The Florida House on Thursday voted 74-44 to approve a bill (HB 1411) that would impose new restrictions on abortion providers, among other provisions, AP/CBSMiami reports.
A companion bill (SB 1722) is ready for a vote before the full state Senate (AP/CBSMiami, 3/3).
Bill details
The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Colleen Burton (R), would require clinics that offer abortion care beyond the first trimester to have admitting privileges for their physicians at a local hospital and also have a transfer agreement with a hospital in the area. Clinics that offer abortion care only in the first trimester would be required to have one of these two types of agreements.
According to state House staff, abortion clinics in the state currently are required to have either a transfer agreement with a hospital in the area or employ physicians who have admitting privileges at a local hospital. Clinics that offer abortion care only for the first trimester of pregnancy do not have to have transfer agreements or admitting privileges.
The measure also would prohibit the allocation of public funding to organizations affiliated with abortion clinics (Women's Health Policy Report, 2/3). According to AP/CBSMiami, there is already a ban on allocating public funds for abortion care. The measure would impose an additional ban barring local health departments from allocating public funds to organizations affiliated with abortion providers, such as Planned Parenthood, for family planning services and other reproductive care for low-income residents (AP/CBSMiami, 3/3).
Further, under the bill, any facility that offers abortion-related counseling to women would have to register with the state unless they counsel women to not have an abortion. The measure also would ban the sale, purchase or donation of fetal tissue resulting from abortion (Women's Health Policy Report, 2/3). In addition, the bill would make clinic inspection requirements more stringent and redefine gestation and pregnancy trimester dates, which would affect when providers can offer abortion care.
Comments
Opponents of the bill said the measure is an unconstitutional effort to restrict abortion access and would likely be challenged in court, incurring legal fees. They said supporters of the bill lacked medical evidence to justify the new requirements for providers and the redefinition of gestation periods.
Further, opponents of the bill said abortion providers would not be able to obtain admitting privileges because they would not be able to admit a sufficient number of patients, given the low rate of complications associated with abortion care. State Rep. David Richardson (D) said, "We know what's going on here ... What [the bill] really means is you're trying to close these clinics through these regulations."
Abortion-rights supporters also noted that clinic closures would ultimately cause more health complications because the reduction in clinic access could force a woman to self-induce an abortion or seek out illegal abortion care (AP/CBSMiami, 3/3).
