Senate Panel Hears Testimony on Abortion Bill
*Correction appended.
The Senate Health and Human Services Committee heard testimony Tuesday on legislation that would tighten abortion restrictions.
Senate Bill 97 requires physicians to personally administer the two-drug cocktail that induces a medical abortion, which must be taken 24 hours apart, and to see the patient for a follow-up appointment within 14 days. The bill also requires physicians performing abortions to put existing verbal agreements with back-up physicians into written contracts, so that the state can track the names of doctors with hospital privileges that are willing to treat abortion patients in emergency situations.
“All we’re asking is ...
Comments (34)
Luisa Inez Newton via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Back in the 1960s, we would have called this "guilt-tripping." In medieval Europe, they called it "witch-hunting." Texas' phony moralism regarding women's health is totally un-American
Lee Dunkelberg via Texas Tribune on Facebook
In case you thought the War on Women was over, the Republican Teahadists strike again.
Matthew Cowan via Texas Tribune on Facebook
This has nothing to do with the issue of Abortions but ensuring that a "Standard of Care" or "Standard of Practice" is established for those who practice medicine in Texas. Those who understand Professional Licensing understand that the State have a vested interest is ensuring that those licensed practice in a manner that protects the Public's Health, Safety and Welfare.
Stan Baker via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Mr. Cowan: Bullshit.
Andrew Goldberg via Texas Tribune on Facebook
how about a one day delay between buying a gun and getting bullets?
Matthew Cowan via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Mr. Baker, apparently you have no clue or understanding of Professional licensing. So the only one who full of Bovine excrement would be you Sir. SO how about you get educated on the matter and get back to us.
Chris Lawrence via Texas Tribune on Facebook
I look forward, then, to the lege's forthcoming legislation to uphold the same standards for every other medical procedure performed in Texas.
Vibeke Mendonca Lee via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Another actual case of government getting between patient and doctor. I am still looking for Texas doctors to grow a spine and revolt. This has nothing to do with best practice care and patient safety.
Jackie L. Taylor via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Don't we have bigger issues to deal with than screwing with women?
Matthew Cowan via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Chris, they have already across many professions. The State Boards do it as well.
Chris Lawrence via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Really? When I last went to the ER for a kidney stone, a nurse administered all my medications at the hospital, I left with a prescription (the doctor didn't come to my house to administer my antibiotics and I didn't have to return to get them), and nobody insisted I schedule an appointment in 2 weeks to follow up with the doctor. Clearly Sen. Patrick and the Republican Party don't care nearly as much about the standard of care for that potentially life-threatening condition.
Matthew Cowan via Texas Tribune on Facebook
You still do not understand do you Chris. Each and every situation is governed by a different sets of regulations. IF you feel that the standard of care was violate then you should have reported it. Read the article and perhaps you might understand. The Standard of Care is stated in the bill and they are the FDA guidelines.
Again, The issue is part of Professional licensing. That is from what the issue is predicated upon and revolves around.
Russell C. Crawford via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Matthew Cowan Everyone knows that the issue here is limiting abortions. This Bill is a sham.
If the legislature was interested in saving life or helping women it would take a look at my avatar that is posted here. The yellow graph is births before Roe v Wade and the green is births after Roe. It is pretty clear that there were more births after Roe than before. If the lives of babies meant anything at all there legislature would be enacting in law the scientific laws that control abortion. http://www.naturalabortionlaws.com
http://www.facebook.com/naturalabortionlaw
Matthew Cowan via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Nice theory Russel but those are not laws. Secondly, to argue that Row v Wade brought forth more births is not a correlation since there are many other factors present such as the sex revolution that was in full swing at that time and the loosening of morality. But lets look at the result of Roe v Wade. Over 28% of the population born since Roe v Wade have been aborted.
SO is it fair to blame Roe v wade for child abuse? The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect has reported that child abuse has increased more than 1,000 percent since Roe v. Wade.
How about murder? The cohort of 14-to-17-year-olds born after the Roe v.Wade decision was much more likely to commit homicides than the cohort of 14-to-17-year-olds born before Roe v. Wade.
