Bills currently being considered in the Texas Legislature would require pregnant women to receive and be shown a sonogram of their unborn child, listen to its heartbeat and hear a description of the fetus. The bills will resume discussion this week. (Photo illustration provided by Texas Tribune)

Bills that would require pregnant women to be shown sonograms of the fetus prior to abortions are moving quickly through the Texas Legislature.

Gov. Rick Perry put the issue on his “emergency list,” allowing the issue to be discussed during the first 60 days of the legislature’s session.

A bill authored by Rep. Sid Miller, R-Stephenville, requires a woman to be given the opportunity to see the sonogram and hear the heartbeat of the fetus before an abortion can be performed, while a doctor explains the features of the fetus.

This bill advanced through The House State Affairs Committee last Wednesday.

A similar bill authored by Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, passed through the Texas Senate last week. Unlike Miller’s bill, this bill exempted victims of incest and rape and women carrying a fetus with abnormalities.

Both bills allow women to look away when being shown the sonogram and refuse to hear the heartbeat.

“This bill will pass,” Cal Jillson, a political science professor at SMU, said. He said that the only reason it did not pass last year is because it got caught up in the log jam of bills being considered at the end of the session.

Jillson said that this bill is part of a long-running Texas Republican goal to get at least one new restriction on abortions passed every session, and that this restriction will pass with ease.

“[Republicans] have such a huge majority that they can pass anything they want,” Jillson said. “They want to pass this and they will.”

Proponents of the bills argue that requiring sonograms would allow women to make a more educated decision when choosing to have an abortion.

“Women deserve and women want more information so they can make an informed decision,” John Seago, legislative associate and North Texas regional director of Texas Right to Life said.

Opponents of the bill say that women already have this information because the vast majority of clinics already perform sonograms.

The bills simply serve to “coerce” women into deciding against abortions, not educate them said Holly Morgan, director of media relations and communications at North Texas Planned Parenthood.

“The bill serves no medical purpose,” Morgan said. “Its purpose is to not improve the care a patient receives, it is intended to shame a patient into changing her mind about something that she has already thoughtfully made.”

Morgan also takes issue with the language surrounding the provision that women can opt out of being given the information.

“While a woman can opt out of seeing the image or hearing the heartbeat, there are limited exceptions for opting not to hear the description of the sonogram image,” she said. “Most women will be forced to listen.”

But Seago said that the kind of bullying Morgan complains about happens on the other side, too.

“Other states will do a sonogram and tell the mother, ‘you don’t want to see this, it will make your decision harder.’ Well that’s bullying, too,” Morgan said.

Morgan explained that this kind of intervention had broader implications, saying that it is an example of “legislators telling doctors how to do their job.”

Seago said the government dictating care isn’t always a bad thing, and cited Texas’ Health and Safety code as an example.

“Our government has already decided that our people are worth protecting by putting restrictions on doctors,” Seago said.

While the process for getting these provisions through the Texas Legislature has been fast, the potential legal battles following this passage will definitely not be.

Jillson said that legal action against the bill is likely, though he does not believe it will be successful.

He points out that because the bill provides women with the option to look away when being shown the sonogram and the option to refuse to listen to the heartbeat, the courts would probably allow it to stand.

Historically, Jillson said, courts have been OK with restrictions to abortions short of denying services to rape or incest victims, or in instances in which the mother’s life was in danger.

This bill is no exception, and those trying to prove that it is an unnecessary intervention between doctor and patient will have a hard time doing so.

Jillson added that in anything but abortion, government intervention of this size probably wouldn’t stand a chance.

“It’s a small-government state as long you are behaving according to some fairly traditional social standards,” Jillson said. “Otherwise, we want you behaving like your mama should have taught you to.”

An abortion is one of the things that “your mama” probably should have advised you against, Jillson said.

“This legislation is a large government intervention in a small government, low tax, deregulatory, leave-me-alone kind of state,” Jillson said.

The House bill will come back to the floor early this week. Should it pass, the authors of the bill and the authors of the previously passed Senate bill will meet to work out the differences. Seago said he expects the process to take three to four weeks.

Rep. Dan Branch and Sen. John Carona, the legislators that represent the SMU area, were both contacted over a period of two weeks about their stance on this bill. At the time of press, neither had responded.

If the legislature passes the final measures of the bill, it will join 21 other states that have sonogram requirements. Three of those states are currently in legal battles.

For more commentary on this issue, and to vote in a poll on abortion, visit The Daily Campus’ political blog at www.politically-inclined.com.

Abortion by the Numbers