Meanwhile, in Texas:
Senate panel to consider abortion law requiring women to view sonograms

A Texas Senate committee will begin considering an anti-abortion measure this week that, if passed, would be one of the strongest in the nation. The bill mandates that pregnant women be shown an ultrasound of the fetus at least two hours before an abortion.

Physicians also would be required to explain the grainy image, including a description of the fetus’ dimensions and, if applicable, the presence of limbs or internal organs. If audible, the fetal heartbeat would have to be played for the woman as well.

But critics say the bill would violate women’s and physicians’ civil liberties and, for women who go through with the abortion, could make a wrenching decision more difficult to bear.

Two weeks ago, Gov. Rick Perry fast-tracked the sonogram bill by declaring it an emergency item, allowing lawmakers to vote on the proposal early in the 140-day legislative session.

“People ask me, ‘Why is this an emergency issue?’” said Republican Sen. Dan Patrick of Houston, the bill’s author. “We have 80,000 abortions in Texas every year. So let’s just say that one out of five women, after they see the sonogram, make a decision to either put the baby up for adoption or keep the baby. You’re talking about 16,000 lives.”

And back in DC:
voices.washingtonpost.com

Since 1986, a patient with an emergency medical condition who goes to a hospital participating in Medicare must be treated. Such stabilizing treatment could include abortion care for pregnant women. If the hospital can’t provide the requested treatment it must refer the patient to a hospital or medical facility that does.

The overly broad Pitts amendment would void this requirement for hospitals, which would be considered a “health care entity.” Unlike the nebulous “forcible rape,” the key definition here is clear: “an individual physician or other health care professional, a hospital, a provider-sponsored organization, a health maintenance organization, a health insurance plan or any other kind of health care facility, organization, or plan.” So, in contravention of EMTALA, hospitals would be allowed to refuse to provide abortion care or refer the patient to another hospital. Most troubling is that there are no exemptions — not even if the life of the mother is at risk.

politico.com

Sara Rosenbaum, who chairs George Washington University’s health policy department, will testify at both hearings, focusing on how the legislation goes beyond merely barring taxpayer of abortion.

“Essentially this undermines tax-favored treatment of plans that cover abortion and utterly changes private health insurance, not just publicly-funded plans,” she told POLITICO in an interview. “It opens up a vast new amount of liability for alleged violations of discrimination [against providers who, for conscious reasons, refuse to provide abortions] and, number three, it exposes women to lose access to health care covered under EMTALA [emergency medical services legislation].”