Subscribe to our RSS feed
Follow us on Twitter
(Sources: Minnesota Historical Society, Wikipedia)
Minnesota’s anti-abortion forces are hoping a slate of bills will restrict access to abortion. Four bills have been offered this session, from outright bans on the procedure to data-collection mandates, but none of them stand a chance of passing with a pro-choice DFL leadership.
A slew of Republicans are proposing a bill that would increase the mandates for reporting abortions. Under HF 290, clinics and hospitals would be required to keep records on personal health information for 15 years. Information to be included: medical history, ultrasound copies, sex and age of the fetus and number of fetuses terminated, as well as each patient’s name, address and date of birth.
A patient must be notified prior to the procedure that her personal information will be retained for 15 years. In recent years, several high-profile cases have put patients’ privacy in jeopardy, including overzealous politicians using abortion records for anti-abortion causes.
The bill is sponsored by Reps. Joyce Peppin, R-Rogers; Mary Kiffmeyer, R-Big Lake; Tom Hackbarth, R-Cedar; Bob Dettmer, R-Forest Lake; Dean Urdahl, R-Grove City; Steve Drazkowski, R-Wabasha; Torrey Westrom, R-Elbow Lake; Dan Severson, R-Sauk Rapids; and Ron Shimanski-R, Silver Lake.
Sen. Amy Koch, R-Buffalo, is the sole sponsor in the Senate (SF 216).
Another bill (HF 1057, SF 904) would require all abortions in the state to be performed within 20 miles of a hospital. It would charge a physician who does perform an abortion outside the 20-mile radius with a misdemeanor.
Republican Rep. Laura Brod of New Prague is joined by Republican Sens. Pat Pariseau of Farmington, Michelle L. Fischbach of Paynesville, Joe Gimse of Willmar, Steve Dille of Dassel and David Hann of Eden Prairie in support of the 20-mile restriction bill.
Republicans, along with a lone DFLer, have offered a bill banning a rare abortion procedure called saline amniocentesis abortion. Sens. Amy Koch, R-Buffalo; Pat Pariseau, R-Farmington; Michelle L. Fischbach, R-Paynesville; Warren Limmer, R-Maple Grove; and Claire A. Robling, R-Jordan; are joined by Rep. Patti Fritz, DFL-Faribault.
Saline amniocentesis abortion is a form of instillation abortion where abortion-inducing fluid is injected into the amniotic sac. Instillation accounts for 0.8 percent of abortions performed and saline accounts for only about 10 percent of those procedures, with urea and prostaglandin used in other cases.
To say that saline amniocentesis is a rare procedure is an understatement. So why are Republicans and their lone DFL colleague pushing the legislation? It would constitute a small victory for boosting anti-abortion activists morale.
Another bill would put abortion services out of the reach of low-income women. HF 1059 and SF 906 says, “Funding for state-sponsored health programs shall not be used for funding abortions, except to the extent necessary for continued participation in a federal program.”
The bill is being pushed by Sen. Claire Robling, R-Jordan, and Rep. Mary Ellen Otremba, DFL-Long Prairie.
The Minnesota Supreme Court has already declared it unconstitutional to restrict state funding for abortion services under the 1995 decision Doe v. Gomez, so even if the bill were passed into law, it is unclear whether it could survive a constitutional challenge.
Leave a comment
Become a fan on Facebook
4 Comments »
Comment posted February 25, 2009 @ 3:11 pm
where do we hear women’s rights in any of these bills? but the attack is on the right s of women. the idea that women have rights is put in question by never including the relationship of abortion rights as a basic women’s right to decide about her own body.
Comment posted February 26, 2009 @ 10:13 am
This is not the type of legislation I want from my Representative..how about core functions of government like education, health care for all, transportation, etc.?
Comment posted February 27, 2009 @ 4:25 pm
darkmark, you’re right on the mark, thank you. And shame on the 2 DFLer’s who consistantly cross over to take away Women’s rights, where’s the party leadership?
Comment posted February 28, 2009 @ 12:16 am
Re: HF 290
If this bill has a legitimate purpose, what is it?
Is this bill consistent with HIPPA law?
Would the needs of the patient be served by the retention of these records?
We already have laws on the books that require the retention of records for certain periods. There are reasons for these laws. Would this law be consistent with those laws? If so, why? If not, why not?
Is the crafting of narrow laws aimed at limiting the rights of a targeted population legal?
Can a legislator legally propose a bill which has no other apparent purpose than harassment?
Perhaps I am missing the whole point of the law but it appears that it is a deliberate attempt to bully or harass individuals engaging in lawful activities by citizens who also happen to be elected officials. Does their position make them immune from the law themselves?
This is the text of the bill. _______________________________________________________________________
H.F. No. 290, as introduced – 86th Legislative Session (2009-2010) Posted on Jan 26, 2009
1.1A bill for an act
1.2relating to abortions; regulating retention and composition of medical records;
1.3proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 145.
1.4BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
1.5 Section 1. [145.4161] ABORTION; MEDICAL RECORDS.
1.6 Subdivision 1. Retention. (a) An abortion facility shall retain all medical records,
1.7reports, or other documents related to each patient on whom an abortion was performed in
1.8the files of the facility for a period of 15 years.
1.9(b) The facility shall inform the patient that all medical records, reports, and other
1.10documents related to the abortion will be retained at the facility for 15 years and available
1.11to the patient. The facility shall have the patient sign an acknowledgment that she has
1.12received this information.
1.13 Subd. 2. Records. The medical record of each patient on whom an abortion was
1.14performed shall contain:
1.15(1) identification data which includes the patient’s name, address, and date of birth;
1.16(2) medical history;
1.17(3) a physical examination report;
1.18(4) a copy of the ultrasound;
1.19(5) a report of the abortion procedure, including the anesthetic agent administered,
1.20the technical procedure used, and any complications that occurred as a result of the
1.21procedure;
1.22(6) procedures used to remedy complications, if complications occurred;
1.23(7) the approximate gestational age of the unborn child or children;
1.24(8) the sex of the unborn child or children;
2.1(9) the number of births terminated as a result of the abortion procedure;
2.2(10) a completed copy of the report of induced abortion that is submitted to the
2.3Department of Health; and
2.4(11) a copy of the acknowledgment from the patient that the patient is aware the
2.5medical records will be retained by the facility for 15 years from the date of the abortion.
_____________________________________________________________________
If a legislator believes an act should be illegal, then that legislator should have the right to propose legislation to ban it.
If an act is legal, then a legislator should not have the right to propose laws that are targeted specifically at harrassing those who abide by it.
I want to know what the legitimate purpose of this law is.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment