|
2007 Indiana legislation
The 2007 state legislative session has closed, and for the second year in a row, no anti-choice legislation was passed! Planned Parenthood Advocates thanks the legislators who stood up for women's health, and thanks our supporters for helping to change the dialogue about reproductive freedom in Indiana.
We know we'll see a lot of the same bills to limit health care options introduced next year. If we truly want to reduce the incidence of abortion, we need to ensure that all Hoosiers have the tools they need to plan and prepare for pregnancy. That's why we'll continue to work on Prevention First measures.
If you'd like to help us advocate for Prevention First, email us.
To receive timely email alerts and have an impact on bills as they move through the legislative process, please join our Action Network.
Other sessions: 2012 • 2011 • 2010 • 2009 • 2008 • 2006 • 2005
Senate Bill 117—Refusal to dispense birth control
This bill would change Indiana law such that no person shall be required, as a condition of training, employment, pay, promotion, or privileges, to dispense either (A) a medical device or drug that may result in an abortion; or (B) a birth control device or medication. So the nurse who refused to give emergency contraception to a rape victim, the pharmacist who refused to fill your prescription for birth control pills, and the gas station attendant who refused to sell you condoms would all be protected by law.
SB 117 could severely curtail access to contraception, especially in rural areas which may only have a single pharmacist per town or even county. If passed, we fear that measures like this could cause significant increases in unintended pregnancies and thus lead to an increase in the number of abortions. Planned Parenthood Advocates of Indiana strongly opposes legislation that so limits a person's right to make his/her own contraceptive choices and grants gas station attendants and pharmacists legally protected status as Indiana's sex police.
BACK TO TOP
Senate Bill 119—Misuse of education funds
This bill would require each Indiana school corporation to include detailed instruction regarding human fetal development in its high school health education curriculum. In a state that does not require school corporations to teach sex education, this would be a needless misuse of both state and local education resources, and could potentially result in a curriculum designed solely as anti-choice propaganda.
Planned Parenthood Advocates of Indiana would much rather see health education funding being spent to develop and implement medically accurate sex education programs, and leave fetal development to biology class.
BACK TO TOP
Senate Bill 135—Legislators playing doctor 1
SB 135 would amend Indiana's informed consent to abortion law to require a doctor to inform a pregnant woman that the fetus might feel pain, despite overwhelming scientific evidence and medical evidence to the contrary. The latest medical research (Journal of the American Medical Association, 2005) shows that the earliest the fetus might feel pain is 29-30 weeks' gestational age; abortions at this stage are banned in Indiana.
Even more outrageous, this legislation would also require that doctors inform patients that "human life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm;" in other words, "life begins at conception". Clearly, the motivation for SB 135 is to require doctors to practice politics, not medicine. Planned Parenthood Advocates opposes legislation which mandates false speech and state sponsored harassment.
Update: SB 135 was amended and passed in the Senate Health and Provider Services Committee to respect medical science and religious diversity, and, for the first time, to ensure that Indiana's restrictions on abortion don't apply to birth control. Senators Patricia Miller, Jeff Drozda, and Mike Delph offered no less than seven anti-choice amendments to the bill as it moved to the Senate floor, including one to strip out the birth control protection entirely, and another to add in the refusal clause from SB 117.
The bill's author, Sen. Patricia Miller, was faced with a dilemma: stand with the hundreds of thousands of Hoosiers who support birth control, or pander to anti-choice zealotry. In the end, Sen. Miller passed, opting not to call the bill or the amendments for a hearing. While we are disappointed that the birth control protection will not be passed this year, we will continue to work with legislators about the importance of the Prevention First measures, because Indiana needs to do more to help women and families avoid unintended pregnancy.
BACK TO TOP
Senate Bill 172—Legislators playing doctor 2
SB 172 is identical to SB 135.
BACK TO TOP
Senate Bill 190—Unrelated bill targeted with anti-choice amendment
SB 190 is a bill dealing with food safety regulations. It had absolutely nothing to do with any aspect of reproductive health—until Rep. Stutzman offered an amendment to the bill which would have once again delved into the issue of rules and regulations of abortion facilities. This particular amendment was unnecessary, as it would not have done anything that the current 12 pages of Indiana law and 38 pages of ISDH licensure requirements for abortion facilities does not already do. Perhaps it was this fact that led Rep. Stutzman to let SB 190 advance without his amendment.
BACK TO TOP
Senate Bill 194—Additional restriction on abortion access
SB 194 would require a physician who performs an abortion to: (1) have privileges at a hospital in the county where the abortion is performed; and (2) notify the patient of the hospital location where the patient can receive follow-up care by the physician who performed the abortion. The majority of Indiana women who seek abortion services have to travel extremely long distances. In Indiana, only five counties have an abortion provider. SB 194 will not improve the health and safety of patients.
Physicians performing abortions want their patients to get to the nearest hospital in the event of a post-operative emergency. Further, the fact that her physician has hospital privileges in Marion County will not help the patient who's returned to her home in Vigo County—or Jennings County, or Whitley County—after having an abortion. SB 194 will only serve as an additional barrier to women seeking abortion services. Planned Parenthood Advocates opposes legislation that will needlessly curtail access to abortion while doing nothing to help prevent unintended pregnancy. Update: SB 194 passed 37-10 in the Senate 2/27/07; it was never heard in the House and is dead for this session. See also SB 335.
BACK TO TOP
Senate Bill 199—Unrelated bill falls victim to anti-choice amendments
SB 199 is a bill to streamline the process for a child's stepparent or grandparent to adopt him/her. SB 199 was hit with a total of three amendments dealing with abortion. Amendments 1 and 3, offered by Rep. Tim Harris, tried to resurrect the "fetal pain" and "life begins at conception" language that we saw earlier this year in SB 135.
Amendment 2, offered by Rep. Walorski, looked even further back, to the idea of "fetal viability by legislative fiat," which we have not seen introduced since 2005. Rep. Walorski did make one change: she would declare all fetuses viable at 20 weeks, rather than the 24 week benchmark outlined in the 2005 bill. Rep. Walorski is not a physician. On 4/9/07, SB 199 was withdrawn from consideration by its House sponsor; the bill and the amendments are dead.
BACK TO TOP
Senate Bill 201—Unrelated bill falls victim to anti-choice amendments
SB 201 dealt with various aspects of the Medicaid program. Though SB 201 did not deal with abortion at all, Rep. Tim Harris offered a pharmacist refusal clause similar to the one seen earlier this year in SB 117, but with one important yet puzzling difference. Rep. Harris' amendment specifically states that a licensed pharmacist "may not be required, as a condition of training, employment, pay, promotion, or privileges, to dispense a medical device or drug, including an emergency contraceptive pill, that is intended to result in an abortion."
Emergency contraception is intended to prevent a pregnancy, not cause an abortion. Because Indiana law already allows everyone to refuse to take part in an abortion, one can only assume that Rep. Harris' intent was to imply that emergency contraception causes abortion, in order to allow pharmacists the right to refuse to dispense this particular form of birth control. On 4/9/07, SB 201 was withdrawn from consideration by its House sponsor; the bill and the amendment are dead.
BACK TO TOP
Senate Bill 207—Unrelated bill targeted with anti-choice amendments
SB 207 deals with reporting medical complications to ISDH. It did not specifically target any aspect of reproductive health—until Rep. Stutzman offered the same amendment he offered to SB 190.
In addition, Rep. Thompson offered an amendment to repeal the grandfather clause on physical plant standards for abortion facilities set by ISDH. This is the exact wording we defeated earlier this year in SB 221.
On 4/9/07, SB 207 was allowed to advance without either of these amendments.
BACK TO TOP
Senate Bill 221—More government, less health care for women
In 2005, at the behest of the legislature, the Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) compiled 38 pages of regulations which abortion providers must follow in order to be licensed. As written, the ISDH regulations require strict, technical building requirements for abortion facility licensure, but allow an existing facility to be "grandfathered in" and function in their current environment until they renovate or relocate the facility, at which time the new facility must meet all updated requirements. This "grandfather clause" is typical of any new regulation ISDH implements.
Indiana Right to Life tried, unsuccessfully, in 2005 and 2006 to override the authority of ISDH concerning physical plant standards. Sen. Kruse again carries the torch for Right to Life, trying to force ISDH to conform to political, not medical practices. SB 221 would force Indiana's abortion providers to renovate or relocate their facilities to conform to the physical plant standards by 2011.
