Arizona Legislature Passes Two Abortion-Related Bills
March 28, 2008
The Arizona Senate on Tuesday passed two House-approved abortion-related bills (HB 2769, HB 2263), the Arizona Republic reports (Crawford, Arizona Republic, 3/25). The Senate voted 21-9 to pass HB 2769, which mirrors the federal abortion ban on so-called “partial-birth” abortion upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, the AP/KTAR.com reports. The bill allows exceptions only to save the life of the pregnant woman.
HB 2263, which passed by an 18-12 vote, incorporates a state appellate court ruling that outlines methods that judges can use when minors seeking abortions request a judicial bypass for the state’s parental consent requirement (AP/KTAR.com, 3/25). The judicial bypass bill adds language requiring a judge to conclude that there is “clear and convincing evidence” that a girl seeking an abortion is mature based on “her experience level, perspective and judgment,” the Capitol Media Services/Arizona Daily Star reports. Under the bill, a judge can consider various factors when determining maturity, including living away from home, handling personal finances, and knowledge about pregnancy and options available (Fischer, Capitol Media Services/Arizona Daily Star, 3/26).
The bills have been sent to Gov. Janet Napolitano (D), who has vetoed similar measures, the AP/KTAR.com reports. Napolitano spokesperson Jeanine L’Ecuyer said she did not know what action Napolitano will take on the two bills. In other action Tuesday, the House voted 32-28 to pass a bill (HB 2269) that would prohibit all nurses from performing surgical abortions (AP/KTAR.com, 3/25). The measure now heads to the Senate (HB 2269 history, 3/26).
Comments
Planned Parenthood Arizona in a statement said the changes to the parental consent law would make it more difficult for minors to obtain waivers because judges would be restricted from considering other factors that could be appropriate for individual cases. Sen. Linda Gray (R) said judges would still have considerable preference over how much emphasis to apply to any relevant factors.
PPAZ said the proposed abortion ban would not prevent any additional abortions because it mirrors the federal law. The group added that the bill would “dictate what medical procedures doctors can perform to protect pregnant women with serious health problems.” Cathi Herrod, president of the conservative Center for Arizona Policy, said the ban is needed “because the federal law only applies in limited scenarios, because parallel state and federal bans give prosecutors more options and because regulating abortion is primarily the job of the states” (AP/KTAR.com, 3/25).
Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.
© 2007 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.
New Hampshire Senate Takes Action On Abortion-Related Bills
March 27, 2008
The New Hampshire Senate on Thursday took action on two abortion-related measures, the AP/Providence Journal reports. One bill (SB 527) would require minors seeking abortions to attend a counseling session before undergoing the procedure (AP/Providence Journal, 3/20).
The measure, sponsored by Sen. Kathleen Sgambati (D), would require girls ages 17 and younger to go to a counseling session with a physician, nurse or other licensed professional. The session would have to include discussions about involving parents in the decision and discussions of all of the minor’s options (Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, 2/25). The minor also would be required to sign documents saying she had attended the session, the Concord Monitor reports. According to the Monitor, the Senate initially voted 14-10 to reject the bill but later decided by voice vote to send the bill back to committee for further study.
“For all its controversy, this bill had a very simple purpose: to safeguard the health and well-being of our young girls,” Sgambati said. She added, “The hearing brought support and criticism from pro-life and pro-choice groups. But in fact, this bill is directed at neither group. It is only to ensure that care is provided to our teens and that support is given to them in times of crisis.” NARAL Pro-Choice New Hampshire Executive Director Grace LeClair said that the bill “targeted abortion and abortion providers specifically.”
The Senate also voted 15-9 to reject a bill (SB 302) that would have required minors seeking abortion to notify their parents before undergoing the procedure (Dorgan, Concord Monitor, 3/21). The measure would have replaced a 2003 law that was repealed last year after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that parental notification laws must include an exception for emergencies. The new bill included a health exception (Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, 2/25).
Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.
© 2007 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.
Idaho U.S. Senate Candidate Changes Name To Pro-Life; Bill To Add Qualifier Passes Senate
March 26, 2008
An Idaho candidate for the U.S. Senate has legally changed his name to Pro-Life, the AP/CBS News reports. The man attempted to appear on a 2007 ballot as Marvin Pro-Life Richardson when he unsuccessfully ran for governor, but the state’s policy prohibits slogans from appearing on the ballot. However, officials in the Idaho Office of the Secretary of State have said they have no choice but to allow Pro-Life to be on the 2008 ballot because it is now the candidate’s full legal name (AP/CBS News, 3/18).
