House, Senate at odds over versions of abortion sonogram bill | Texas Legislature News - News for Dallas, Texas - The Dallas Morning News

I know a lot of my friends are anti abortion but I am curious what people think happened before abortions were legal. I agree with Whoopi Goldburg when she says that women will go back to the old days of "back alley" abortions, quacks providing services in run down, un sterile locations and "coat hanger" abortions.

These bills seem to want to tell women what they can and can not do with their own bodies but honestly, welfare is high and we all complain about that, unemployment is high, medical costs are high and we all complain about that, there are children sitting now waiting to be adopted and in foster care - and we have all seen the stories of children falling through the cracks in those programs. As for the comment by Sid Miller " the House’s 24-hour waiting period would allow the woman to “pray about it or visit with her family.” What about those women who may not be religious or believe in God or what about those women who may not have a family to turn to? The beliefs of others are going to be forced upon them?

House, Senate at odds over versions of abortion sonogram bill | Texas Legislature News - News for Dallas, Texas - The Dallas Morning News

House, Senate at odds over versions of abortion sonogram bill

by ERIN MULVANEY

Austin Bureau

emulvaney@dallasnews.com

Published 07 March 2011 10:41 PM

AUSTIN — The Texas House and Senate may be headed toward a standoff over measures that would require a woman seeking an abortion to first have a sonogram.

The author of the House bill, which the chamber gave final approval to Monday, said it’s just a matter of who blinks first.

“I’m going to keep our bill as tight as we can,” said Rep. Sid Miller, R- Stephenville.

The House bill, approved 107-42, will now be sent to a Senate committee. The House has yet to pick up the Senate version of the bill that passed a few weeks ago.

Usually, the two chambers would send lawmakers to a conference committee to work out differences. But because each house worked on its own version, one chamber is going to have to pick up the other’s bill for that to happen.

The issue was put on a fast track by Gov. Rick Perry, but the standoff threatens quick passage of the measure.

Senate author Dan Patrick promised his colleagues during the debate on the bill that he would not accept a House version that was either “watered down” or “on steroids.”

Patrick, R-Houston, said the process could have been quicker if the House had taken up the Senate version and put its language in as a substitute.

“The way they have managed this has left a lot of people scratching their heads,” he said.

Under the Senate version, a woman would have to be given the opportunity to see a sonogram image within two hours of the abortion procedure and hear a fetal heartbeat. She could decline the options but a doctor would still describe what he or she sees. The oral description can be waived under certain conditions, including rape or incest.

“There is a sticking point on the rape and incest provision,” Patrick said. “That is an issue the Senate will insist upon.”

Miller said he won’t give in on the provision because it is already inherent in the language of the bill that the woman does not have to view the sonogram.

He also said the two-hour waiting period is insufficient. He said the House’s 24-hour waiting period would allow the woman to “pray about it or visit with her family.”

“I’m not giving up anything until I get something,” Miller said.

Staff writer Terrence Stutz contributed to this report.