Sorry about the delay in telling you about our adventure on Tuesday! I’ve been experiencing technical difficulties. But, I will delay no longer…

On 9:35 Tuesday morning, Kari, Frida, Joy and I took the Amtrak train to Springfield. On the way there, we met a very nice lobbyist named Jonathon. I had never met a lobbyist before, so didn’t know what to expect. He works on environmental protection stuff, and DSFS reform. He knew of our bill, and we chatted a bit about the legislative process. It was interesting. He has a voice just like Les Schulte from WILL, and a very polished demeanor. Shiny, in fact.

We arrived at 12:50 and each went to go eat lunch. Kari had lunch with a relative of hers, I had lunch with Brian Crowdson, a great guy out of Springfield that I have worked with on several occasions.

Once I got back to the capitol building, I found our group. It was a very nice group of people, including a lot of Amish folk. We were encouraged to go talk to our representatives. Mine was in session, but I left a message with her secretary. Note-in an earlier post, I listed the name of my representative incorrectly. My representative’s name is, in fact, Toni Berrios, who is very supportive of the bill. I did thank her, though, for her support.

Our hearing was at 4pm. Right before the hearing began, the group’s lobbyist, Dan, gave us a “pep” talk. He said if this didn’t go forward today, it was dead. If it didn’t succeed today, it was done. He used the word “armageddon.”

We filed into the room. I knew two of the people who testified for the bill: Dr. Minkus, Joy’s pediatrician and Mary Sommers, the woman who taught my childbirth education class. After the bill was presented, they and a few others fielded a lot of questions, some intelligent and some not. The hearing lasted two hours. Two hours, in a hot, crowded room. There were around 100 people (Kari counted) in a medium-sized room, and many people were standing.

I had never been to a hearing before, and was amazed at how well the proponents of the bill defended it. They were concise and brilliant. Dr. Minkus in particular, was masterful. I liked him before, but even more so now. He had a special way of commanding attention and saying exactly the right thing at exactly the right moment.

I was certain the bill would pass, even though it was clear that some on the committee had reservations. Some committee members brought up personal stories about births gone bad, stories of family members who had trouble in labor. All of the stories were about hospital births, and they were worried that a midwife wouldn’t be able to handle the same situation in a home setting. One story in particular was interesting to me:

The representative asked about what a midwife in a home birth would do if a baby was born with an kidney on the outside of it’s body. He said it happened to his son, and 4-5 doctors crowded in the room to help. They agonized over where to cut the cord, then they packed the cord in gauze, and transported to a different hospital. He asked, “what would you do in a home birth if this happened? You wouldn’t have 4 or 5 doctors to help you.”

Mary Sommers replied (I’m summarizing her response), “A midwife would do the same thing your doctors did. Cut the cord (in any place, actually), keep it wet and lubricated, and transport to a hospital. You don’t need 4 or 5 doctors to do that process. One person can do it.” She went on to explain that in most cases, you would have already detected from ultrasounds, that this problem had developed, and then you wouldn’t have done a home birth in the first place.

There were many questions similar to this. In each case, Mary or Dr. Minkus or someone would have a concise, perfect answer. As I watched the committee’s faces, I felt like they were impacted by the arguments they were hearing.

I felt the crowd respond along with me. I had spent a few hours with these folks, and felt some familiarity, a closeness. We rolled our eyes together at stupid questions, and rejoiced together at well-constructed answers. Later, Kari and I got a chance to talk to lobbyist Jonathon (who came in to watch the proceedings), and he said it was the best hearing he had seen in years. It seemed really, really solid.

So, when the vote came in 4 in favor, 8 against, it was difficult for me to believe. As we poured out the double doors, I noticed that almost everyone was crying. I watched an old Amish woman, a tiny baby in her arms, shake as she wept. I felt shaken and displaced.

About 20 minutes after that, Dan the lobbyist regrouped many of us to do a post-mortem. He took back what he had said earlier about armaggeddon, and the bill dying. He said that it would have died except that we did move some committe members. He saw the same thing I did, that their faces registered a shift in opinion, even if they didn’t vote in favor. He began to outline ways he thought the bill could push forward (including getting more doctors and constituants to support it). At that point Joy got fussy, so we left for the night. I was relieved to end it on an image of hope and strategy, instead of a crying Amish woman (who I will never forget).

Even though we did not claim victory, I’m still glad I went. I learned a lot about the legislative process, I got my activist feet wet, I met my first lobbyist, and I had an adventure. It was sad, but hope did not die. It was a worthwhile journey!