Senate Battles Over Teen Contraception, Pre-Abortion Ultrasounds

Conservative forces in the Texas Senate forced heated battles over legislation relating to providing contraceptives to teen parents and pre-abortion ultrasounds on Friday.

The first fight occurred over legislation by State Sen. Dan Patrick (R-Houston) which, as originally written, required women to be subjected to an ultrasound examination prior to terminating a pregnancy. Given the clear opposition to the SB 182, the so-called “informed consent” bill, as written, though, a floor amendment was adopted that requires women seeking an abortion be informed of their option to have an ultrasound and sign that they accept or reject the ultrasound. Women who elect to have the ultrasound may then decide whether or not to see the results of the test.

The biggest fight on Patrick’s bill was actually over language in existing Texas law that requires women seeking an abortion be told that having the procedure could result in an increased risk of breast cancer. State Sen. Elliot Shapleigh (D-El Paso) attempted to amend the bill to strike the language from Texas law. The amendment ultimately failed 11-19:

Yeas: Davis, Ellis, Gallegos, Hinojosa, Shapleigh, Uresti, Van de Putte, Watson, Wentworth, West, Whitmire.

Nays: Averitt, Carona, Deuell, Duncan, Eltife, Estes, Fraser, Harris, Hegar, Huffman, Lucio, Nelson, Nichols, Ogden, Patrick, Seliger, Shapiro, Williams, Zaffirini.

Absent: Jackson.

Keep in mind that those Republicans who voted against the amendment basically voted to perpetuate a myth; that list of legislators voting for the measure includes the only medical doctor presently in the Texas Senate: State Sen. Dr. Bob Deuell (R-Greenville).

In February 2003, the National Cancer Institute convened a workshop of more than 100 of the world’s leading experts on pregnancy and breast cancer who determined there was no link between abortion and breast cancer–a claim mainly proffered by a couple of pro-life astroturfing groups, one of which was nominated for a “Golden Boob” by the National Breast Cancer Coalition for proffering such a myth. Democrats Eddie Lucio II (D-Brownsville) and Judith Zaffirini (D-Laredo) joined Duell and the Republicans.

On final passage, the result was 20-10, with State Sen. Carlos Uresti (D-San Antonio) defecting to join Lucio and Zaffirini and voting with Republicans on the final bill. State Sen. John Whitmire (R-San Antonio) voted in favor of the Shapleigh amendment and against the bill.

Yeas: Averitt, Carona, Deuell, Duncan, Eltife, Estes, Fraser, Harris, Hegar, Huffman, Lucio, Nelson, Nichols, Ogden, Patrick, Seliger, Shapiro, Uresti, Williams, Zaffirini.

Nays: Davis, Ellis, Gallegos, Hinojosa, Shapleigh, VanideiPutte, Watson, Wentworth, West, Whitmire.

The second pitched battle of the Senate’s day on Friday was over whether unwed mothers age 16 and up could consent on their own to receive contraception from a medical professional (SB 592 by Van De Putte). Naturally, Republicans think that a 16-year-old who has already had sex, been impregnated, gone through labor, and is raising a child on her own and not under her parents’ roof isn’t adult enough to get birth control pills or condoms from a doctor without her parents being made aware of that fact.

The Statesman has more:

An unexpected emotional showdown on contraceptives erupted in the Texas Senate today over bill designed to expand services for young teen mothers.

At one point, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst was called out of a meeting to break a tie on a controversial amendment — although Sen. Kip Averitt, R-Waco, broke the tie just as Dewhurst arrived.

As filed, Senate Bill 592 bill would have exempted teen mothers age 16 and over who are not living at home from having to get parental permission to get prescription contraceptives.

Under current law, parental consent is required for girls under 18 to get contraceptives.

“Texas has the third-highest teen birth rate in the nation,” said Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, D-San Antonio, the author. “This is about addressing that problem, only for teens who already are mothers.”

But Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, objected, calling the proposal “a dangerous precedent.”

