By Julie Zaebst, Director, Clara Bell Duvall Reproductive Freedom Project
Update: June 21, 2016
Soon after this post was originally published in early April, HB 1948 stalled in the House. Now, the House is poised to take a final vote on the bill as early as this afternoon, Tuesday, June 21st. A companion bill, SB 888, has also been introduced in the Senate and has been referred to the Judiciary Committee.
April 6, 2016
Yesterday, the House Health Committee moved with breath-taking speed to vote on an extreme anti-abortion bill that would make it illegal to provide abortion care to some of the most vulnerable women in some of the most difficult circumstances. House Bill 1948 would ban abortion after 20 weeks and would ban the safest and most common method of second trimester abortion, preventing doctors from making decisions based on medical science and putting women’s health at risk.
The bill contains only a very narrow exception of the health and life of the woman – one that could force doctors to wait until the woman’s health deteriorates before providing her with the abortion care she desperately needs. And the bill includes no exception for rape, incest or fetal anomalies, which often aren’t discovered until a woman’s 20-week ultrasound.
Make no mistake – this is one of the most extreme abortion bans we’ve seen in any state legislature. Only two other states – Kansas and Oklahoma – have enacted this type of “method ban,” and both of these laws have been put on hold by the courts because they raise serious constitutional issues. Method bans substitute a political agenda for a doctor’s expert opinion about which procedure is best for their patient – and threaten doctors with criminal charges if they follow their professional training and conscience and perform an abortion using this method.
But the House Health Committee didn’t pause to consider the expert opinions of doctors or to ask themselves whether this bill would pass constitutional muster. The committee voted to advance HB 1948 just one business day after the legislation was introduced and after just an hour of debate. Members voted against holding a public hearing that would have provided an opportunity for the real experts – medical professionals and families who have sought later abortion care – to share their knowledge and experience with lawmakers.
Anti-choice lawmakers claim that abortion restrictions don’t “punish women,” as Donald Trump recently suggested they should. It’s true that HB 1948 wouldn’t impose criminal penalties on women – only on the medical professionals who are addressing women’s medical needs using evidence-based protocols that are the standard of care for their profession.
But let’s be clear, these types of restrictions do punish women. Just last week, we heard the story of a woman in Texas who was forced to wait for her fetus to die in utero and endure a stillbirth because of a similar type of restriction on later abortion care. When women and their families are confronted with complex medical issues like this, they deserve compassionate care guided by the best medical science – not political interference.
We can’t stand by while lawmakers ram through a dangerous bill with callous disregard for the health and well-being of women seeking later abortion care or for the medical expertise of the doctors who are doing their best to serve them. Contact your lawmaker today and let them know you believe a woman’s health, not politics, should drive important medical decisions.
Julie Zaebst has served as director of the Clara Bell Duvall Reproductive Freedom Project since 2014, bringing more than 10 years of experience as a program manager and advocate. A social worker by training, she previously worked in child welfare and as the associate director of the civic engagement Office at Bryn Mawr College.