A new law will take effect July 1 to require a physician, before performing an abortion, to perform ultrasound imaging and to record the fetal heartbeat of the unborn child, then offer the mother an opportunity to see the image and hear the recording prior to the abortion. The Senate passed this requirement 51-0 in Senate Bill 2801, which required that the sonogram be performed 24 hours before the abortion.
The House deleted the 24-hour-advance requirement, then combined this bill and another abortion-related bill into a third bill, SB2391, which passed the House 97-16. Senator Alan Nunnelee, the author of the bill and chairman of the Senate Public Health and Welfare Committee, urged the Senate to go along with this change and the combined bill, because it was doubtful that anything better would be achieved by negotiating with the House. The Senate agreed with that, sending the bill to the governor, who signed it on March 22.
One reason for Senator Nunnelee’s concern was that the chairman of the House Public Health and Human Services Committee, Rep. Steve Holland, had earlier pledged publicly that he would not consider any “pro-life or pro-choice” bills that came to his committee. He finally agreed to bring the bills up because of pressure he was getting from House Speaker Billy McCoy and from thousands of phone calls from citizens to their representatives, who were, in turn, pressuring Rep. Holland to consider the bills.
ABORTION “BAN” PASSES SENATE,
RENDERED INEFFECTIVE BY HOUSE
By a vote of 34-5, the Senate passed SB2795, which would have banned all abortions in Mississippi, effective July 1, except in cases of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother was in danger. This bill included “findings” that supported the legislature’s reasoning for this bill, primarily that abortion harms women. Taking this approach would increase the possibility that federal courts would consider this law as distinct from the ones consistently struck down since Roe v. Wade. In other words, if the bill simply banned abortions or used the rationale that abortion kills babies, it would not have even been considered by federal courts, because they have already ruled on so many similar bills. But, because this would use a different rationale, it is possible the courts would consider it.
The House folded this bill into SB2391 (see above), and in the process, removed the findings and made the ban effective only after Roe v. Wade is overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. This prevents, or at least reduces the likelihood of, a federal court challenge. By doing that, it also keeps our law from being the one to challenge Roe.
Some pro-life leaders supported this move because they are reluctant to trust the current U.S. Supreme Court. Others were concerned that Mississippi’s current Attorney General would not be competent to defend this law before the U.S. Supreme Court on a matter that will affect the entire legal environment for abortion-related laws throughout the country for decades to come. Whatever the reasons were, the House passed SB2391 (which combined the sonogram bill and the bill described below) by a vote of 97-16.
PARENTAL CONSENT “BY-PASS” GUIDELINES STRENGTHENED SLIGHTLY
The bill chosen as the “vehicle” for the three abortion-related bills was SB2391. Current law requires minors to obtain the consent of their parents for an abortion to be performed. However, the law also allows a minor to obtain an abortion without her parents’ consent if she applies in court for a waiver of that requirement. The judge can grant such a waiver if he or she determines that it is in the best interest of the girl that her parents not know (presumably because they would harm her). The judge is supposed to rule one way or the other within 72 hours of the minor’s request, but if the judge does NOT rule, the girl is free to have the abortion.
SB2391, as passed by the Senate 51-0, would have reversed that last provision, so that if a judge were not to rule within 72 hours, the girl could NOT have the abortion. The House rejected that approach, and left the current-law provision in place. It did, however, require the judge to grant a waiver only if he or she finds “clear and convincing evidence” that the girl should be allowed to have the abortion. That provision was included in the final, combined bill, which, as noted above, passed the House 97-16.
