THE DAILY REPORT
STATE POLITICS & POLICY | Actions Taken on Women's Health-Related Legislation in Colo., Ga., Mo., N.Y., S.D., Wash. State[Feb. 21, 2008]
The following highlights recent state news about women's health-related legislation.
- Colorado: On Monday, the House voted 41-23 to pass a bill (SB 3) aimed at expanding access to birth control for low-income residents of Colorado, the Greeley Tribune reports (Villegas, Greeley Tribune, 2/19). The bill, which already passed the Senate, would direct the state Department of Health Care Policy and Financing to submit a waiver request to the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services seeking permission to expand Medicaid coverage of family planning services. The measure would require DHCPF to submit a proposal to CMS to expand coverage of family planning services to adults ages 19 to 50 with incomes up to 200% of the federal poverty level who have no insurance or would not otherwise be eligible for Medicaid. The bill would allow coverage for contraception, sterilization and infertility counseling (Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 1/31). Rep. Jim Riesberg (D) said similar legislation in Arkansas, Alabama and Florida has saved those states millions of dollars by preventing unintended pregnancies. Rep. Kevin Lundberg (R) said he believes the measure violates the state constitution because it provides increased family planning funding to groups that also provide abortions. The bill now moves to Gov. Bill Ritter (D) for consideration (Greeley Tribune, 2/19).
- Georgia: On Monday, a House subcommittee discussed the "Human Life Amendment," a resolution (HR 536) that would amend the state constitution to state that "the word 'person' applies to all human beings, irrespective of age, race, sex, health, function or condition of dependency, including unborn children at every state of their biological development, including fertilization," the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports. Nearly 20 people testified at the subcommittee hearing on Monday. Several law professors testified that the amendment could have broader implications, such as outlawing some forms of contraception. Supporters of the legislation, which included David Gibbs, the lawyer who represented the parents of Terri Schiavo, said that without a specific definition of "personhood," the creation of human-animal hybrids and harvesting of cloned embryos to make body parts could be possible, the Journal-Constitution reports. It would take a two-thirds vote by both chambers of the General Assembly and a majority vote in a statewide referendum to amend the constitution. Georgia Right to Life is supporting the proposal, although there is not uniform support among antiabortion groups (Smith, Atlanta-Journal Constitution, 2/19).
- Missouri: On Tuesday a House committee heard testimony for a bill (HB 1831) that would make it illegal to coerce a woman to have an abortion, as well as require abortion clinics to give women the option of viewing an ultrasound, the AP/Joplin Globe reports. A Senate committee heard testimony on a similar bill (SB 1058) Monday. Under the House bill, abortion clinics also would be required to instruct women that the procedure might cause pain to the fetus and to display signs about other available options. The signs would read: "There are many public and private agencies willing and able to help you carry your child to term, and to assist you and your child after your child is born," adding, "The state of Missouri encourages you to contact those agencies before making a final decision about abortion." The measure would make an attempt to coerce an abortion a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine. Supporters of the legislation said it is necessary to protect women. Opponents argue the legislation is not necessary because clinics already offer women the opportunity to see ultrasounds and make sure women are not coerced into having abortions. They add that the bill would cause problems in family law courts and infringe on free speech rights. Lara Underwood -- a family law attorney based in Jefferson City, Mo. -- warned that the legislation could undermine the state's no-fault divorce laws, as well as child support and custody procedures. "We're putting a burden on a husband who may want to get a divorce for a myriad of reasons," Underwood said, adding, "You're really going to cause more problems in the field of divorce and family law than you're going to solve with this." Mailee Smith of Americans United for Life said the bill "is constitutionally sound." She added that states have the latitude to enact laws to ensure women considering abortions understand the risks (Lieb, AP/Joplin Globe, 2/19).
