Sponsored by: Rep. Frank Corte (R- San Antonio) and Sen. Dan Patrick (R-Houston)
Summary: HB 36 and SB 182 would have stipulated that a woman review her ultrasound image with her doctor at least two hours before an abortion can be performed, even for victims of rape or incest or women who would have chosen to end a pregnancy due to fetal abnormalities or to preserve their health. A woman would have been able to "avert her eyes" if she chose not to view the image. In addition, HB 36 and SB 182 would have further increased administrative burdens on physicians and clinic staff. Current law requires physicians to give women certain information at least 24 hours before having an abortion. This includes standard information that is provided by voice recording over the phone. These bills would have disallowed clinics from providing the standard information by audio or video recording. The bill would have required physicians to provide this information orally in person or over the phone. UPDATE: A substitute version of SB 182 and HB 36 replaced the original bills while in they were in their respective committees. The substitute bills would have still forced doctors who provide abortion care to perform an ultrasound, describe the ultrasound image, and provide audio of the fetal heartbeat if it is present. The substitutes would have allowed the woman to refuse to receive this information (instead of just allowing her to "avert her eyes"). However, the bill did not specify whether the doctor still had to perform the ultrasound and describe the image, even if the woman chose NOT to receive the information. The substitute versions of HB 36 SB 182 would still disallow clinics from providing standard information about abortion through video or audio recordings, but would allow the information to be given by a doctor's assistant instead of only by the doctor.
HB 36 and SB 182 would have stipulated that a woman review her ultrasound image with her doctor at least two hours before an abortion can be performed, even for victims of rape or incest or women who would have chosen to end a pregnancy due to fetal abnormalities or to preserve their health. A woman would have been able to "avert her eyes" if she chose not to view the image.
In addition, HB 36 and SB 182 would have further increased administrative burdens on physicians and clinic staff. Current law requires physicians to give women certain information at least 24 hours before having an abortion. This includes standard information that is provided by voice recording over the phone. These bills would have disallowed clinics from providing the standard information by audio or video recording. The bill would have required physicians to provide this information orally in person or over the phone.
UPDATE: A substitute version of SB 182 and HB 36 replaced the original bills while in they were in their respective committees. The substitute bills would have still forced doctors who provide abortion care to perform an ultrasound, describe the ultrasound image, and provide audio of the fetal heartbeat if it is present. The substitutes would have allowed the woman to refuse to receive this information (instead of just allowing her to "avert her eyes"). However, the bill did not specify whether the doctor still had to perform the ultrasound and describe the image, even if the woman chose NOT to receive the information.
The substitute versions of HB 36 SB 182 would still disallow clinics from providing standard information about abortion through video or audio recordings, but would allow the information to be given by a doctor's assistant instead of only by the doctor.
PPNT Position: Opposed—There are no medical reason for any of these requirements. HB 36/SB 182 would have directly violated the doctor-patient relationship because would have allowed politicians to interefere with in the treatment of a doctor's patients and hindered a doctor's ability to decide what medical procedures are appropriate for each patient. These bills merely intended to shame a woman about her choice to terminate her pregnancy. Leading medical organizations, including the American Medical Association and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, oppose requirements that use specific procedures for informed consent because they compromise a physician's ability to decide what information or treatment is in the best interest of the patient. Additionally, these bills were unnecessary. Planned Parenthood clinics already perform an ultrasound procedure before all abortion procedures (including medication abortions) to date the pregnancy and estimate gestation. Each patient is given the opportunity to view the ultrasound image, and approximately one-third of Planned Parenthood patients choose to do so.It is a standard of care in the medical community for patient education to be communicated through video or audio recordings. HB 36/SB 182 would have done nothing new to inform women. Rather, they would have made the provision of abortion more difficult for clinics and physicians, thereby decreasing a woman's access to the procedure.
Opposed—There are no medical reason for any of these requirements. HB 36/SB 182 would have directly violated the doctor-patient relationship because would have allowed politicians to interefere with in the treatment of a doctor's patients and hindered a doctor's ability to decide what medical procedures are appropriate for each patient. These bills merely intended to shame a woman about her choice to terminate her pregnancy.
Leading medical organizations, including the American Medical Association and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, oppose requirements that use specific procedures for informed consent because they compromise a physician's ability to decide what information or treatment is in the best interest of the patient.
Additionally, these bills were unnecessary. Planned Parenthood clinics already perform an ultrasound procedure before all abortion procedures (including medication abortions) to date the pregnancy and estimate gestation. Each patient is given the opportunity to view the ultrasound image, and approximately one-third of Planned Parenthood patients choose to do so.
Latest Action: 5/26/2009 - SB 182 substitute was left pending in the Texas House. 5/12/2009 - HB 36 was left pending in House State Affairs committee.
5/26/2009 - SB 182 substitute was left pending in the Texas House.
5/12/2009 - HB 36 was left pending in House State Affairs committee.
Recorded Votes: 3/26/2009 - SB 182 substitute Senate committee vote (passed 7-2). PPNT opposed this bill. For (Anti-Choice) Sen. Robert Duncan (R-Lubbock) Sen. Bob Deuell (R-Greenville) Sen. John Carona (R-Dallas) Sen. Troy Fraser (R-Horseshoe Bay) Sen. Chris Harris (R-Arlington) 5/4/2009 - SB 182 substitute full Senate vote (passed 20-9). For (Anti-Choice) Against (Pro-Choice) Sen. John Carona (R-Dallas) Sen. Wendy Davis (D-Fort Worth) Sen. Bob Deuell (R-Greenville) Sen. Kevin Eltife (R-Tyler) Absent Sen. Craig Estes (R-Wichita Falls) Sen. Chris Harris (R-Arlington) Sen. Jane Nelson (R-Lewisville) Sen. Royce West (D-Dallas) Sen. Robert Nichols (R-Jacksonville) Sen. Florence Shapiro (R-Plano)
3/26/2009 - SB 182 substitute Senate committee vote (passed 7-2). PPNT opposed this bill.
5/4/2009 - SB 182 substitute full Senate vote (passed 20-9).
5/19/2009 - SB 182 substitute House committee vote (Passed 8-4).
