SB 89 was one of the casualties of the end of session. The bill would have required doctors performing “surgical procedures” to have admitting privileges at a local hospital, required doctors performing abortions to advise women that a fetus “might feel pain,” and funded breast and cervical cancer screening.
Initially, this bill passed the Senate requiring only doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital, ostensibly to “protect women’s health” if they needed follow up care. This requirement was expanded to the ill-defined category of doctors performing “surgical procedures.” But, the true women’s health provisions having to do with breast and cervical screening seemed to be the source of the main disagreement with Democrats tending to be in favor and Republicans tending to be in opposition. And, while I have no real proof, I wouldn’t be surprised if the true (but more expensive) women’s health provision concerning health screening was placed in the bill, in part, to kill the pretextual women’s health provision concerning abortion.
MartyL says
Area blogger pens Onionesque headline.
Doug says
I can only aspire to Onionesque.
daron aldrich says
Best headline this week. Maybe even month.
d
T says
Please stop calling it a “bill”. It’s an unborn law.
T says
Preborn law also being acceptable.
Parker says
T –
“an undifferentiated mass of words”, actually…
Amy says
Tom, I’ve been laughing for 5 minutes straight over that unborn law comment. Hysterical!