Texas Senate panel approves abortion sonogram bill Texas Senate panel OKs abortion sonogram bill

Houston Democrat Ellis among dissenters; measure could go to full Senate next week

The bill passed on a 7-2 vote, with Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, and Leticia Van de Putte, D-San Antonio, dissenting. It is likely to be heard by the full Senate as early as next week.

The Senate passed bills in 2007 and 2009 that included sonogram provisions, but those efforts died in the House. On Wednesday, the committee approved a revised version of the bill, sponsored by state Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston.

In its original form, doctors would be required to perform a sonogram, explain the procedure as it is performed and require a woman see the image and hear the heartbeat of the fetus. That version contained language that allowed a woman to "avert her eyes" if she chose.

A committee substitute introduced Wednesday would not compel the doctor to perform the sonogram or detect a heartbeat if a woman's pregnancy was the result of sexual assault or incest or if the fetus has an "irreversible medical condition or abnormality."

In any circumstance, the doctor and the woman cannot be prosecuted for the woman's decision not to see the sonogram or hear the heartbeat.

"This is an issue about empowering women," said Patrick, an outspoken abortion opponent. "What this bill does is remove the barrier that is placed in front of women now from getting information they're entitled to."

Patrick said his bill is a "clarification" of a bill that passed the Senate last session. "My intent has never been to force a woman to view the sonogram or hear the heartbeat if she chose not to," he said. "In my view, it was very clear in the other bill, but to make sure it was clear, we simply took out the phrase 'avert the eyes' and replaced it with 'she can choose to view or not to view.'"

Opponents weigh in

Opponents of Patrick's bill, including a Planned Parenthood physician and other doctors, told committee members the bill is an unwarranted legislative intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship. They also said it is a potential waste of resources if the patient already had a sonogram performed by her primary care physician.

"Standard care for women considering abortion already includes conducting an ultrasound and offering women an opportunity to view the ultrasound and to receive a copy of the image of the ultrasound if they wish," said Dr. Scott Spear, director of Planned Parenthood of the Texas Capital Region. "In addition to not being necessary, provisions of this bill interfere with the doctor-patient relationship by distorting medical facts and by subverting the principles of informed consent."

Patrick disputed Spear's claim and said a former Planned Parenthood employee told him that women were discouraged from seeing their sonograms.

"The real issue here is, what is Planned Parenthood's opposition to the bill?" he asked. "They should praise this bill to say, 'Thank you, senator, for passing Senate Bill 16, because it confirms the standard of care that we offer.'"

Patrick's bill seeks to build on the Woman's Right to Know Act, approved in 2003, that requires doctors to inform women considering abortion about a range of options before going through with the procedure.

The resources include a directory with information on abortion risks and color pictures of the development of a fetus by week. The brochure includes contact information for private and public groups that provide services to new mothers, adoption agencies and how to get child support from the child's father. The 2003 law also imposes a 24-hour waiting period between when the woman views the material and the abortion.

Fixing 'loopholes'

A prominent anti-abortion group said the sonogram bill and the information booklet are efforts to make sure women considering abortions are fully informed of their options before the procedure.

"In many cases, women are not given the opportunity to talk to the physician face-to-face," said Joe Pojman, executive director of Texas Alliance for Life. "For a long time, the abortion providers were allowed to play a recorded message of the physician's voice, and that was supposed to satisfy the law. The bill would fix those loopholes."

An Austin couple, Brenda Sendejo and husband Tommy Ademski, told reporters that their own experience with a required sonogram was traumatic. Sendejo, an anthropologist at Southwestern University, said she and her husband had been trying to conceive a child for three years and finally resorted to in vitro fertilization. When tests revealed after 13 weeks that the fetus was terminally ill, they decided on an abortion.

"What hasn't been brought up in the legislation so far," Sendejo said, "is that currently there is a phone call, a recorded message that women must listen to - they have no choice right now, according to the current law - that describes the fetus. So, at 14 weeks I had to listen to a description of the fetus. Forcing couples and families to listen to this sort of thing is traumatic."

Sonogram measures have become increasingly popular in states dominated by socially conservative lawmakers, with 18 states regulating sonograms by abortion providers and nine requiring verbal counseling or written material on how to obtain a sonogram. Patrick's measure resembles an Oklahoma law that was vetoed by then-Gov. Brad Henry, a Democrat, and is now mired in the courts.

joe.holley@chron.com

rcervantes@express-news.net