- New York: Roman Catholic bishops in the state have begun a public campaign to defeat the Reproductive Health and Privacy Protection Act (S 5829), introduced in April 2007 by Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D), which would protect a woman's right to abortion in the state, the New York Sun reports (Gershman, New York Sun, 2/19). Spitzer and abortion-rights advocates say the chief purpose of the bill is to preemptively ensure that abortion remains legal in New York in the event that Roe v. Wade is overturned. The bill overhauls the state's outdated abortion law, enacted in 1970, which treats abortion as a homicide but also contains exceptions that allow the procedure in many situations. State law also lacks a provision allowing abortions to protect a woman's health in the late stages of a pregnancy. The legislation would establish a fundamental right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy prior to fetal viability and in later stages if the woman's health is at risk. It would also remove abortion regulations from state penal law and places oversight in the realm of public health law (New York Sun, 2/19). Spitzer's proposal also would decriminalize the procedure and make it a "matter of professional and medical discretion." The bill also supports the use of contraceptives and affirms public funding of reproductive health services (Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 4/30/07). Catholic officials say the bill could open up Catholic hospitals and social service agencies delete prone to discrimination lawsuits filed by women who sought abortions or abortion referrals at the facilities. The church also says the legislation would eliminate the potential for new restrictions on abortion in the state, including parental notification, informed consent and mandatory waiting periods. Church officials have organized a petition drive and have distributed pamphlets about the legislation to parishes (New York Sun, 2/19). In addition, Catholic leaders have placed a 10-minute video on the Web site YouTube denouncing the legislation (Mahoney, New York Daily News, 2/20). The Spitzer administration has said the church is exaggerating the impact of the legislation and does not plan to adjust the measure's language, the Sun reports (New York Sun, 2/19).
- South Dakota: The House on Wednesday voted 38-32 to pass a Senate-approved bill (SB 88) that would require physicians to offer sonograms to women seeking abortions, the AP/Sioux City Journal reports. The legislation now goes to Gov. Mike Rounds (R), who opposes abortion rights (Kafka, AP/Sioux City Journal, 2/21). The bill would not force women to view the sonograms but would require them to sign a statement acknowledging their refusal. Opponents of the measure said the proposal is not needed and could lead to litigation. Dean Krogman, a lobbyist for the South Dakota State Medical Association, said that the bill should be rejected because it applies not only to abortion clinics, but also to hospitals and other medical facilities where abortions are sometimes necessary. Krogman said the bill also would require additional records to be kept without giving direction about how to keep those records. The bill now heads to the full House for consideration. The House last month passed a similar bill (HB 1193) (Brokaw, AP/Yankton Daily Press & Dakotan, 2/16).
- Washington state: On Monday, the Senate passed legislation that would eliminate a rule requiring the state Department of Health to apply for federal abstinence-only education grants, the AP/Olympian reports. The change will give flexibility to the health department, which has been caught in a "legalistic catch-22" because of a newly enacted law that requires sex education courses to teach information that is "medically accurate" and include information about condoms and contraception (Ammons, AP/Olympian, 2/18). As a result, the state expects to be denied about $200,000 in abstinence-only education funding. Up until 2007, the state has been receiving $800,000 annually in federal funding for abstinence-only education (Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 1/2). Donn Moyer, a state health spokesperson, told the Seattle Times that his agency's position had not changed. "Our message has consistently been that abstinence education is a very important part of a comprehensive sex education program, and leaving it out would be irresponsible -- just as it would be to ignore medically and scientifically accurate information," Moyer said (AP/Olympian, 2/18). At least 16 states are no longer participating in the Title V abstinence-only program (Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 12/21/07). The bill now goes to the House (AP/Olympian, 2/18).
The information contained in this publication reflects media coverage of women’s health issues and does not necessarily reflect the views of the National Partnership for Women & Families.
Search the Archives
Subscribe
Hot Topic
The greatest tribute we can pay Senator Kennedy is to redouble our efforts to see his vision for universal health care become reality.
So recommit yourself to one of the most important legislative challenges of our time.
Start by sharing your story!
Do you think we need health insurance reform, or is the status quo okay?
The Editors
Debra Ness, publisher & president, National Partnership
Marilyn Keefe, managing editor & director of reproductive health programs, National Partnership
Laura Hessburg, associate editor & senior health policy advisor, National Partnership
Christine Monahan, assistant editor & health program assistant, National Partnership
Justyn Ware, editor
Kimberley Lufkin, senior editor
Amanda Wolfe, editor-in-chief
Paula Fortner, Brittany Hackett, Ryan Holeywell, Julia Moss, Santosh Rao, Zach Swiss, Matt Wayt, staff writers
Michael Pogachar, copy editor
Tucker Ball, director of online marketing, National Partnership
