Posted on 11/20/2003 4:56:44 AM PST by Arrowhead1952
Texas Health Department considering ways to inform women about risks, procedures
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Thursday, November 20, 2003
New state requirements for Texas abortion clinics have been influenced by "right-wing extremists" to scare women away from having abortions, a group of Democratic lawmakers charged Wednesday.
But supporters of the new policies said they are meant only to ensure that women are fully informed of the risks and their options before they decide to have the procedure.
Doug McBride, a spokesman for the Texas Department of Health, said the requirements reflect the agency's best effort to comply with new laws.
"We are under no delusion that we will be able to make everyone, or perhaps anyone, totally happy, but the law doesn't require us to do that," McBride said.
At a news conference, six Democratic Texas House members accused the Health Department of caving in to abortion opponents while drafting new overall rules for abortion providers and writing an informational brochure required under recent legislation.
House Bill 15, sponsored by state Rep. Frank Corte Jr., R-San Antonio, established a 24-hour waiting period for abortions and required the state to publish informational materials for women to read while considering their decision.
The bill sparked fierce partisan debate in the Legislature before being passed by Republican majorities in both chambers.
The proposed rules and the informational brochure, which has been finished, go beyond the requirements of HB 15, said Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, and amount to "state-sponsored terrorism" aimed at intimidating women who are seeking abortions.
But Kathi Seay, Corte's policy adviser, who was actively involved in drafting the rules and brochure, said they are true to the intent of the bill.
"There is nothing in this brochure that is there for intimidation purposes, and I'm not quite sure why anyone would consider information to be intimidating," Seay said. "It is not meant to be intimidating at all. It is meant to be informative."
As written, the proposed rules would require women seeking abortions to begin providing identification such as driver's licenses, which the abortion provider would copy. That requirement, critics said, was not in the legislation and will deter some women, especially noncitizens, from seeking legal abortions.
The copy of the ID kept by the doctor or clinic will be shielded by confidentiality, Seay said, so women should not be fearful.
The rules, which are still subject to final approval by the state Board of Health, also make it mandatory for doctors to give women a copy of the state-written informational brochure rather than simply making the information "available," as HB 15 required.
Twelve Democratic house members and seven senators, including Sen. Jeff Wentworth, R-San Antonio, signed a statement asking the agency to reconsider the rules. The agency will take public comment on the proposals until mid-December, and the board is expected to adopt final rules in January, McBride said.
The law took effect Sept. 1, but abortions performed before Jan. 1 are not subject to the 24-hour wait period or the requirement that the women get the information package.
The brochure itself, which is not subject to board approval, also goes beyond the bill's requirements, the lawmakers charged.
The brochure includes color photos of fetuses at various stages of development, information on alternatives such as adoption and information on health risks associated with abortion, as required by HB 15.
But it goes too far, Democrats said, in a section that might lead women to believe that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, although there is no scientific evidence to support that claim.
Another section of the brochure requires doctors to tell women that they have a legal obligation to save a "child born alive," a scenario that has little bearing in most early-term abortions but only serves to scare women, said Rep. Elliott Naishtat, D-Austin.
"It's very clear that (the brochure) tries to influence a woman's decision," Rep. Jessica Farrar, D-Houston, said.
Seay disputed that characterization.
"It's all false," she said. "That's not a correct reflection of what is in the brochure at all."
Seay said the possible link between abortion and breast cancer is data women should have before making a decision.
Whether the brochure compels some to change their minds, she said, "is a choice the woman is going to have to make, and it is her right to do so."
As written, the proposed rules would require women seeking abortions to begin providing identification such as driver's licenses, which the abortion provider would copy.
is something that I don't understand. Why do the RATs have a problem with this? Has anyone ever been to a doctor, dentist or had any type of medical procedure done and not had to show identification?
Seems to me, that in politics, there is an inverse relationship between hyperbole and intelligence.
...
"There is nothing in this brochure that is there for intimidation purposes, and I'm not quite sure why anyone would consider information to be intimidating," Seay said. "It is not meant to be intimidating at all. It is meant to be informative."
As written, the proposed rules would require women seeking abortions to begin providing identification such as driver's licenses, which the abortion provider would copy. That requirement, critics said, was not in the legislation and will deter some women, especially noncitizens, from seeking legal abortions.
Compare this to the way democrats treat gun owners...
A bit of a stretch in describing a policy you happen disagree with.
?????
I agree with this bill as written. The RAT Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, is comparing this as state sponsored terrorism.
OK. We must have some of the most ignorant RAT state officials in the country. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston Rep; Elliott Naishtat, D-Austin; and Rep. Jessica Farrar, D-Houston are so left wing, they are nutty as fruit cakes.
Same thing with the RAT senators.
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.