Session 2003 Budget and Taxes Business Environment Higher Education K-12 Education Health and Welfare Public Safety Stadium Transportation Audio Abortion waiting period clears hurdle (story audio) Sizing up the abortion debate (Morning Edition 1/22/03) Photos In support In opposition Rep. Michael Paymar View full slideshow (4 images) More from MPR Twenty-four hour abortion waiting period has broad support, poll says (02/28/2003) Abortion rights supporters, critics mark Roe v. Wade anniversary (01/22/2003) Your Voice Join the conversation with other MPR listeners in the News Forum.

	E-mail this page			Print this page

Abortion waiting period clears hurdle
by Tom Scheck, Minnesota Public Radio
March 4, 2003

Rep Mary Liz Holberg, R-Lakeville, and Andrea Rau of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, testify at a House committee hearing. (MPR Photo/Tom Scheck)

A bill that would require a 24-hour waiting period for any woman seeking an abortion cleared a legislative hurdle on Tuesday when the House Health and Human Services Policy Committee approved the bill on a 12-4 vote. Supporters say the bill is a moderate approach that provides women with information on the potential risks and alternatives to an abortion. Opponents say the bill implies that women haven't thought through their decision to go through with the procedure.

St. Paul, Minn. — Rep. Mary Liz Holberg, R-Lakeville, says polls show that a majority of Minnesotans support the so-called "Womens' Right To Know" legislation. She called it a "moderate approach." The bill would require abortion providers to give women medical information on the risks 24 hours before performing the procedure. Holberg says women could receive the information through a state-sponsored Web site, over the telephone, or through certified mail.

"The Women's Right to Know Act provides basic information so women may be empowered with this knowledge to make decisions on a very important issue for themselves. In many times, this decision is made at a time of crisis and this is basic information that women should have," she said.

	In opposition

Holberg says the bill would allow doctors to scrap the delay if they believe the woman's life is at risk or the delay causes irreversible damage of a major bodily function.

The bill also requires that abortion providers give additional information if a women is over 20 weeks into term. The Department of Health would also be required to collect information from abortion providers.

Two women who say they received abortions testified in favor of the legislation. Both now work for organizations that oppose abortions. Anne Marie Cosgrove says she's affiliated with a group of women who regret receiving an abortion. She says she had medical problems and needed psychiatric help because of the procedure.

"Hundreds and hundreds of women have died from safe and legal abortions since 1973. Two years ago, I had three teeth extracted. I was given more information about that procedure and side effects than women having safe and legal abortions today," she said.

	Rep. Michael Paymar

Opponents of the legislation say state law already requires providers to explain the procedure and any possible side effects. They say state law also requires state directed counseling for abortion patients.

Rep. Michael Paymar, DFL-St. Paul, says he doesn't believe that there can be a moderate approach to the issue. Paymar says the bill is a nefarious attempt to undermine abortion policy in the state.

"The real intent of this kind of legislation is to put more impediments and more obstacles in the way of women who want to exercise their constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy through an abortion. That's what the intent of the bill is. Furthermore it's an attempt and harass and put obstacles in the way of physicians who are providing abortions," according to Paymar.

Others expressed concern that women could get misleading scientific information. One of the bill's provisions says providers would have to tell women that abortions could increase their risk of breast cancer.

	Rep. Tom Huntley

Supporters of the bill say more than a dozen studies support the claim. The National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society and the Breast Cancer Coalition, however, have all issued statements saying there's no causal link between the two.

Rep. Tom Huntley, DFL-Duluth, says the bill also requires unnecessary counseling requirements. He says the bill would require a doctor to tell a patient that the father must assist in the support of the child, if born. He says the requirement could cause additional harm if a women becomes pregnant through rape of incest.

"Where's the evidence that physicians are doing a bad job when they counsel patients? There's no evidence of that and it should not be the Legislature's job to get between a patient and a physician," he said.

The bill also includes a provision that would send any constitutional challenges to the bill directly to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

This is the first step in a long process for the bill. Nevertheless, supporters say this is their best chance for the bill to become law. Supporters and opponents both say it has the necessary votes in the House and Senate.

Gov. Pawlenty has also said he supports the measure. A similar bill made it through the Legislature in recent years, but was vetoed by then-Gov. Jesse Ventura.

News Headlines

Related Subjects