Posted on 04/30/2003 2:29:59 PM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
A bill that would require women seeking an abortion to wait 24 hours and be given pictures of fetuses before getting the procedure won strong preliminary approval Tuesday in the Texas House.
House Bill 15, by state Rep. Frank Corte, R-San Antonio, passed 96-41 after two days of sometimes testy and emotional debate between Republican supporters and Democratic opponents.
Passage of the bill, which is expected to get final approval today and move on to the Senate, was a coup for abortion opponents who have been trying to get a so-called informed consent law passed for several legislative sessions. Capitol insiders said they believe that the bill has a good chance of winning Senate approval.
Corte's bill never made it past a House committee in previous Democratic-controlled Legislatures.
"It's a victory for Texas women. They will further be empowered to make informed decisions about their life-changing surgery," said Elizabeth Graham, a spokeswoman for Texas Right to Life.
The measure is one of several that groups like Graham's hope to push through this session. Among them is a bill by state Rep. Phil King, R-Weatherford, requiring physicians to obtain a parent's consent before performing an abortion on a minor. State law now only requires parental notification. That bill was approved by the House State Affairs Committee last week.
Others include a bill defining a child from the moment of fertilization, outlawing morning-after contraceptive medications, and requiring physicians to ask a woman who is at least 20-weeks pregnant whether she wants to lessen the amount of pain the fetus might feel during an abortion.
A leading abortion-rights advocate says the sound rejection of nearly 20 amendments proposed by Democrats -- such as changing the words "unborn child" to "fetus" and allowing an exception for rape and incest victims -- proves "just how anti-choice this Legislature is."
"These bills do nothing for a woman's health, they do nothing to decrease unwanted pregnancies -- which is the only cause of abortion -- and they put obstacles in the paths of women who choose abortion," said Kae McLaughlin, executive director of the Texas Abortion Rights Action League.
Corte's bill also requires women who seek an abortion after 16 weeks to have it performed at an ambulatory surgical center, not an abortion clinic or doctor's office. The bill expands the number of providers in Texas who will have to register as abortion providers.
Supporters of Corte's bill handily knocked down nearly 20 attempts by opponents to weaken or stop the bill, with Republicans often voting in lockstep with Corte to defeat several amendments.
But their resolve crumbled when state Rep. Senfronia Thompson, a Houston Democrat, managed to rally their support in requiring that information provided by the state in doctor's offices include emergency contraceptives.
The measure initially lost on a vote of 68-67, but after Thompson demanded a recount, Corte agreed to let the amendment be included in the bill.
Under the legislation, a woman must have information distributed by the Texas Department of Health for 24 hours before she can get an abortion. She can get the information over the telephone, in person or via the Internet.
She may also decline to view the materials, and the physician may choose to comment -- in agreement or disagreement -- on the information.
The information, part of which would come from the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, includes the risks associated with abortion and carrying the pregnancy to term and the woman's right to collect child support from the baby's father.
"If women are going to get this procedure, we need them to get information," Corte said. "We need to empower women and let women make decisions on their own."
Corte calls the bill the Women's Right to Know Act. Opponents of the measure call it the Women's Misinformation Act.
Opponents say the bill cuts off access to abortion for many women, particularly those in rural areas, and seeks to intimidate others into changing their minds.
The bill requires that women be told about reports of a connection between breast cancer and abortion, despite a recent study by the National Cancer Institute -- an affiliate of the federal National Institutes of Health -- debunking that connection.
It also prohibits the state from divulging information about abortion providers and affiliates, which opponents say will leave women with misleading information.
"This bill is an insult to women and doctors," said state Rep. Jessica Farrar, D-Houston. "When a woman makes up her mind, we should respect her decision and not force her to look at pictures and false information, as this patronizing bill demands."
Democrats failed repeatedly in attempts to weaken the bill. Farrar was unsuccessful in an effort to exclude rape and incest victims but won inclusion of statistics on child-support collection to balance out information on the rights of the mother to collect support from the baby's father.
State Rep. Dawnna Dukes, D-Austin, tried unsuccessfully to remove the 24-hour waiting period. She also criticized "crisis pregnancy centers" for holding themselves out as information centers but not dispensing information about abortion. Dukes failed to compel the centers to provide information on all options available to pregnant women.
Other Democrats tried to change "medical termination of pregnancy" to "abortion," raise the 16-week threshold to 23 weeks, and offer alternatives to women in their second and third trimesters who do not have access to ambulatory surgical centers.
Details of the bill
Under House Bill 15, which received preliminary approval Tuesday, the information that would be given to a pregnant woman seeking abortion includes:
• The risks associated with abortion, including reports of a connection to breast cancer and "the natural protective effect of a completed pregnancy in avoiding breast cancer." A recent national study suggests no link between abortion and increased risk of breast cancer.
• The probable gestational age of the fetus and illustrations of a fetus of the same age.
• The medical risks associated with carrying the child to term.
• Medical-assistance benefits that may be available for prenatal or neonatal care.
• The liability of the father for child support and the frequency with which child support is collected.
• Descriptions of crisis pregnancy centers that counsel alternatives to abortion.
The legislation prohibits dispensing information about abortion clinics and their affiliates.
So for all you perpetual doomsday, threaten to sit at home, "I'll never vote for anyone who doesn't vote X on my pet issue" types, please note. It is still not a 'purist' legislature, but real change is being implemented NOW.
This movie should be required by anyone considering abortion.
There are still people who will insist on having one because their hearts are so hard but we would save many innocent lives if young women saw this movie.
Many of these women and girls only learn the truth after they've had abortions and it multiplies their anguish. Others would change their minds if they knew help was available to them in what they perceive is an impossible situation.
If sex education is forced on our kids in our schools, I think an explicit course on fetal development should also be mandatory. If more boys and girls knew from early on exactly how human a fetus is, they might (I say MIGHT) reconsider the risks of getting pregnant in the first place.
The only pictures I ever saw of an unborn baby while in high school was a chart depicting the similarities between a human embryo and other embryos, such as pigs, dogs and chickens. This portrayal reduced the human embryo to "nothing of importance"...carefully omitting the major differences between them, that the human embryo becomes a human baby. With humanistic textbooks like this is it any wonder people regard this life as a "blob"?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.