Idaho Secretary of State Ben Ysursa (R) at a state Senate committee hearing Monday advocated for legislation (S 1514) that would require candidates who change their name to a political slogan to have a parenthetical note after the name on the ballot that states “A person formerly known as …” Ysursa noted that other states have sought to remove slogan-names from the ballot, adding that the Idaho Supreme Court has ruled that the “ballot is not to be used to try to express a particularized political message.” Ysursa said including Pro-Life on the ballot could cause some voters to be confused and vote for both Pro-Life and the candidate of their choice. The measure passed the Senate by a 33-0 vote Tuesday and is headed to the House.
Pro-Life, who is running for the seat of retiring Sen. Larry Craig (R), said the qualifier measure is being pushed by Lt. Gov. Jim Risch (R), who also opposes abortion rights and is running for the seat. “It’s pretty stupid, really, to say that a voter doesn’t know what he’s doing,” Pro-Life said. Risch said that he does not have “input on this matter” and is referring questions to the Legislature.
Thirteen candidates are running for the U.S. Senate seat — eight Republicans, two Democrats, one Libertarian and two independents (Russell, Spokane Spokesman-Review, 3/25). Pro-Life has said he will run for the highest state office as an independent every two years and will advocate murder charges for physicians who perform abortion, as well as for women who undergo the procedure (AP/CBS News, 3/18).
Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.
© 2007 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.
Marshall Criticizes Delegates’ Support For Gilmore In Va. Senate Race Despite Abortion Position
March 26, 2008
Virginia Del. Robert Marshall (R) last week criticized two delegates for endorsing former Gov. James Gilmore (R) in the state’s Republican U.S. Senate primary despite Gilmore’s view that abortion should be permitted in the first eight weeks of pregnancy, the Washington Times reports. Gilmore, Marshall and Robert Berry are running for the Republican nomination for the seat of retiring Sen. John Warner (R). Former Gov. Mark Warner is the likely Democratic nominee for the seat.
Gilmore last year said he was not opposed to abortions performed during the first eight weeks of pregnancy. “There has to be some time for the baby to form in the womb, which I think happens at eight weeks,” he said, adding that after eight weeks, “abortion should be limited except to save the life of the mother.” Marshall said he does not understand how Dels. Scott Lingamfelter (R) and Jeffrey Frederick (R) could say Gilmore “supports the sanctity of life.” Lingamfelter has said that he is supporting Gilmore because he is “a friend” and that Lingamfelter promised his support to Gilmore before Marshall announced he would run.
Marshall has called himself the “authentic pro-life” candidate and has said that people opposed to abortion rights “will sit on their hands” if Gilmore is the Republican nominee. Gilmore said his campaign has the “support of a large number of pro-life leaders” in the state, adding that abortion is the “only thing” Marshall “has run on in any serious way.” Gilmore added that as governor he helped pass a 24-hour waiting period for women seeking abortions, enacted a statewide ban on so-called “partial-birth” abortion and pushed legislation requiring minors seeking abortions to notify their parents.
Chris Freund, spokesperson for the Virginia Family Foundation, said the antiabortion community “appreciated” the legislation that was passed while Gilmore was governor but that the group would like to see whether Gilmore “would be willing to take a position that is closer in line with ours.” Freund said that there “are not too many legislators who more passionately fight” for antiabortion issues than Marshall (McLaughlin, Washington Times, 3/21).
Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.
© 2007 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.
Kansas Senate Moves Abortion-Related Legislation To Negotiating Committee
March 24, 2008
The Kansas Senate on Wednesday sent a bill (HB 2736) that includes a number of abortion-related provisions to a committee of negotiators from both the House and Senate, the AP/Hutchinson News reports. By sending the bill to the committee, the Senate avoided approving the House-passed version of the bill and sending it to Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D), who supports abortion rights (Hanna, AP/Hutchinson News, 3/20).
Under the House version of the bill, women seeking abortions after the 21st week of pregnancy would have to be given information about no-cost counseling and no-cost prenatal services. Women would be given the option to see an ultrasound image and to ask the physician about the procedure at least 30 minutes before the abortion is performed. The Kansas State Board of Healing Arts would be required to revoke the medical licenses of physicians who break the law, and the measure would allow a district or county attorney, as well as the attorney general, to prosecute violations.
The bill would allow a group of 10 or more Kansans to sue the Kansas Department of Health and Environment and force it to provide information required by law on abortions performed after the 21st week of pregnancy. The bill also would require doctors performing an abortion after the 21st week of pregnancy to give the woman copies of documents that state the reason for the abortion and whether it is required to prevent considerable and irreversible damage to a major bodily function. Under the law, minors seeking abortions would be required to provide identification and proof of state residency. The person accompanying the minor also would be required to provide identification, sign a statement about their relationship to the minor and identify the father of the fetus if possible. The bill also outlined the steps a minor must take to obtain a judicial waiver for an abortion.