Are those fair assessments for Woe V. Wade?
The bottom line is we have a medial practice that is not following the Standard of Care. The legislation is about following the Standard of Care that is expected of its licensed doctors. IF a Doctor is not up to upholding that Standard of Care they should not practice. IT is nothing new to that profession. Stand of Care issues apply to Engineers, Accountants, Surveyors, Dentist and Geoscientists.
Mirian Spencer via Texas Tribune on Facebook
All after the medically unnecessary invasive trabsvaginal ultrasound they implemented last session. Too bad we don't requure this much medical oversight when men seek Viagra. Isn't impotence a side effect of testicular cancer? We should make sure they aren't prone to priaprism too, so we should do a colorectal exam three days before they seek the pills, then make them go to the doctor to administer the meds, and then make them return to the doctor to ensure all heart levels are ok immediately following intercourse.
Chris Lawrence via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Obviously I do not understand why the legislature would single out one medical procedure for far more intensive regulation than any other procedure regularly performed in Texas. Just as I obviously don't understand your interest in this issue is solely motivated by your desire to ensure that abortions in Texas are performed safely and continue to be legal, affordable, and available for women regardless of where they live without harassment from the authorities or vigilantes, as guaranteed by the fundamental human right to privacy embodied in the U.S. constitution.
Mike Openshaw via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Requiring the the manufacturer's OWN INSTRUCTIONS ON USAGE be followed?? Why, that wold turn this elective medical procedure...into an elective medical procedure and not a political cause! How outrageous!
Russell C. Crawford via Texas Tribune on Facebook
“Nice theory Russel but those are not laws. “
Of course they are laws. That is not even debatable. Perhaps you can explain one instance where the laws are not valid. Perhaps if you could they would not be laws, but you can’t.
The only problem you have with the laws is that they prove you are murdering born babies to save fetuses.
“Secondly, to argue that Row v Wade brought forth more births is not a correlation since there are many other factors present such as the sex revolution that was in full swing at that time and the loosening of morality.”
The sexual revolution came in with the birth control pill in the 1960s not in 1973. So you are off there as well. The fact is that births were declining simply because of the pro life movements killing of born babies and denying women the ability to have wanted births. A woman that is forced to have the baby of a rapist cannot have the child of her choice.
“ But lets look at the result of Roe v Wade. Over 28% of the population born since Roe v Wade have been aborted.”
The result of Roe is that there are move births. What the scientific evidence shows is that you are incorrect. Do you have proof of less births?
“SO is it fair to blame Roe v wade for child abuse?”
Unless you call having wanted children abuse you have no foundation for your claim.
“The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect has reported that child abuse has increased more than 1,000 percent since Roe v. Wade.”
Well that makes sense, there are more babies because of Roe.
“How about murder? The cohort of 14-to-17-year-olds born after the Roe v.Wade decision was much more likely to commit homicides than the cohort of 14-to-17-year-olds born before Roe v. Wade.”
But that is largely offset by the murders of the pro life movement. Pro lifers have a choice, they may save born babies or kill them to save fetuses. Of course you choose to murder the born to save the unborn. That is insane.
“Are those fair assessments for Woe V. Wade?”
No your ideas are simply excuses to allow you to murder born babies to save your fetus / god.
“The bottom line is we have a medial practice that is not following the Standard of Care. “
No, the entire idea of the pro life movement has nothing to do with standard of care, it has to do with worship of the fetus and killing born babies. Pro lifers worship the fetus and could care less about anything other than murdering anyone in the way that challenges their position.
“The legislation is about following the Standard of Care that is expected of its licensed doctors. “
If it was about Standard of Care then the bill would be written to protect the right to abortion, not to help pro lifers murder born babies.
“IF a Doctor is not up to upholding that Standard of Care they should not practice.”
I agree, every doctor should be forced by law to follow the scientific abortion laws that outline the impact of abortion.
“ IT is nothing new to that profession. Stand of Care issues apply to Engineers, Accountants, Surveyors, Dentist and Geoscientists.”
Then why force Doctors to be the lackeys of murderers in the pro life movement?
