Abortion Actions

Useful Article?

The following highlights recent news of state actions on abortion-related legislation.

North Dakota: The Senate on Thursday voted 41-6 to pass an amended version of a bill (HB 1466) that allows the Legislature to call itself into special session if Roe v. Wade — the 1973 Supreme Court decision that effectively barred state abortion bans — is overturned to determine if the ruling would allow lawmakers to impose more restrictions on abortion, the AP/Fargo Forum reports. The Senate approved the amended bill after striking down two proposals that sought to make the procedure a felony, the AP/Forum reports (Wetzel, AP/Fargo Forum, 4/5). The original bill, which passed the House by a 61-26 vote in January, would have made performing an abortion punishable by five years in prison and a $5,000 fine (Kaiser Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, 1/31). The amendment, sponsored by Sen. Tracy Potter (D,) passed by a 26-21 vote. The amended version of the bill now moves to the House (AP/Fargo Forum, 4/5).
Oklahoma: The House last week voted 73-22 to approve a bill (SB 714) that would prohibit the use of state or federal funds to perform abortions except for procedures to save the life of pregnant women, the AP/Joplin Globe reports. The measure also would bar using state-supported hospitals, clinics and equipment to perform abortions. In addition, the legislation would tighten the bypass provision of the state’s informed consent law by changing the definition of "medical emergency." Under current law, physicians can bypass the informed consent requirements if a woman seeking an abortion is experiencing a medical emergency (Talley, AP/Joplin Globe, 4/3). The bill also would make all state employees ineligible to perform the procedure except to save the life of the woman, the Daily Oklahoman reports (Mock, Daily Oklahoman, 4/4). Rep. Doug Cox (R), who opposes the measure, offered amendments to the bill that would have given more discretion to physicians in recommending abortions to women with medical conditions that could affect her or her fetus’ health. All of Cox’s amendments were either not considered or tabled (AP/Joplin Globe, 4/3). Rep. John Wright (R), who wrote the House version of the bill, said that the bill would not apply to private physicians *(Daily Oklahoman, 4/4). The Senate has already passed the legislation, but the measure now returns to the chamber for final approval. The Oklahoma State Medical Association opposes the bill (AP/Joplin Globe, 4/3).
South Carolina: Attorney General Henry McMaster (R) in a letter read by a Senate committee on Wednesday said a bill (H 3355) that would require women seeking abortions to view ultrasound images of their fetus before undergoing the procedure could be considered unconstitutional if it is interpreted as forcing an unwilling patient to see the images, the AP/Boston Herald reports (Adcox, AP/Boston Herald, 4/5). House lawmakers last month voted on the bill and sent it to the Senate after defeating amendments that would have exempted women whose pregnancies are the result of rape or incest from the requirement. The legislation is supported by Gov. Mark Sanford (R). Under the state’s informed-consent law, which was passed in 1994, abortion providers are required to tell women the likely age of their fetuses and provide information about fetal development and abortion alternatives. In addition, women must consider the information for a minimum of one hour before undergoing the procedure (Kaiser Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, 3/23). McMaster previously told the Senate committee that he supports the bill and that it could hold up to a legal challenge. The letter read to the committee on Wednesday aimed to offer advice, McMaster wrote. "In my opinion, it would be illegal and improper for the state to force a person seeking an abortion to view an ultrasound image against her will," McMaster’s letter read. McMaster, who did not attend the committee hearing, wrote that the bill places requirements on doctors and not women seeking abortions. According to McMaster, the bill would be easier to defend against a legal challenge if it is clarified that a woman would be able to opt out of the requirement. The Senate panel postponed a vote on the bill and is scheduled to meet again in two weeks (AP/Boston Herald, 4/5).