In addition, the measure allows a woman who had an abortion after the 21st week of pregnancy and some members of her family to sue for monetary damages if a physician violates the law. The bill also would require clinics that provide abortions to post signs informing women that they cannot be forced into having the procedure (Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, 3/19).
Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.
© 2007 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.
HHS Challenges ACOG Ethics Opinion On Referrals By Physicians Opposed To Abortion, EC
March 21, 2008
The Bush administration has criticized an ethics opinion released last year by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists that calls on physicians to provide referrals for patients seeking abortions, emergency contraception or other procedures if they are opposed to providing the service themselves, NPR’s “Morning Edition” reports. The ACOG opinion, released in November 2007, states that physicians “have the duty to refer patient in a timely manner to other providers if they do not feel they can in conscience provide the standard reproductive services that patients request.”
The American Association of Pro Life Obstetrician and Gynecologists raised concerns that the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology, which certifies physicians, could revoke certification under the new opinion. On Friday, HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt sent a letter to ACOG and the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology to challenge the opinion. Don Wright, HHS assistant principal deputy secretary, said, “We had great concerns that technically competent, skilled, highly trained physicians could be denied board certification solely on the basis of refusing to refer for abortions, something that might be against their moral compass or ethical standard.”
Greg Phillips, a spokesperson for ACOG, said the opinion is not part of the code of ethics that physicians must comply with to receive certification from the board. According to NPR, denying certification to physicians who do not perform abortion services “would be a violation of federal law, which has long protected the right of providers not to perform abortions” (Rovner, “Morning Edition,” NPR, 3/19).
Norman Gant, executive director of the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology, said that HHS misinterpreted the opinion. “They took two and two and came up with five,” he said, adding that Phillips’ comments are correct because ACOG’s opinion is not a binding portion of the group’s ethics code and, therefore, not a factor in decisions about board certification. “We do not restrict access to our exams for anyone applying for initial certification, or maintenance of certification, based on whether they do or do not perform an abortion,” Gant said, adding, “We do not base this upon whether they do or do not refer patients to an abortion provider if they do not choose to do abortions.” Wright said HHS would be relieved to find that the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology is not using the ethics statement for certification decisions but that he hopes ACOG “revisit[s]” its position.
However, Gant said that he personally has no problem with the November 2007 ACOG statement and that he believes ob-gyns should be ethically bound to provide contraception (Rovner, “Morning Edition,” NPR, 3/20).
Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.
© 2007 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.
Kansas House Approves Bill That Includes Abortion-Related Provision
March 20, 2008
The Kansas House on Tuesday voted 84-40 to approve a bill (HB 2736) that includes a number of abortion-related provisions, the AP/Kansas City Star reports. The bill now goes to the Senate for consideration (AP/Kansas City Star, 3/18).
Under the bill, women seeking abortions after the 21st week of pregnancy would have to be given information about no-cost counseling and no-cost prenatal services. Women would be given the option to see an ultrasound image and to ask the physician about the procedure at least 30 minutes before the abortion is performed. The Kansas State Board of Healing Arts would be required to revoke the medical licenses of physicians who break the law, and the measure would allow a district or county attorney, as well as the attorney general, to prosecute violations.
The bill would allow a group of 10 or more Kansans to sue the Kansas Department of Health and Environment and force it to provide information required by law on abortions performed after the 21st week of pregnancy. Lawmakers dropped a provision in the measure that would have required physicians who perform abortions after the 21st week of pregnancy to provide the state with information about the women undergoing the procedure (Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, 3/13).
The bill also would require doctors performing an abortion after the 21st week of pregnancy to give the woman copies of documents that state the reason for the abortion and whether it is required to prevent considerable and irreversible damage to a major bodily function. Under the law, minors seeking abortions would be required to provide identification and proof of state residency, the AP/Lawrence Journal-World reports. The person accompanying the minor also must provide identification, sign a statement about their relationship to the minor and identify the father of the fetus if possible, the AP/Journal-World reports. The bill also outlines the steps a minor must take to obtain a judicial waiver for an abortion.
In addition, the measure allows a woman who had an abortion after the 21st week of pregnancy, her husband if he is the father, or her parents if she is a minor, to sue for monetary damages if a physician violates the law, the AP/Journal-World reports (Manning, AP/Lawrence Journal-World, 3/18). The bill also would require clinics that provide abortions to post signs informing women that they cannot be forced into having the procedure, the Wichita Eagle reports.