“I believe a parent has a right to know that a doctor is giving their daughter contraceptives,” he said, offering an amendment to require parental consent for anyone under 18, living on their own or not.

“There is not a senator with a daughter who wouldn’t want t know.”

Van de Putte argued against Patrick’s amendment, citing studies that show that teens are more likely not to use contraceptives if they have to have their parents’ permission to get them.

“Most teenagers will still have sex and not use these services,” she said, noting that the “biological urge in those teen years to have sex is so strong.”

The first vote on Patrick’s amendment was a 14-14 tie, with three senators absent. Dewhurst was summoned back to the floor to break the tie, but Averitt arrived first and put the tally at 15-14.

The Senate then approved the bill on a voice vote. But when she took the first step toward final passage, Sen. Steve Ogden, R-Bryan, warned that her proposed change in state law would create new problems.

“You are arguing that a minor child has reached the age of consent because they have engaged in certain conduct, and so they should be able to make their own medical conditions,” Ogden said. “You’re saying they have not reached the age of consent for voting or drinking or other things, but this should be a special case.

“I’m not sure it should be. It’s easier to hide that unpleasant fact.”

Van de Putte defended her intent.

“I was thinking about the teen moms,” she answered. “We know … that those births make the pregnancy at risk for the mom, that there is an increased chance of abortions.”

“This is not first teen pregnancy, it is second teen pregnancy,”

Ogden was unmoved.

“When you deny parents the ability to know and give permission is you also take out of the equation the one person who sis most likely to have the best interest of that child in mind,” he said. “I question whether your bill will fix in any way the terrible, terrible problem you’re trying to address.”

Saying she did not have the votes for final passage, Van de Putte then withdrew the bill from consideration — to try for final passage another day.

There is something worth noting here that Republicans might find worth considering. In addition to being a mom, Sen. Leticia van De Putte is a pharmacist. I would imagine that, at minimum, she has had at least some experience as a medical professional with 16-year-old mothers who want to have sex but not a child.

Ogden’s claim that Van de Putte was changing state law and making 16 the legal age of consent generally is just bizarre.

Regardless of the age of consent for anything else, the Texas Family Code has provided for some time that certain minors may consent to medical treatment without a parent’s consent. One of those allowances is for drug and alcohol addiction.

Technically,  as the law has been written for some time, a 16-year-old who “manages his own financial affairs” can consent without a parent for any medical procedure from a flu shot to a vasectomy so long as he doesn’t reside with his guardian, parent, or conservator, even if he has only failed to reside with them for a day:

Texas Family Code, Sec. 1: (a)  A child may consent to medical, dental, psychological, and surgical treatment for the child by a licensed physician or dentist if the child:
(2)  is:
(A)  16 years of age or older and resides separate and apart from the child’s parents, managing conservator, or
guardian, with or without the consent of the parents, managing conservator, or guar dian and regardless of the duration of the residence; and
(B)  managing the child’s own financial affairs, regardless of the source of the income;

Even Planned Parenthood interprets the existing statute to allow giving birth control to minors in these instances.

In a perfect world, Van De Putte’s legislation wouldn’t be necessary because Tex. Fam. Code Sec. 1(a)(2) should allow a birth control decision between a 16-year-old unwed mother not living with her parents and her doctor to be just that–a doctor-patient issue.

Yet the law doesn’t apply to a 16-year-old unwed mother who doesn’t live with her parents but presumably doesn’t meet one of the tests of Tex. Fam. Code Sec. 1.(a)(2)(A) or (B), i.e. she lives at home. That’s idiotic, and Van De Putte’s legislation would have cured that. This has nothing to do with changing the age of consent; it is merely closing a loophole in the current law that could prevent clinics or doctors from treating unwed teenage mothers. Too, given that the teenage mother herself is the guardian of a child, it should be moot whether or not her parents have any control over her reproductive system.

Tweet This Post   Ping This Post

Bookmark It