Lee Dunkelberg via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Not only do they lie that it's not about abortion they lie about their lies to defend their lies.
Linda Fischer via Texas Tribune on Facebook
The simple true answer is this modification of abortion laws is an attempt to discourage abortions.
Vibeke Mendonca Lee via Texas Tribune on Facebook
If the legislature really were concerned about women's health they would not destroy access to preventive care.
Matthew Cowan via Texas Tribune on Facebook
1) They are not laws. They are your own postulations. Just because you claim that they are laws does not make it so. You skip the scientific method. While your postulations are interesting, they fall well short of being considered law
2) I did not say that the sexual revolution came into being in 1973. I said it was in full swing at that juncture
3) You assert that births were declining because of the pro-life movement but yet your evidence of that is lacking. When looking for the Proximate cause, you have to look at all the variables that can influence the issue. While your postulations are interesting in trying to prove a link, it does not rule out other factors that can lead to the same issues . Just because you have a link and thus a cause and effect. Does not make it the Proximate cause!
4) You also ignore demographics in your assessment. The U.S. had a growth of births from the 1940’s to the 1950’s which correspond the WWII generation having children. A birth rate far higher than the 1970’s. That generation having children tappers off by the 1960’s. The number of births per year does increase because that corresponds with the baby boomers having children. But there is also the fact that the birthrate per 1,000 for ages 15-44 flat lines in the early 70’s as well as the average child per women. With 28% of the population each year being cast aside, the normal growth trend seen per generation has been suppressed and that can be and is tied to abortions. So the fact that the WWII Generation had more children and abortion was not legal undermines your assertions
5) “SO is it fair to blame Roe v wade for child abuse?” “Unless you call having wanted children abuse you have no foundation for your claim.” I do have a foundation to my claim but you ignored it. “The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect has reported that child abuse has increased more than 1,000 percent since Roe v. Wade.” You claim that makes sense yet that does not make sense since the birthrate is not a 1,000 percent higher since Roe V Wade.
6) Bottom line is that demographics show that the birthrate is far lower for the previous generation that generations before that. That shows that you assertion that the prolife movement murder the born to save the unborn
7) It is clear that you do not understand what Standard of Care means is regards to licensure. It is not about what services the a person has a right to but how a licensed doctor practices before the public.
I see that you have been thoughtful in coming up with this absurd defense for abortion. Justify it as you may but the facts do not support your contentions. So if you wish to continue your delusion that is your choice.
Anya Khan
elevates the standard of care for those who are having medical abortions to the level of current medical practice.” Oh My Giving women good care might stop the money machine that abortion mills are running
Matthew Cowan via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Chris, the state does not have an interest nor should it in regards to if abortion is "affordable, and available for women regardless of where they live"
William Sanders via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Abortion is not preventive care, It's not Health care at all, it's Murder!
Beverly Nuckols via Texas Tribune on Facebook
The FDA reviewed the requirements for use of Mifepristone in 2011 and declined to change the gestational age requirements and supported formal language for medication guide, elements to assure safe use, and the implementation system approved for Danco Laboratories. SB 97 will protect women from abortion providers who continue to experiment on Texas women and attempt to circumvent the law and the rules of Danco Laboratories. Federal law restricts the use of several drugs, such as opiates and isotretinoin. Look up FDA REMS, or Risk Evaluation and Management Systems.
Russell C. Crawford via Texas Tribune on Facebook
“1) They are not laws. They are your own postulations. Just because you claim that they are laws does not make it so. You skip the scientific method. While your postulations are interesting, they fall well short of being considered law”
The fact is that they are laws. No one skipped the scientific method. These laws have been through a much more through assessment than any set of laws in the past. Most laws go to a peer review of a handful of people that review the materials and make recommendations. These have been accessible to 23 million people and have been reviewed and discussed by more than 43,000 reviewers. Each comment has been addressed and the proof is that these are laws.
Now if you think you have some argument that was missed by one of the other 23,000,000 people, then by all means make your argument. http://www.naturalabortionlaws.com
As it stands your comments are simply unsupported responses and of no value.
