Sponsored by: Rep. Geanie Morrison (R-Victoria) and Sen. Florence Shapiro (R-Plano)
Summary: These bills would have mandated detailed reporting by courts and abortion clinics and physicians. They also mandated data collection on the number of judicial bypass cases filed statewide, including the number of cases in which abortion was authorized or denied. (Minors who are unable to acquire parental consent for an abortion, often due to domestic abuse or no knowledge of parents’ location, file confidential judicial bypass cases to receive permission from a judge to have an abortion.) For women of all ages, these bills mandated that physicians performing abortions report detailed information to the state including, among other things, the name of the physician and abortion facility; the age, race, marital status, city and county of residence of the woman; and the amount paid and her method of payment for the procedure. These bills would have also mandated reporting on the source of the referral for the procedure, why the abortion was performed, complications with the procedure (if any), and what type of abortion was performed. These bills even required reporting on whether the woman took the state-directed materials (which include misleading, and even false, information) that are required to be offered to her by law. These bills would have further required reporting for abortion services for minors, including whether the parent was notified, whether the minor is emancipated, how the patient was informed about the judicial bypass process and who made the court arrangements. Physicians who did not adequately comply with the reporting requirements were to be subject to fines and other penalties.
For women of all ages, these bills mandated that physicians performing abortions report detailed information to the state including, among other things, the name of the physician and abortion facility; the age, race, marital status, city and county of residence of the woman; and the amount paid and her method of payment for the procedure.
These bills would have also mandated reporting on the source of the referral for the procedure, why the abortion was performed, complications with the procedure (if any), and what type of abortion was performed. These bills even required reporting on whether the woman took the state-directed materials (which include misleading, and even false, information) that are required to be offered to her by law.
These bills would have further required reporting for abortion services for minors, including whether the parent was notified, whether the minor is emancipated, how the patient was informed about the judicial bypass process and who made the court arrangements. Physicians who did not adequately comply with the reporting requirements were to be subject to fines and other penalties.
PPNT Position: Opposed—These bills were set to impose burdensome and invasive reporting requirements on physicians that would have interfered with the patient’s right to privacy. These bills singled out abortions for onerous reporting requirements, as Texas law does not require this kind of detailed reporting for other medical procedures. These lengthy reporting requirements were intended to discourage physicians from offering abortion services and could have imposed administrative costs that could endanger the sustainability of such services. Publicizing the names of physicians and abortion facilities would have jeopardized the safety of providers given the long history of violence and vandalism against them. Moreover, the intrusive nature of the reporting requirements was meant to intimidate women who chose to have an abortion.
These bills singled out abortions for onerous reporting requirements, as Texas law does not require this kind of detailed reporting for other medical procedures. These lengthy reporting requirements were intended to discourage physicians from offering abortion services and could have imposed administrative costs that could endanger the sustainability of such services.
Publicizing the names of physicians and abortion facilities would have jeopardized the safety of providers given the long history of violence and vandalism against them. Moreover, the intrusive nature of the reporting requirements was meant to intimidate women who chose to have an abortion.
Latest Action: 04/02/2007 - HB 1750 left pending in the House State Affairs committee. 04/26/2007 - SB 785 passed the full Senate (20-10).
04/02/2007 - HB 1750 left pending in the House State Affairs committee.
04/26/2007 - SB 785 passed the full Senate (20-10).
Recorded Votes: SB 785 - 4/16/07 - Senate State Affairs Committee (Passed 7-1). PPNT opposed this bill. For (Anti-Choice) Sen. Duncan, Robert (R-Lubbock) Sen. Carona, John (R-Dallas) Sen. Fraser, Troy (R-Horseshoe Bay) Sen. Harris, Chris (R-Arlington) 4/26/07 - Final Senate Passage (Passed 20-10). For (Anti-Choice) Sen. Eltife, Kevin (R-Tyler) Sen. Deuell, Bob (R-Greenville) Sen. Nichols, Robert (R-Jacksonville) Sen. Ogden, Steve (R-Bryan) Sen. Shapiro, Florence (R-Plano) Sen. Harris, Chris (R-Arlington) Sen. Brimer, Kim (R-Fort Worth) Sen. Nelson, Jane (R-Lewisville) Sen. Carona, John (R-Dallas) Sen. Averitt, Kip (R-Waco) Sen. Fraser, Troy (R-Horseshoe Bay) Sen. Duncan, Robert (R-Lubbock) Sen. Estes, Craig (R-Wichita Falls) Absent Sen. West, Royce (D-Dallas) 5/7/07 - House State Affairs Committee (Passed 7-1). For (Anti-Choice) Against (Pro-Choice) Rep. Parker, Tan (R-Flower Mound) Rep. Veasey, Marc (D-Fort Worth) Rep. Cook, Byron (R-Corsicana) Rep. Paxton, Ken (R-McKinney) Rep. Flynn, Dan (R-Van)
4/26/07 - Final Senate Passage (Passed 20-10).
5/7/07 - House State Affairs Committee (Passed 7-1).
