@NCCapitol

@NCCapitol

Abortion changes become law

Posted July 28, 2011

After passionate debate, mostly from opponents, the state Senate voted just after noon today to override Gov., Bev Perdue’s veto of H854, a bill that imposes new requirements and restrictions on women who seek abortions and doctors who provide them.

The House overturned the veto earlier this week, so the bill now becomes law. It goes into effect in 90 days.

The new law 

The law, titled the “Woman’s Right to Know Act,” requires a 24-hour waiting period before an abortion. It requires the patient to undergo an ultrasound and be shown the images, while requiring the provider to explain the age, size, position, and physical features of the fetus. The patient must be offered the opportunity to listen to the fetal heartbeat. She must sign a document indicating whether she chose to look or listen, and the doctor must keep the document for seven years.

Additionally, doctors, who are already required by the state’s informed-consent law to provide medical details about the procedure, will now be required to tell a woman seeking an abortion that alternatives like adoption are available, that she may be able to get medical assistance, welfare, and food stamps to help her keep her child, and that the father of the child can be sued for child support.

NC abortion law explained NC abortion law explained

The new law also gives standing to a wide range of people to sue a doctor for violations, including the siblings or parent of a patient, her current or former doctor, and the father of the fetus. No exception is made for cases of rape or incest, though the bill’s supporters say other state laws should effectively prevent a rapist from bringing suit under the new measure.

The debate

Senate sponsor Warren Daniel, R-Burke, said the state imposes a one-year waiting period for divorce, and a three-day waiting period for home refinancing loans.

Any inconvenience posed by waiting “24 hours to terminate a life,” Daniel said, “is “inconsequential. Every life has dignity and value, and every person bears the mark of almighty God.”

Daniel said the bill is expected to reduce abortions in NC by 3,000 per year, but it does not outlaw them. “If you believe abortion should be safe, legal, and rare” he said, referring to a common Democratic theme on the issue, “there’s no reason not to support this bill.”

A long line of Democrats rose to argue against the bill. 

“You’re attributing to women the inability to make one of the most important decisions of her life,” said Sen, Ellie Kinnaird, D-Chapel Hill.

“It’s a serious, serious assault on women,” said Sen. Linda Garrou, D-Forsyth. “I’ve never heard as many bellicose statements about ‘get government out of our way,’ ‘get government out of our lives’,” she said “and yet you want to make a decision for me, for women in general, for your wife, for your daughter?”

Retired doctor Sen. Bill Purcell, D-Scotland, called the bill “an insult to North Carolina’s physicians and health care providers. It is humiliating to women in time of crisis, and it implies that women don’t know how to make decisions regarding their own bodies.”

Purcell talked about watching patients die from self-induced abortions in the days before they were made legal. “If you succeed in making it more expensive or more difficult for a woman to have a pregnancy terminated by placing more and more barriers in her way, you will see an increase in self-induced or back-alley abortions, especially among low-income North Carolinians,” he warned.

Purcell’s concerns were echoed by practicing surgeon Sen. Eric Mansfield, D-Cumberland, who said the state’s informed-consent laws already require full disclosure of medical risks and alternatives.

Mansfield called Republicans “hypocritical” for protesting government intrusion into medicine under federal health-care reform, while requiring it for abortion. Mansfield said the measure violates the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship by dictating what the doctor must say. “It’s no wonder the North Carolina Medical Society is against this bill,” he said, “and that’s not a left-leaning organization.”

Other Democrats argued the new law goes too far because it doesn’t offer exceptions to the requirement for cases of rape or incest.

Sen. Doug Berger, D-Franklin, called the bill “extreme.” “If my daughter had been raped, that she would then be required to go through this process is highly offensive,” he said, noting that a similar law in Texas does provide for exceptions.

And Sen. Josh Stein, D-Wake, said the measure will be hurtful to parents who have to terminate pregnancies for health reasons, and is disrespectful to women in general. “This bill says ‘No, no, little lady - if this is the choice you’re making, you couldn’t possibly have made an informed decision,’” Stein said.