The bill “addresses, in a moderate way, enforcement” of abortion, Kathy Ostrowski, legislative director for the antiabortion group Kansans for Life, said (Koranda, Wichita Eagle, 3/18). “Many times, women don’t know the justification for an abortion unless they seek their medical records,” Kinzer said. He also said that many women are coerced by parents or others to seek an abortion, adding, “The time to ensure women in the state don’t face coercive abortions is now.”
Julie Burkhart, CEO of the abortion-rights group ProKanDo, said, “The intent [of the bill] is to restrict access, to block access, and it does nothing to protect the health, safety and well-being of women.” Rep. Annie Kuether (D) said, “Why don’t we leave what we have on the books, which is a very tight law?” Opponents of the bill unsuccessfully tried to return the measure to the Federal and State Affairs Committee and replace its language with a bill that is less restrictive. According to the health department, 11,221 abortions were performed in Kansas in 2007, 380 of which occurred after the 21st week of pregnancy (AP/Lawrence Journal-World, 3/18).
Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.
© 2007 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.
Federal Judge Dismisses California Challenge To Federal Abortion Law
March 20, 2008
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White on Tuesday in San Francisco dismissed a California challenge to a federal abortion law that denies all federal funding through the annual health spending bill to states that “discriminate” against physicians, hospitals or insurers that do not offer abortion services or abortion referrals, the San Francisco Chronicle reports. White in his ruling said the state’s challenge was premature because an alleged conflict between two California laws and the federal law might never be an issue. However, state officials have said that the federal law could cost California $37 billion if the state enforces its law that requires hospitals or clinics to perform an abortion in an emergency, according to the Chronicle (Egelko, San Francisco Chronicle, 3/19).
Known as the Weldon law, after its sponsor Rep. Dave Weldon (R-Fla.), the federal language was added to the annual health spending bill (HR 4818) in fiscal year 2007 and has been included in subsequent annual health spending measures. The Weldon law prohibits federal funding for health services unless the recipient agrees not to “discriminate” against health care professionals or agencies that do not “provide, pay for, provide coverage for or refer for abortions.”
The law also prohibits federal, state and local agencies from requiring doctors, hospitals, health plans or other health care entities to provide abortion services or referrals to a different provider. The provision bans the agencies from taking action against providers and insurers who do not provide or cover abortion services. It also extends to health care providers nationwide the same “conscience protection” currently given to medical students who do not want to undergo abortion training.
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer (D) and state school Superintendent Jack O’Connell in January 2007 filed a lawsuit challenging the provision. The suit alleged that the provision violates Roe v. Wade because it does not include exceptions in cases of medical emergencies. The suit also said that the provision will block the state from enforcing two of its own laws. One law states that medical emergencies are an exception to health care providers’ right to refuse to participate in abortion services. The second law requires all health care facilities in the state to provide emergency services, including abortion, to anyone who requests them or to help individuals obtain the services elsewhere (Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, 2/6).
White in his ruling said that the state could not file suit against the federal government “until a woman needs but is refused emergency abortion-related services, California then attempts to enforce its law requiring the provision of such services, and the federal government denies or threatens to deny California federal funds as a result” (Elias, AP/Contra Costa Times, 3/19). If federal officials said they would deny funding, the challenge “then would be ripe for a court to determine,” White said.
White also cited another federal law in his ruling that requires hospitals that receive federal funds to stabilize patients with emergency conditions or transfer such patients to another hospital. Although the law does not mention abortion, it could be unified with the Weldon amendment to require states to provide abortions in emergency situations, White said.
California’s Deputy Attorney General Antonette Cordero said state officials would have preferred to eliminate the possibility of financial penalties but added that California would be satisfied if the state and federal laws were interpreted to avoid conflict. She added that the ruling will not prevent the state from enforcing its laws. Timothy Smith, an attorney representing the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists and other groups that supported the Weldon amendment, said White’s ruling is satisfactory but added that the groups will defend their “right to exercise their conscience” if the state later attempts to penalize physicians who refuse to perform abortions (San Francisco Chronicle, 3/19).
Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.
© 2007 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.
Abortion-Rights Opponents Should Support McCain For President, Opinion Piece Says
March 20, 2008
Abortion-rights opponents should support Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and “work hard to get him elected,” Robert George, a professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University, writes in a Philadelphia Inquirer opinion piece. George writes that although McCain “has been the cause of some serious headaches for the pro-life movement,” he offers abortion-rights opponents “by far the more appealing prospect.”
