Texas lawmakers are on track in the second special session to approve House Bill 2 and Senate Bill 1 — omnibus abortion legislation.
The bills would ban abortions after 20 weeks post-fertilization; require doctors performing abortions to have hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles of the facility; require doctors to administer abortions inducing drug RU-486 in person, rather than allowing women to take it at home; and require abortions — even drug-induced ones — to be performed in ambulatory surgical centers.
The maps below show how many abortions women living in each county received from 2006 to 2010, and the abortion rate (number of abortions per 1,000 women, aged 15 to 44), according to the Department of State Health Services. Many women must travel long distances to reach one of the state's 42 facilities that perform abortions. We've marked abortion facilities that currently meet the proposed ambulatory surgical center standards in yellow and the remaining clinics that don't in blue.
The Texas Tribune is pleased to provide the opportunity for you to share your observations about this story. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask that you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or wandering away from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of the Tribune, and your real name will be displayed. Thanks for taking time to offer your thoughts.
Comments (12)
Jim Black
When I first heard about this bill I felt it was a good thing. The more I listened to testimony and did my own research I come to realize how little it actually does to help the unborn or women's health.
First the 20 week issue was pretty much nullified in 2003 with the passing of §171.004 which required all post 16 week abortions be performed in an ambulatory surgical centers or hospitals. Pulling numbers from Texas Vital statistics reveals that after passing a number of abortions statutes the post 16-week abortions dropped from 4.62% in 2003 to 1.34% in 2004; and has not gone above 1.9% since. With these numbers so small, it fairly easy to accept that these are medically necessary abortions for which this bill would still allow. So where is the gain?
Next the requirement for upgrading the facilities appears cloudy also. Same state vital statistics tables reveal only 2 deaths out of 861,697 procedures from 2001 thru 2011. The witness from the state licensing board revealed that (already) abortion clinics are the only medical facilities that are inspected annually. The ASCs that this bill requires them to upgrade to are on a 3 year cycle. I still question the need for a facility that performs only medical (pill) abortions to become surgical centers when no surgery is performed. The same witness testified that there may be problems getting these doctors admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. If that is not possible then there's questions of Constitutionality of requirements.
As much as I dislike abortion, I hate being lied to and conned even more.
Steve Harris
@ Jim. I'm so in agreement with your "As much as I dislike abortion, I hate being lied to and conned even more." Texas CONservatives have this CON down pat!
Judy Raddue
Jim, replies like yours give me hope. The truth is that few people "like" abortion. As a woman, it's a choice I've never been forced to make, but of those I know who did, it was not taken lightly. (In each case, she would have been a teenage mother.) As for late-term abortions, what few on either side discuss that nearly all are performed because of extreme distress to the child and/or mother. These are grievous decisions, usually made by two parents, not one cavalierly made by someone not fit to be a mother. Men would not understand this but, after living 5 months with a baby in one's womb, you are attached to that child. I highly recommend this gut-wrenching op-ed, written by a mother who (along with her husband) were faced with this choice - one that would not have been available to her under Texas' proposed law. (Warning: You may want Kleenex nearby.) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/21/opinion/my-abortion-at-23-weeks.html?_r=0
Chris Ledesma
@jim Thanks for being rational. I believe that those of opposing this bill are using reason and facts as our weapons, with the hope that our legislators and fellow citizens who have not been lost down the ideological rabbit hole (there are those of us on both sides in that) will listen to the realities and help us create a safe and accessible reproductive health care system for women that includes all options.
The other side has invoked religion, anecdotes, and dubious evidence of a medical, scientific, or sociological nature.
Abortion should be accessible, safe, affordable and most of all, rare. These bills achieve none of that, but instead propose a fantasy where women will not seek the procedures they need to choose their own destiny.
Laura Bellows
These maps are beautiful - however, the title of this piece is inaccurate and could be misleading to the casual observer. Instead of "Interactive: Where Women Received Abortions Across Texas," the title should be closer to how the data are described in the text: "how many abortions women living in each county received." How about - "Interactive: Abortions in Texas by County of Residence."
Rudy Gonzales
If you did not donate or forced your semen into this fertilization, you have no cause or concern about a woman's pregnancy. If you will not contribute to the upbringing of this child in question, you have no cause or concern about a woman's pregnancy. If you will not be there to care and comfort for this off-spring, you have no cause or concern about a woman's pregnancy. If you are a politician with your religious issue displayed rather than the well-being guaranteed by the US Supreme court in Roe v. Wade, you have no cause or concern about a woman's pregnancy. If you are a pompous pulpit pounding preacher, priest, Imam or Rabbi, you have no cause or concern about a woman's pregnancy. If you are any other radical fringe extreme wanting to force your biased extreme beliefs onto another, you have no cause or concern about a woman's pregnancy. Unless you are going to provide money, housing, food, clothing, medical benefits and health and life insurance, you have no cause or concern about a woman's pregnancy. Period!
Janice Pushinsky
The truth is that they could care less about the health and well being of the mother or the fetus. First of all Rick Perry's Sister owns a clinic that will charge 3 times more then the clinics they are closing. If Rick Perry was so much for life why have we had 500 men executed one that I know was innocent and he refused to grant a stay even after he was given evidence that he may be innocent? If he is so much for life why don't he care about the children going to bed hungry at night or thier education? All he cares about is the money that the Koch brothers give him.
Rachel Jackson
If you are a person with a heart and a sense of morals who would rather have there own life taken then see something so small and innocent poisoned and murdered then you have every right to have cause or concern about a woman's pregnancy. Not because you want to "control her body" but give some control to the one inside she willingly created.
The fact that Texas is finding a way to curb abortions makes me proud! I love my state!
Lorna Presswood
There is hardly a difference at all between the locations of surgical centers and regular facilities that are not surgically equipped. There are a few on the borders, but the difference does not constitute taking away women's rights to have abortions. The constitution does not say that we have to "make it easy" or that Texas even has to keep a woman from having to drive 5 hours-the constitution leaves it up to the states to regulate certain things about abortion. Texas is well within it's constitutional rights to require centers to upgrade or to close and to have women go to other locations. As you can clearly see by this map most abortions, in fact, the vast majority are already performed in cities where there are surgical centers. That fact in itself says that abortions aren't being denied. Anyone that looks at the map and see's the location of the centers and facilities has no argument, or either they don't understand the law. Making it "harder to get an abortion" is not unconstitutional.
nancy Jessee
Whatever the thousands of abortions in the State of Texas, the data shows process is safe as is. LIFER's should NOT speech for ANY women facing pregnancy other than the women & her choose. Certantley not the politicians. Certantley not a Govener's wife to pad his retierment from state service. CHOICE, PRIVACY, RESPECT for ALL TEXAS WOMEN.
Janet Kim
@Lorna Presswood. To be clear, the concern about keeping abortion accessible isn't just about making it easy. Surely everyone agrees that the earlier pregnancies are terminated, the better and safer. Having abortion be accessible (as well as safe) allows abortions to consistently be conducted as early as possible. It's easy to imagine a young woman discovering that she is pregnant after she is already several weeks along. It is also easy to imagine many other delays like the considerable time it takes to make an informed decision, full-time work, etc. Reducing the number of abortion clinics isn't going to reduce the number of abortions conducted. It's simply going to increase the number of abortions that are conducted later term.
CarolAnn Dennie
In my humble opinion, Governor Perry seems to be quite proud that he has executed his 500th Death Row Inmate. Why then does Governor Perry feel such compassion for the unborn.. Let's see now: Execution of adults is okay 500 times, but every fertilized egg must be saved. Governor Perry is a total jabberer.