Abortion waiting period dies in Senate after inclusion in tax bill

Published 12:00 am Tuesday, March 26, 2002

An attempt by pro-life advocates in the state Senate to include a 24-hour waiting period for abortion in a budget-balancing bill failed Monday when the floor refused the amendment.

Tuesday, March 26, 2002

An attempt by pro-life advocates in the state Senate to include a 24-hour waiting period for abortion in a budget-balancing bill failed Monday when the floor refused the amendment.

Email newsletter signup

The amendment, proposed by Sen. Michelle L. Fischbach, R-Paynesville, passed the tax committee by a 16-9 vote last Thursday.

The bill requires the informed consent of a woman who wants an abortion. At least 24 hours prior to performing the abortion, the physician would need to inform the woman by phone or in person the medical risks of the abortion and the gestational age of the unborn child.

It also requires the physician to provide information about alternatives to abortion and notify her of her right to view materials with pictures of fetal development.

&uot;This is not an anti-abortion provision, but a standard issue,&uot; said Sen. Grace Schwab, R-Albert Lea, who supported the amendment in the tax committee. &uot;If you are going to have any surgery, you want to have all information about it, including pros and cons. The provision just aims to enforce the standard practice in abortions.&uot;

But pro-choice groups take the amendment as a threat to women’s rights and acutely oppose it.

The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) of Minnesota, a St. Paul-based pro-choice organization, considers the 24-hour waiting period discriminatory and even dangerous for doctors.

The organization contends that the bill has no good medical reasoning behind it. Existing state law ensures that a doctor has to obtain the patient’s informed consent after advising relevant information including possible risks and available alternatives to a patient.

It also says that the provision will limit women’s access to abortions, incurring more time and costs as a result of the waiting period.

&uot;Segregating abortions from other medical conducts is not appropriate,&uot; Executive Director Tim Stanley said. &uot;It is insulting. No woman needs to be discriminated against for having an abortion.&uot;

The group is also concerned that the bill may expose doctors to threats from anti-abortion extremists by forcing them to identify unknown patients regularly.

The House has already passed a budget bill that includes abortion restrictions. In addition to the similar provisions to the Senate, the House version also contains what pro-choice constituents call a &uot;Super Gag Rule.&uot;

The bill prohibits a wide variety of state funds, including all family planning funds, from going to any organizations that provide abortions.

According to a survey by the NARAL, Schwab has a straight pro-life voting record for 14 votes last year, while Rep. Dan Dorman, R-Albert Lea, shows flexibility by voting for pro-life twice, pro-choice twice, and did not vote twice.

Over the past two years Gov. Jesse Ventura has been vetoing bills with abortion restrictions.