According to George, McCain’s campaign finance reform legislation and his support for human embryonic stem cell research funding policy are “serious concerns” for “pro-life voters.” However, McCain’s “pro-life record as a whole is very strong” and is not “the record of a politician hostile to the pro-life cause or generally unreliable on pro-life issues,” George writes. He adds that as president, McCain “would uphold … crucial pro-life policies,” including the so-called “Mexico City” policy — which bars U.S. funding from going to international groups that provide, counsel on, advocate or seek changes to laws regarding abortion — as well as the Hyde amendment, which forbids the use of federal funds to pay for an abortion except in cases of rape or incest, or when a woman’s life is in danger. McCain has also pledged to nominate strict constructionist judges to the Supreme Court modeled after Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts, George adds.
According to George, abortion-rights opponents must think about these issues in considering who to support. Democratic presidential candidates Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) would lead a “jihad against key pro-life legislative achievements of the past decade, including the partial-birth abortion ban [and] the Unborn Victims of Violence Act,” George writes, adding that McCain “supported all these initiatives and would work to protect them from a hostile Democrat Congress.”
“Over 40 years of political struggle, the pro-life movement has learned not to make the perfect the enemy of the good,” George writes, adding, “This crucial election is no time to forget that.” Abortion-rights opponents “should continue to press the argument with John McCain on points on which we disagree with him,” but opponents of abortion rights “should also support him and work hard to get him elected” president. In a race against Clinton and Obama, McCain “is by far the better pro-life choice,” George concludes (George, Philadelphia Inquirer, 3/16).
Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.
© 2007 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.
Actions Taken On Abortion-Related Legislation In Kansas, Michigan, Oklahoma
March 14, 2008
The following highlights recent state news about abortion-related legislation.
- Kansas: A committee on Monday approved a bill (HB 2736) that includes a number of abortion-related provisions, the Wichita Eagle reports. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Lance Kinzer (R), would require women seeking abortions after the 21st week of pregnancy to be given information on no-cost counseling and no-cost perinatal services. It also would require that women be given the option to see an ultrasound image and to ask the physician about the procedure at least 30 minutes before the abortion is performed. In addition, the measure would require the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts to revoke the medical licenses of physicians who break the law and would allow a district or county attorney, as well as the attorney general, to prosecute violations. The bill would allow a group of 10 or more Kansans to sue the Kansas Department of Health and Environment and force it to provide information required by law on abortions performed after the 21st week of pregnancy. Lawmakers dropped a provision in the measure that would have required physicians who perform abortions after the 21st week of pregnancy to provide the state with information about the women undergoing the procedure. Julie Burkhart, CEO of the abortion-rights group ProKanDo, said, “The bill continues to restrict access for women who seek reproductive health care services.” The antiabortion group Kansans for Life declined to comment on the legislation (Koranda, Wichita Eagle, 3/12).
- Michigan: The Senate voted 25-12 on Tuesday to pass a bill (S 1059) that would make it more difficult for minors to obtain an abortion without written parental consent, the AP/WZZM13 reports. Four Democrats and 21 Republicans voted in favor of the bill. The legislation would establish guidelines for judges to consider when deciding whether to grant a court waiver for an abortion without a parent’s consent (AP/WZZM13, 3/11). In determining whether a minor is sufficiently mature, the legislation outlines an array of factors the court can consider, including school attendance, academic performance and career goals, whether the minor is aware of the psychological and emotional consequence of abortion, whether the minor has consulted someone about alternatives to abortion, and the circumstance of the minor’s pregnancy, including any actions taken to maintain her personal health and prevent pregnancy (S 1059 text, 3/12). The bill also would prohibit a judge from granting a waiver if the minor had been previously denied one by another judge. Supporters of the measure say waiver petitions are repeatedly filed in the courts until a favorable verdict is given. Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D) vetoed a similar measure in 2004 (AP/WZZM13, 3/11).
- Oklahoma: The House on Tuesday voted 88-11 to pass a bill (HB 3144) that would require physicians to perform ultrasounds on women seeking abortions, the AP/Oklahoman reports. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Lisa Billy (R), is an expansion of 2007 legislation that requires abortion providers to tell women seeking the procedure that they have a right to an ultrasound at no cost at an off-site location. The new measure requires that the ultrasound be available at the facility where the abortion would be performed (AP/Oklahoman, 3/11). The measure would require the provider to perform the ultrasound and provide a medical description of the images at least one hour prior to the abortion. Women would not be required to view the images. Under the bill, abortion providers who are found to violate the measure would be fined $10,000 for the first violation, $50,000 for the second violation and $100,000 for the third violation. Women who obtain abortions would not be fined under the bill (HB 3144 text, 3/12). The bill now heads to the Senate for consideration (AP/Oklahoman, 3/11).
© 2007 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.
