Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Abortion Informed Consent topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah Senate advances abortion informed-consent measure after negotiated amendment
Summary
Senators advanced SB 60, a bill to require certain oral informed-consent information at least 24 hours before an abortion and to allow designated licensed health professionals in rural areas to start that process; sponsors say the performing physician must repeat the information if delivered by a non-physician. The measure passed the floor roll-call and was placed on the third-reading calendar.
Senator Lee Ray McAllister presented Senate Bill 60 as a limited, post-Casey measure that would require a pregnant woman to be orally informed of specified information at least 24 hours before an abortion. The information includes the nature of the proposed procedure and alternatives, the probable gestational age of the fetus and medical risks of carrying the pregnancy to term.
McAllister said the bill was pared to two central elements: the 24-hour waiting period and the form of informed consent. "The essence of it, this is simply the 24 hour rule and the nature of the con of the informed consent," he said, describing the sponsors' intent to mirror key Casey requirements while limiting broader changes.
Lawmakers debated how the 24-hour information would be delivered in rural Utah, where a physician may not be available. Senator Money introduced an amendment expanding who may initiate the 24-hour period to include registered nurses, nurse practitioners, advanced practice registered nurses, certified nurse midwives and physician assistants. Senator Howell explained the amendment and its purpose, saying it addresses access concerns in parts of the state with few physicians.
Under the negotiated amendment, a qualified non-physician may provide the initial oral information in rural areas, but if the information was delivered by someone other than the performing physician, the physician must repeat it before the procedure. Sponsors said that approach balances access with a physician'level confirmation.
The bill also includes provisions for emergency care that would allow a physician to proceed without compliance when necessary, and it establishes informational materials to be made available to the patient. Supporters described the measure as the product of cross-aisle negotiations; Senator Beatty commended the sponsors for finding common ground. Opponents raised broader constitutional or policy objections during floor debate but the recorded vote followed a call for the question.
A roll-call vote on third-reading scheduling was held and the clerk announced the bill "shows 25 ayes, 3 nays, 1 absent; bill passes" and it was placed on the third-reading calendar for final consideration.
Next steps: SB 60 will return to the Senate for third-reading final passage and, if passed, proceed according to legislative rules for enactment.