Republicans stayed quiet during the debate, allowing Democrats to make their speeches against the bill without engaging them in arguments. But at the very end, Sen. Jim Davis, R-Macon, was moved to speak.

Davis’s voice was choked with emotion as he talked about his adopted son, now 35. “I will be forever grateful to a woman who decided not to abort,” he said. “For people to suggest that 24 hours is an onerous requirement – I just can’t accept that. My son is worth 24 hours.”

The vote

The veto was overridden by a vote of 29-19. All Democrats voted against it. 

Generally speaking, the Senate needs 30 votes out of 50 – three-fifths – to override a veto. But the two Republicans who did not support the proposal, Sens. Stevens and Bingham, were both granted excused absences today.

That brought the number of voting members down to 48 instead of 50, so the number of votes needed for an override dropped from 30 to 29 - the number of Republicans who supported it.  

18 Comments

This story is closed for comments. Comments on WRAL.com news stories are accepted and moderated between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday through Friday.

Oldest First
View all
  • f4wcs Aug 4, 8:49 a.m.

    Just in case you didn't know:

    If you withdraw a single cell from an hours-old (human) fertilized egg, and run a DNA profile on it, it will confirm that it comes from a human being.

    There's more: If you compare that DNA to the DNA of its parents, it will confirm that it is a separate and genetically distinct human being from both mother and father; a third human being.

    This scientific fact blows away any of those (stuck in the 1970s) who claim that the fetus is 'just a lump of tissue inside the mother's body' (that she can destroy on a whim, if she so desires); it is a separate human being.

    I leave it to the reader to decide what it is called when one intentionally kills an innocent human being that is not an imminent mortal danger to the mother.

  • dlphnwmn8 Aug 2, 4:49 p.m.

    You are a hoot marktroll. And just like a politician you spin others words and spit them out while contributing few...if any...of your own.

  • marktroll Aug 2, 10:37 a.m.

    my comments are true! thank you for agreeing with me dolphin. im glad i could help you see the light finally.

  • dlphnwmn8 Aug 2, 7:28 a.m.

    True marktroll.....too true and you know it!

  • SpaceRokr Aug 1, 11:43 a.m.

    dwilliams642, there is legal justification. It merely has to be retried, as there is prior legislative precedent. Supreme Court decisions are subject to reversal, including this decision. The scientific advancements of recent decades further connecting moment of conception to actual live birth of a baby, and thus a Citizen, are now clearer. The actual interpretations of the meaning of the Right to Life Constitutional mandate are thusly becoming further removed. Considering the guilt and depression so many women experience over their prior decisions and actions to have abortions, is it not best to ensure understanding prior? This protects the woman from uneccessary suffering, does it not? A woman is, as we all are, also entitled to her own Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. In favor of her unknown later reactions to an irreverible action, is it not then wise to give her additional information and time (too short, in my opinion, for such a weighty issue) to decide? Please

  • marktroll Aug 1, 11:23 a.m.

    why advise anybody on any surgery then? heart valve replacement, "nah, they already know what is actually happening"

  • marktroll Aug 1, 9:01 a.m.

    not true dolphin. not true and you know it.

  • dlphnwmn8 Aug 1, 8:39 a.m.

    Women ACUTALLY know what is ACTUALLY happening prior to making such a personal decision. As for the 34 states....I live here.....not there.

  • marktroll Jul 30, 8:11 a.m.

    this law actually catches NC up with the rest of the Nation that already has similar laws in place. again, the law doesnt do much, just informs the mother of what is ACTUALLY happening.

    34 states have similar legislation. 34 states have similar legislation. 34 states have similar legislation. 34 states have similar legislation.

  • MoniqueNC Jul 29, 7:43 p.m.

    "...it takes two to make the decision to consummate..."

    Sometimes one of them has no say in this decision. This law is further insult to her.

More...