The bill would accomplish this by subjecting physicians in private practice to compliance with the oppressively stringent licensing rules that exist for abortion providing clinics — and allowing unannounced state inspections to assure that compliance — even though it would not require physicians to purchase the very expensive license that is mandatory for all facilities in Texas that perform 50 or more abortions per year.

The language exempting hospitals and ambulatory surgical centers echoes the existing statute, since those health facilities are already subject to licensure by the state.

Corte introduced much the same bill to strong-arm doctors last session. But he always comes back and tries again, which is why we finally ended up with his HB 15 in 2003.

HB 21 would require women to travel to a clinic to take possession of the state’s “informational” materials 24 hours prior to an abortion. Since many women already must travel hundreds of miles, this bill would impose either two trips or an overnight stay. The effect would be to delay women’s access to abortion care; that is its only purpose.

Corte expected HB 15 to accomplish this goal, since its language was identical to the Mississippi law (upheld by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals), and Mississippi already imposed upon women the requirements of HB 21. However, the general counsel of TDH (now DSHS) consulted Webster’s Tenth Collegiate Dictionary and ruled that the physician “provided” the woman with the state’s materials by “making them available” — leaving her with the right to say “No, thanks.” Strange, but true.

Corte just doesn’t like it when women can say no.