“2) I did not say that the sexual revolution came into being in 1973. I said it was in full swing at that juncture”
What you said was very misleading and was meant to confuse readers. I think that is your intent here.
“3) You assert that births were declining because of the pro-life movement but yet your evidence of that is lacking.”
One of the elements of proof is the graph and other elements of proof are found in the laws. Your counter argument is what is lacking.
“ When looking for the Proximate cause, you have to look at all the variables that can influence the issue.”
This has been discussed on my site for years. My claim is that the accusation by the pro life movement that millions have been killed by abortion is unsupported. My implication regarding the lack of proof by the pro life movement is what you need to address, either that or the scientific laws that prove I am right.
“ While your postulations are interesting in trying to prove a link, it does not rule out other factors that can lead to the same issues .”
It is the pro life movement that attempts to make a link. I have destroyed the link with the graph. There have not been millions of deaths, in fact there have been millions of births.
“ Just because you have a link and thus a cause and effect. Does not make it the Proximate cause!”
I agree, the pro life movement has not established Proximate cause. There is no proof that 55 million “babies” have died, in fact the proof is that there have been millions of more births.
“4) You also ignore demographics in your assessment. The U.S. had a growth of births from the 1940’s to the 1950’s which correspond the WWII generation having children. A birth rate far higher than the 1970’s. That generation having children tappers off by the 1960’s. The number of births per year does increase because that corresponds with the baby boomers having children.”
No it does not, the fact is that women did not go to war and continued to have children before, during and after the war. There was a baby boom, but the boom had not ended and the second generation had already begun. If a woman was born in 1943 she would have been of child bearing age in 1959 and would have been followed through child bearing by all the other women after her each year. If the boom had continued then in 1963 the births of all those fathered after the return from the war would have shown a sharp increase. It did not occur until 1973 when abortion because of Roe.
<< But there is also the fact that the birthrate per 1,000 for ages 15-44 flat lines in the early 70’s as well as the average child per women. With 28% of the population each year being cast aside, the normal growth trend seen per generation has been suppressed and that can be and is tied to abortions. So the fact that the WWII Generation had more children and abortion was not legal undermines your assertions>>>
The fact is that babies were lost because of the pro life movement, not abortion. There was no 28 percent loss as proved by the fact that births did not increase in the 60’s as they should but dropped. So the influence was by the anti choice crowd that forced birth and caused women to choose not to become pregnant through the use of the Pill. It was not until they regained control with abortion that they began to give birth again.
“5) “SO is it fair to blame Roe v wade for child abuse?” “Unless you call having wanted children abuse you have no foundation for your claim.” I do have a foundation to my claim but you ignored it. “The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect has reported that child abuse has increased more than 1,000 percent since Roe v. Wade.” You claim that makes sense yet that does not make sense since the birthrate is not a 1,000 percent higher since Roe V Wade. “
It increased 1000 percent because before Roe there were fewer births. This is just plain common sense, if you have more births, you have more children which means you can have more abuse.
“6) Bottom line is that demographics show that the birthrate is far lower for the previous generation that generations before that. That shows that you assertion that the prolife movement murder the born to save the unborn”
Birthrate was tanked by the pro life movement and the birth control pill. It has nothing to do with abortion. In fact the proof is that abortion gave women a way to control births and therefore increase the number of births.
“7) It is clear that you do not understand what Standard of Care means is regards to licensure. It is not about what services the a person has a right to but how a licensed doctor practices before the public.”
The doctors determine how to practice medicine. You have no right to force a doctor to kill born children simply to satisfy your pro life god.
“I see that you have been thoughtful in coming up with this absurd defense for abortion.”
I don’t have to justify abortion. Abortion is controlled by natural scientific laws that imply that pro lifers murder born babies to save fetuses. That is where your problem lies.
“Justify it as you may but the facts do not support your contentions.”
The scientific fact is that pro lifers are proved by scientific law to be killing born babies to force the birth of fetuses that they cannot prove are human or alive.
“ So if you wish to continue your delusion that is your choice.”
My suggestion for the pro life movement is to focus on the scientific laws that define the impact of abortion and attempt to find a flaw. That will be your only way to regain the trust of the American public.