Indiana's abortion providers have all been inspected and licensed by ISDH, in accordance with the 2005 law. The complication rate for first trimester abortions—in facilities as they exist and are licensed now—is less than 0.5%.
Why, then, does the legislature seek to override the decision of the Indiana State Department of Health? The answer is simple: politics! Planned Parenthood Advocates of Indiana adamantly opposes SB 221, which would do nothing to improve the health and safety of women, nor would it prevent a single unintended pregnancy. Update: On 2/21/07, SB 221 had a vote of 5-5 in the Senate Health and Provider Services Committee; this means that the bill did not advance for lack of a majority. However, because it was a tie vote, the language could be and was introduced as amendments to SB 190 and SB 207.
BACK TO TOP
Senate Bill 327—Cancer prevention for young women
All of Indiana's female senators have signed on as co-authors to SB 327, which would require female 6th graders to be immunized against human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, in order to prevent cervical cancer. Schools would be permitted to enroll students who had not been vaccinated. Planned Parenthood Advocates applauds this effort to increase awareness of and access to the first vaccine that can prevent cancer. Learn more about HPV, its link to cervical cancer, and the vaccine. Update: SB 327 was amended in committee so that no one is required to be immunized. Instead, the bill requires schools to distribute HPV vaccine information from the state department of health to the parents of 6th grade girls, and to report to the state department of health how many were or were not immunized. The bill was signed by the Governor on 4/26/07. This is a victory for women's health–thank you for your help!
BACK TO TOP
Senate Bill 335—Unrelated bill falls victim to anti-choice amendments
SB 335 is a 96-page bill addressing continuing education & other requirements for the renewal of various professional licenses ranging from real estate agents to CPAs to physician's assistants to cosmetologists. Though only one of the professions listed in the bill is in the medical field, and though physician's assistants are already barred from providing abortion services, three of the seven amendments offered to this bill dealt with abortion.
Rep. Stutzman offered an amendment to ensure that abortion providers give patients information about ultrasounds and adoption in writing, as opposed to the current law that only requires providers to read those sections to patients. Rep. Walorski offered another amendment to require doctors who provide abortions to have hospital admitting privileges, as did SB 194 before it.
Rep. Walorski also offered a second amendment to SB 335, which would create an entirely new professional license—to be administered not by the state Professional Licensing Agency (which oversees all other licenses included in the bill) but by ISDH—for a "Termination of Pregnancy Specialist." Rep. Walorski specified that any physician already licensed in accordance with Indiana laws and regulations who wanted to provide abortions would have to meet additional yet-to-be-written requirements and pay an additional annual licensing fee of $20,000. (The highest licensing fee IPLA currently levies is $250 per year.)
The creation of a "Termination of Pregnancy Specialist" classification is an entirely new idea in the Indiana legislature, and is not only unnecessary, it appears patently unconstitutional.
On 4/9/07, SB 335 was withdrawn from consideration by its House sponsor; the bill and the amendments are dead.
BACK TO TOP
Senate Joint Resolution 7—Discrimination in our constitution?
This proposed amendment to the state constitution would write discrimination into the founding document of Indiana. SJR 7 would not only reserve the term "marriage" for heterosexual couples, but all related status and legal incidents thereof. In other words, gay and lesbian couples would be denied insurance, access to one another's hospital room, tax status, inheritance of property, and a host of other rights that married couples take for granted. In addition, similarly constructed constitutional amendments in other states are being used as a defense by men who abuse their girlfriends, claiming that domestic violence statutes do not apply to unmarried couples.
Regardless of whether one believes that a homosexual couple should be called married, how can one deny the constitutional rights of equal protection under the law to any segment of our population? Planned Parenthood believes that all people, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, live under the same constitution, which protects rights of privacy, liberty, due process and equal protection. It is these same rights that guarantee women the right to vote, to choose when or whether to have children, and that are at the core of all civil rights protections for women and minorities alike. Planned Parenthood Advocates of Indiana strongly opposes SJR 7 and all efforts to write discrimination into the state constitution, a document intended to protect the rights of all its citizens, not alienate them. To ignore SJR 7 would be to unravel the rights of Hoosiers everywhere! SJR 7 passed both houses of the General Assembly in 2005; in order to become part of the Indiana state constitution, it must be passed by both houses in this or the 2008 session, and then be passed by all Indiana citizens in a general election ballot in 2008. Update: SJR 7 passed the Senate 39-10 on 2/12/07. It was heard in the House Rules and Legislative Procedures committee on 3/21/07; testimony against the amendment came from Indiana business leaders at Cummins, Anthem, Wellpoint, and Dow, who spoke about their concerns that the amendment would hurt recruiting efforts and employee benefits. Many others spoke about additional dangers of the amendment. In addition, Eli Lilly and Co. and Emmis Communications sent letters to the Speaker of the House opposing SJR 7. On 4/3/07, the committee vote ended in a 5-5 tie. Without a majority vote, SJR 7 will not advance out of committee. This is a huge victory for equality, freedom, and justice. Planned Parenthood Advocates applauds the organizations and individuals who have worked so hard to fight SJR 7, and especially
thanks to the five committee members for their courageous vote for equal protection under the law. SJR 7 will likely be reintroduced in the 2008 session.
