Senate debates ultrasound abortion bill, delays action

Editor’s note: Although dated May 1, this article from our print edition went to press before later developments covered in online articles filed April 29 and May 1.

For related coverage, click image.

TALLAHASSEE (FBW)—Although the Florida Senate engaged in an initial debate April 24 about a bill that would require ultrasounds for women seeking abortions during the first trimester, the body repeatedly delayed further consideration. According to various news reports, the eventual vote will be very close, perhaps being decided by one or two senators.

After more than an hour of questions and debate and a series of complex parliamentarian maneuvers April 24, the Florida Senate temporarily set aside a bill that would require ultrasounds for women seeking abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy.

Although senators agreed to take up the bill, SB 2400, sponsored by Sen. Daniel Webster (R-Winter Garden), the next day, the Senate delayed further action again April 25 and April 28. It’s unclear when the Senate will revisit the contentious issue, but action will likely take place April 29 and/or April 30.

The Legislature will conclude its 60-day session May 2.

(This issue of the Witness goes to press April 28. Check the Witness Web site for the latest developments on this and other legislative matters.)

Current law already requires an ultrasound before an abortion in the second and third trimester of pregnancy, and Webster’s bill includes an opt-out provision allowing women and girls to decline to view the image.

During the April 24 discussion, Webster, a longtime member of First Baptist Church of Central Florida in Orlando, was peppered with many questions from opponents of the legislation.

Two amendments that Webster said would “gut” his bill were offered by seven senators: Mike Bennett (R-Bradenton), Nan Rich (D-Sunrise), Ted Deutch (D-Delray Beach), Gwen Margolis (D-Bay Harbor Island), Paula Dockery (R-Lakeland), Arthenia Joyner (D-Tampa), and Jim King (R-Jacksonville).

In a series of parliamentarian actions, the amendments were supplanted by substitute amendments offered by Webster to restore his original language.

The Senate then took-up the House version of the bill, HB 257, sponsored by Rep. Anthony Traviesa (R-Tampa), which was adopted on April 2 and addressed matters beyond ultrasounds. The Senate appeared poised to replace HB 257 with Webster’s bill when senators caucused privately on the floor for about 10 minutes.

Following the meetings, Senate President Ken Pruitt (R-Port St. Lucie) announced the House bill and Webster’s bill would be “temporarily postponed,” essentially tabling the bill. Whenever the Senate revisits the matter, the two amendments offered by the bill’s opponents will also be considered.

During the question time on the bill, many senators took turns grilling Webster with questions critiquing the measure’s effect on increased cost of abortions, calling into question Webster’s claim that 82 percent of abortion clinics already require ultrasounds be performed for the purpose of setting the price, questioning whether current law really requires ultrasounds in the second and third trimester, raising concerns about the impact of the bill on victims of rape and incest, and expressing concern the bill creates an unconstitutional “undue burden” on women seeking abortions.

Comments by Sen. Burt Saunders (R-Naples) raised concerns among pro-life advocates that his support of the bill in the Senate Health and Human Services Appropriations Committee may not hold up in a floor vote. Saunders said he supported the bill in committee “because I thought that it was important to have a more thorough debate on the issue.”

Noting he has had “quite a few conversations about the medial aspects of doing the ultrasound” with his physician wife, Saunders asked Webster if there was a medical need to perform ultrasounds.

“There may be some clinics that do that but the question becomes, ‘why should we mandate that?’” Saunders said. “I think that we have to have some good medical reason. You’ve done a lot of research on this and perhaps there’s some physician statement or something that would indicate why from a medical standpoint we would do this. That’s important to me, because I don’t think we should just simply be mandating tests unless we have a medical reason to do that.”

Webster noted in reply that the state already requires an ultrasound before an abortion in the later stages of pregnancy, “so that has already been imposed” and the state has “already stepped over that hoop.”

He added that abortion clinics are already performing the ultrasounds and that his bill would simply require them to share that information with women, unless they choose to decline to see the image.