 205 amply illustrated, changes and proposed changes to state law can have profound effects on individuals and on entire communities. In a session with more than 1,200 bills, I can only hope legislators are considering those effects before they propose any change in state law.

Jean Hill is the Diocese of Salt Lake City government liaison.