BACK TO TOP
House Bill 1008—Health care coverage
HB 1008 is a bi-partisan effort to expand health care coverage in Indiana. It raises the state tax on cigarettes by $0.55 / pack to fund several new initiatives, including tax credits for businesses that provide wellness programs for employees, expanded access to Medicaid and CHIP (children’s health insurance program), ways to lower prescription drug prices, and a pilot program for small businesses to provide health care coverage to employees.Planned Parenthood Advocates supports access to health care for all Hoosiers. Update: In committee, the proposed cigarette tax increase was amended from $0.55 / pack to $0.25 / pack. Sadly, many legislators thought this was still too high a price to pay for health care, and on 2/27/07, the bill was defeated 44-52. However, both a $0.44 / pack cigarette tax and various health care reforms were amended into, and passed as part of, House Bill 1678, which was signed by the governor 5/10/07.
BACK TO TOP
House Bill 1020—Tax credit for loss of pregnancy
HB 1020 would allow women or couples to deduct $2500 from their taxable income if they have experienced a stillbirth within the tax year. The deduction equates to an $85 reduction of the taxes the woman or couple would owe for that year. For those who have journeyed through a pregnancy with the full hopes and expectations for parenthood only to have it end in stillbirth, the loss can be great. While this bill attempts to provide some acknowledgement of that loss, an $85 tax credit will likely do little by way of supporting families in such a difficult time. Planned Parenthood Advocates will monitor this bill closely.
BACK TO TOP
House Bill 1172—Censorship or mere Big-Brotherism?
HB 1172 would require anyone selling "sexually explicit materials" to register with the secretary of state. It would be disturbing enough to think that the secretary of state was compiling a master list of businesses selling girlie mags or sex toys as if they were terrorists, but HB 1172 may reach further. While HB 1172 specifically excludes birth control from the roster of materials in question, it does not exclude sexually explicit materials of an educational or artistic nature. Planned Parenthood Advocates opposes HB 1172 because it sets a very dangerous precedent and equates to state endorsed censorship.
BACK TO TOP
House Bill 1239—Civil law addresses loss of pregnancy
Criminal law already allows for charges to be brought against a person bringing harm to a viable fetus, in addition to criminal charges for harm against the pregnant woman; legal abortion is exempted from this statute. HB 1239 seeks to allow civil actions against the perpetrator of harm against a fetus whether malicious or negligent. As written, the bill fails to provide exemptions for the behavior of the pregnant woman and the emergency actions of medical personnel (malpractice notwithstanding). Planned Parenthood Advocates could fully support this bill if amended to provide protections for the otherwise lawful behavior of the pregnant woman and medical personnel. We will also watch this bill to make sure it is not amended to set an arbitrary point of viability via legislation; viability can only be determined on a case-by-case basis by a trained medical professional.
BACK TO TOP
House Bill 1282—Harrassment of patients
HB 1282 is one of four proposed changes to Indiana's "informed consent" abortion law this year (see also HB 1773, SB 135, and SB 172). HB 1282 is the least of them, merely requiring that all information currently given to patients prior to an abortion—some in writing and some that is provided orally to the patient—henceforth be given to all patients both in writing and orally. As written, Planned Parenthood Advocates does not oppose this bill. We will watch it for amendments which would require false and misleading information be provided to patients. We would also ask legislators to realize that such bills do not reduce the abortion rate. They do not help patients. If we really want to reduce the abortion rate, we must work together to prevent unintended pregnancy.