As it stands you are murdering born babies to force the birth of fetuses.
Beverly Nuckols via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Russell C, please explain this bit of insanity: "The fact is that babies were lost because of the pro life movement, not abortion. There was no 28 percent loss as proved by the fact that births did not increase in the 60’s as they should but dropped. So the influence was by the anti choice crowd that forced birth and caused women to choose not to become pregnant through the use of the Pill. It was not until they regained control with abortion that they began to give birth again."
Debra Uetz via Texas Tribune on Facebook
As a country, should we accept as law that infanticide is right? Really, its a simple question.
Russell C. Crawford via Texas Tribune on Facebook
---"Russell C, please explain this bit of insanity: "The fact is that babies were lost because of the pro life movement, not abortion. There was no 28 percent loss as proved by the fact that births did not increase in the 60’s as they should but dropped. So the influence was by the anti choice crowd that forced birth and caused women to choose not to become pregnant through the use of the Pill. It was not until they regained control with abortion that they began to give birth again."---
Lets make this simple. The pro life movement claims that there have been millions of babies "murdered." But that claim is clearly a lie. Why? Because in order for there to be millions of babies murdered, there would have to be a decrease in births. But there is no decrease in birth. In fact there is an increase in births after Roe.
This is really simple to understand. If more babies are being murdered, then there would be fewer births, not more. The Scientific Laws that govern abortion predict that if a woman is allowed to abort an unwanted child she will then be able to have a wanted child. The result is an increase in births.
I will be glad to explain this further if you need additional help.
Russell C. Crawford via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Debra Uetz, Pro lifers are committing infanticide right now. Is that what you are talking about? Pro lifers murder born babies in a effort to force the birth of fetuses that may not be alive or human.
Debra Uetz via Texas Tribune on Facebook
I'm glad you see abortion as infanticide. This is the first step.
Matthew Cowan via Texas Tribune on Facebook
1. LOL you have made assertions and postulations. That is not how “law” gets established. Clearly you do not know or understand the scientific method. Also the claim that your material has been accessible to 23 million people does not mean squat. That does not mean 23 million even saw it. Accessibility has never been a measure for whether someone’s assertions/postulations rise to the level to be law. Having 43K likes on face book does not even count as reviewers for the purpose of determining whether your postulates would rise to the level of being a law. Yet we do know that your site is ranked at least below 23 million other sites (hint they stop tanking below 23 million). So your assertions about you postulations being law is nonsense.
2. My noting of the sexual revolution was not misleading nor meant to confuse the reader since. Your assertions are absurd .
3. Your graph is worthless. No information except for years and in fact it is truncated leaving off very telling information.
4. You contend that millions have been killed is unsupported. That contention is wrong since we do know that millions have been aborted. The CDC and the GuttMacher Institute are two sources as well as the numbers that Planned Parenthood publishes. So your assertion is wrong.
5. It matters not whether women went to war or not. Your introduction of that is a red herring. What matters is the birthrate which was higher for the WWII generation than for the Baby boomer generation. It is true that the WWII Generation birthrate tappers off in the 1960’s. The babies born to the baby boomers begins in the 1960’s but would not really beginn until the 1970’s since the majority of Baby boomers were born until the late 40’s to the mid 50’s.
6. You assert that babies were lost due to the prolife movement is an assertion that lacks facts. Again your “laws” are not valid since they are just your postulations. You claim that abortion gave women a way to control births and therefore increase the number of births but the birthrate per 1000 is actually far lower now than it was prior to the WWII Generations. That undermines your postulations.
7. Bottom line you are engaging in pseudo science with your “laws”. Your claims that they are laws are a perversion of the scientific method. I know that you will wave your arms and claim otherwise but the fact remains that your postulations are just that which are shown not to be correct using the demographics from the US census.
Beverly Nuckols via Texas Tribune on Facebook
More insanity: "If more babies are being murdered, then there would be fewer births, not more." It is a verifiable fact that about 26 out of each 100 known pregnancies in the US are ended by intentional elective abortion. In some black populations, such as New York City, the ratio of known pregnancies to elective abortions is closer to 50%.