Florida's "ultrasound" abortion bill is neither unique nor out of the mainstream of state policies around the country, a Sunshine State News analysis shows.
Surveys by the Guttmacher Institute, a liberal-leaning think tank that "advances sexual and reproductive health worldwide through research, policy analysis and public education," reveal that several states have moved to make the ultrasound technology part of their abortion laws.
Eight states -- Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Utah and Wisconsin -- require verbal counseling or written materials to include information on accessing ultrasound services.
Eight states -- Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio and South Carolina -- require that a woman be provided with the opportunity to view an ultrasound image if her provider performs the procedure as part of the preparation for an abortion.
Three states -- North Dakota, South Dakota and Utah -- mandate that an abortion provider perform an ultrasound on each woman seeking an abortion,
and require the provider to offer the woman the opportunity to view the image.
House Bill 1143, which passed the Florida Legislature along largely partisan lines, brings the Sunshine State into alignment with these state policies on ultrasound services.
Former Sen. Daniel Webster, initial sponsor of the legislation, said he was pleased to see lawmakers act this year on the ultrasound provision.
"In 2008, the bill died in a tie vote on the Senate floor. This year, I am gladit has passed, and hope to see it signed into law," said Webster, a Republican who is currently campaigning for a seat in Congress.
Opponents have derided the measure, saying the ultrasound requirement would increase the cost of an abortion by up to 30 percent.
For years, states have been wary of using public money to pay for abortions. Thirty-three states -- including Florida -- had adopted strict abortion funding limitations. Four state legislatures decided to fund elective abortions and 13 states were subjected to court rulings obliging them to fund abortions for lower-income residents with state tax dollars.
At the federal level, the Hyde Amendment, which forbids taxpayer funding of abortion except in cases of rape, incest or threat to the mothers life, has been attached to the appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services each year since 1976.
But with the passage of President Barack Obama's national health-care plan, the funding restrictions will be weakened, if not abolished, so Florida lawmakers wrote additional taxpayer protections into HB 1143.
Chuck Donovan, senior policy analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., said the new federal law "establishes a new principle for heavy federal subsidies of insurance plans that cover elective abortion, subverting the principle now applied to federal employee plans, which are barred from covering elective abortions in any way."
At the state level, he said, the law gives each state "the option to participate in the new subsidy-and-segregated-funds approach the law creates.
"As a consequence, every state in the nation including the 33 states that currently limit involvement in publicly funded abortions faces a legislative debate about its future policy."
Having passed HB 1143, the Florida Legislature has put the ball in Gov. Charlie Crist's court. A veto of the legislation could open the state to publicly funded abortions by 2014.
Proponents of the federal health-care program contend that an executive order signed by Obama backed up existing bans on taxpayer-funded abortions. But pro-life groups aren't buying that.
John Stemberger, an Orlando attorney and head of the Florida Family Policy Council, said HB 1143 is needed to reinforce Florida law and protect the state's taxpayers.
Donovan agrees, stating:
"In some states, multiple 'markets' may exist, meaning in effect multiple (insurance) exchanges. Under the new federal law, unless the state first opts out, each of these markets must have at least one plan that offers coverage of elective abortions."
In addition to Florida, Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee have advanced bills to maintain their prohibitions against publicly funded elective abortions. Three other states -- Louisiana, Ohio and Oklahoma -- may act this year.
Before the federal overhaul became law, five states -- Idaho, Kentucky, Missouri, North Dakota and Oklahoma -- limited private insurance coverage of abortion.
"The continuation of decades-long public policy limiting tax subsidies for abortion will be possible only through new state and federal statutes. For the states, that means new laws barring the inclusion in the exchanges of any plan that offers elective abortions," Donovan said.
"These debates will happen in all 50 states."
Marco Rubio, Crist's Republican opponent in the U.S. Senate race, has turned up the heat on the issue.
"While it has not received as much attention as the ultrasound provision, (HB 1143) will also allow Florida to opt out of the abortion coveragemandate in the federal health-care overhaul. If Gov. Crist vetoes this legislation, he will clear the way for taxpayer funding of abortion in Florida, an extreme policy which runs contrary to the mainstream values most Floridians share," the former Florida House speaker said.
Contact Kenric Ward at kward@sunshinestatenews.com or at (772) 559-4719.