BACK TO TOP
House Bill 1454—Prenatal substance use prevention
HB 1454 would establish the prenatal substance use prevention program within the state department of health to help prevent poor birth outcomes by helping to decrease or eliminate the use of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs during pregnancy. This bill follows up on 2006’s HB 1314. Planned Parenthood Advocates happily supports HB 1454, which works to increase the percentages of healthy pregnancies in Indiana. Update: the prenatal substance use prevention program outlined in HB 1454 was amended into HB 1457.
BACK TO TOP
House Bill 1457—Prenatal substance use prevention
HB 1457 extends the existence of Indiana's Birth Problems Registry. HB 1457 was amended in committee to also include the language from HB 1454, and establish the prenatal substance use prevention program within the state department of health to help prevent poor birth outcomes by helping to decrease or eliminate the use of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs during pregnancy. This bill follows up on 2006's HB 1314. Planned Parenthood Advocates happily supports HB 1457, which works to increase the percentages of healthy pregnancies in Indiana. Update: HB 1457 passed 95-0 in the House on 2/13/07. On 3/26/07, the Senate passed HB 1457 by a 48-0 vote. The governor signed the bill into law on 5/8/07. This is a victory for the health and safety of women and children–thank you for your help!
BACK TO TOP
House Bill 1459—Bias crimes
Indiana’s first hate crimes legislation would define “bias crime” as any injury to an individual that was intentionally targeted at that individual because of the victim’s color, creed, disability, national origin, race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity or sex (gender). HB 1459 would allow the victim of a bias crime to bring suit against his/ her attacker, and would allow judges to consider the nature of the crime an “aggravating circumstance” when sentencing the convicted perpetrator of a bias crime.
In addition, Sections 3 and 4 of HB 1459 would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in housing, jury selection, and access to public services (such discrimination based on other categories listed above is already prohibited by state law). Planned Parenthood Advocates of Indiana supports all efforts to end discrimination in our state. We hope HB 1459 will encourage dialogue and understanding among Hoosiers.
Update: HB 1459 was amended in the House Courts & Criminal Code committee on 2/14/07; sadly, Sections 3 and 4 were removed. Thus amended, HB 1459 passed the committee 9-1. However, when it moved to the House floor, a second reading amendment was filed to add "a viable fetus" to the bias list. Amendments of this nature, commonly referred to as "killer" amendments, are designed to completely disrupt the possibility of enacting particular legislation, such as bias crimes legislation, by adding in controversial language. Due to the disruptive nature of this amendment, the bill was not called down for a second reading. HB 1459 died; subsequent attempts to amend bias crimes legislation into other bills also failed.
BACK TO TOP
House Bill 1716—Civil rights
HB 1716 would extend antidiscrimination and civil rights statutes to include prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, and ancestry. Planned Parenthood Advocates of Indiana supports all efforts to end discrimination in our state. HB 1716 is long overdue.
BACK TO TOP
House Bill 1752—Unnecessary and unconstitutional
House Bill 1752 would assume, without any medical evaluation, that every fetus of at least 20 weeks' gestation has attained viability, despite the fact that every fetus develops at an individual rate, and the fact that it's impossible to determine viability in such a generalized fashion. Most of the scientific and medical community approximates viability somewhere between 24-28 weeks. Four times the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that fetal viability must be determined by a doctor on a case-by-case basis (Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 1976; Colautti v. Franklin, 1979, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 1989; Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1992). Planned Parenthood Advocates of Indiana opposes this blatantly political attempt to interfere with sound medical practice and judgment.
BACK TO TOP
House Bill 1773—Patient information in Spanish
HB 1773 is one of four proposed changes to Indiana's "informed consent" abortion law this year (see also HB 1282, SB 135, and SB 172). HB 1773 would merely require that all information currently given to patients prior to an abortion henceforth be given to all patients in English and Spanish. As written, Planned Parenthood Advocates does not oppose this bill; communicating with a patient in her own language is crucial to helping her make her own medical decisions. We will watch it for amendments which would require false and misleading information be provided to patients. We would also ask legislators to realize that if we really want to reduce the abortion rate, we must work together to prevent unintended pregnancy.
BACK TO TOP
House Joint Resolution 15—Discrimination in our constitution?
The wording and spirit of HJR 15 are identical to SJR 7.
BACK TO TOP
|
