DAVID DEWHURST: Members, the Senate will come to order. The Chair signs in the presence of Senate the following.
PATSY SPAW: House Concurrent Resolution No. 52.
DAVID DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Wentworth to introduce the doctor for the day.
SENATOR WENTWORTH: Thank you, Mr. President. Members, it's my privilege to introduce to you today our doctor of the day, Dr. Michael Dominges. Dr. Dominges is a family physician with the Health Texas Medical Group and a board member at San Antonio Family Endeavors, a nonprofit agency that provides services in support of children, family, and those struggling with disabilities. He was recently named one of San Antonio's best doctors by Scene in San Antonio. Dr. Dominges is a graduate of the medical school at the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio and completed his residency at Texas Tech in El Paso. Dr. Dominges is married to Tamara, also a family physician, and they have three beautiful children: Robert, Maggie and Makayla. They attend Oak Hills Church in San Antonio. Members, I invite you to join me in welcoming Dr. Dominges to the floor of the Senate.
DAVID DEWHURST: Senator Nichols, Chair recognizes Senator Nichols for an introduction.
SENATOR NICHOLS: Thank you, Mr. President, members. I want to call your attention to the south side of the gallery, it's my honor and privilege to welcome the representatives from Nacogdoches, Nacogdoches Leadership Group in the Stephen F. Austin State University and the community leaders from the county. Would y'all all please stand up? Nacogdoches -- thank you. Members, Nacogdoches is located in the heart of Senate District 3. It's one of the oldest town in Texas, had the fist newspaper, the first two story building in the state. Nacogdoches is a vital transportation business, university and tourism center in east Texas and it's known for the Blueberry Festival. As home to Stephen F. Austin University, there are training leaders for tomorrow and today. University has more than 12,000 students and is a leader in education, nursing and forestry studies. It's a wonderful place to work. I'm proud to represent them. Please give them another round, thank you.
DAVID DEWHURST: And Senator Nichols -- ladies and gentlemen -- and I planned to be with you last night but I got tied up with work here. So, I'm sorry, but welcome to the State Capitol. Chair recognizes Senator Hegar for an introduction.
SENATOR HEGAR: Thank you, Mr. President, members. Please join me in welcoming a wonderful group of people today from Aransas County. The group includes the mayor of Rockport CJ Wax, the mayor of Fullton Russell Coal, the Chamber of Commerce chairman of the board Linda Poyier, as well as a county judge Bert Mills. Most of the commissioners, court, the sheriff, and so many individuals that are extremely involved in Aransas County. I welcome you to come to Aransas County, it is one of the most beautiful jewels in Senate District 18. A fantastic group of people. And they're here to learn a little bit more about state government and advocate for some issues that are extremely important to us. So if you'd please join me in welcoming Aransas County here for Aransas County Day here at the State Capitol and thank you for being here so much. We appreciate all your service.
DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Hegar. Members, if there's no objection, I'd like to postpone the reading and referral of bills until after today's session. Is there objection from any member? Chair hears no objection. So ordered. Chair recognizes Senator Birdwell for an introduction.
SENATOR BIRDWELL: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, members, I too would like to make an introduction of some great folks that are visiting with us today. First of all, from Falls County in Marlin. We got a number of guests. Among this group is Mayor McClung of Galinda, Mayor Tindall of Lott and Mayor Perskin of Marlin, as well as folks from Falls County and Marlin today. We also have Ennis Day here at the Capitol. I'd like to welcome those guests from the Ennis leadership class. Among them are Mayor Pro-tem Taylor, city manager Overton and county commissioner Tom Abram. And the folks in Ennis leadership are hand picked to serves a representatives of their hometown and the folks of Ennis are doing that exceedingly well as the name would apply. And these classes are helping shape the next set of leaders for the communities. Senators, if you'd please help us welcome the folks from Marlin County or from Marlin and Falls County and Ennis to the state Senate, thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
DAVID DEWHURST: Members, the Chair lays out the following resolution. Senate resolution No. 297 by Senator Van de Putte. The secretary will read the resolution.
PATSY SPAW: Senate Resolution 297 recognizing the members of the San Antonio Chapter of the National Alliance on Mental Illness and welcoming them to the State Capitol. By Van de Putte.
DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Madam Secretary. The Chair recognizes Senator Van de Putte to explain the resolution.
SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Thank you, Mr. President, members. I'm honored to be able to recognize the San Antonio chapter of the National Alliance for Mental Illness today. NAMI is a volunteer not-for-profit group that is working in over 1,100 communities across the country. These dedicated citizens work, and they continue to serve with compassion and tenacity and love and above all the determination that their loved ones who suffer from mental illness and from a number of debilitating diseases from that mental illness, that they advocate from them. Typically NAMI members are moms and dads, husbands, wives, close friends of a loved one who's been stricken with a mental illness. But the family of NAMI really reaches out across all boundaries and welcoming arms. It's my pleasure today to welcome with us on the floor the San Antonio president Kim Bolado -- Raymond Bolado and Mary Bird. Would you please help me recognize these individuals who really help those afflicted with mental illness. Thank you. Move passage, Mr. President.
DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you so much, Senator Van de Putte. Members, you've heard the motion by Senator Van de Putte. Is there any objection from any member? Chair hears no objection, and the resolution is adopted.
SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Thank you, Mr. President. And we also acknowledge those members statewide from NAMI who are in the gallery. Ask that you please stand. Those all of you who are here today from the National Alliance of the Mentally Ill. Thank you very much.
DAVID DEWHURST: Members, the Chair lays out the following resolution. Senate Resolution No. 17 by Senator Whitmire. The secretary will read the resolution.
PATSY SPAW: Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 17 granting either house of the legislature permission to adjourn for more than three days beginning Thursday February 17th and ending on Tuesday, February 22nd by Whitmire.
DAVID DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Whitmire to explain the resolution.
SENATOR WHITMIRE: Thank you, Mr. President, members. This is our resolution required by the Constitution. If we're going to adjourn for three consecutive days, each house has to get permission. I move at this time.
DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Whitmire. Members, you've heard the motion by Senator Whitmire. The secretary will call the roll.
PATSY SPAW: Birdwell, Carona, Davis, Deuell, Duncan, Ellis, Eltife, Estes, Fraser, Gallegos, Harris, Hegar, Hinojosa.
DAVID DEWHURST: There being 31 ayes and no nays, the resolution is adopted. Thank you, Senator Whitmire. Mr. Doorkeeper.
MR. DOORKEEPER: Mr. President, there is a message from the House.
DAVID DEWHURST: Admit the messenger.
MESSENGER: Mr. President, I'm directed by the House to inform the Senate that the House has taken the following action and the House has passed the following measures. HCR49, Victor Rodriguez commemorating the 20th anniversary of Austin Energy Green Building. SCR13, Fraser, congratulating the Heart and Simmons University women's soccer team on winning a national championship title. Respectfully Robert Main.
DAVID DEWHURST: Members, that concludes the morning call. We're going to stand at ease for just a moment. I understand we're waiting on a couple of amendments. So we'll stand at ease for just several minutes. (At ease.)
DAVID DEWHURST: The Senate will come to order. The Chair recognizes Senator Patrick for a motion to suspend the regular order of business to take up and consider committee substitute to Senate Bill 16.
SENATOR PATRICK: Thank you, Mr. President. I do move to suspend the Senate's regular order of business to take up and consider committee substitute for Senate Bill 16. Members, many of you are familiar with the concept of this legislation. We have passed similar bills in 2007 and 2009 out of the Senate. This bill is about a woman's right to know, this bill would mark the first time in history since 1973 that women are actually going to have a chance to visit with a doctor and have the information that she's already paid for and entitled to before an abortion. There's something -- there's been a lot of media reports of the bill and there's been various bills in the past years and there's been a little confusion. Let me lay out and be very clear what this bill does. This bill requires a doctor performing an abortion to perform an ultrasound and the woman then -- or sonogram, you can interchange the words. The woman then has the right not to view it, or not to listen to the heartbeat. So if they must on the doctor, it's a may for the woman. In testimony over three sessions now, we've had testimony from Planned Parenthood that they already do the sonogram. This is not something they're not already doing. They claim they already showed the sonograms to the women who come in for the abortion, but further testimony has shown that that's not the case. We had testimony this past week in State Affairs -- or last week, where the bill passed seven to two, that women asked to see the sonogram and were denied. We had testimony from Abby Johnson who worked for Planned Parenthood for eight years, was the employee of the year for Planned Parenthood that's how well she was thought of by that organization, who testified in eight years, yes, they always did the sonograms. They've never showed it to, usually, the young lady. And I say "usually young lady" because the data shows that the average age of a woman seeking an abortion is 22. Nearly 70 percent have never had any type of medical procedure in their lives. Many may not even know what a sonogram is. They are entitled, they have a right under Women's Right to Know to have that information so they can make their choice based on all of the information, because once that choice is made, it can never be reversed if they have the abortion. I don't think that women going in for an abortion should have any less right to medical information than any other woman going in for any other procedure. Again, the woman has a right to say, I don't want to view it or I don't want to hear the heartbeat. We make an exception on the explanation for rape and incest and fetal abnormality. We make an exception for medical emergencies. This bill has been a bill that's been five years in progress, it's a better bill today than it was before. It's a better bill than it was at the end of committee than it was before. Senator Van de Putte, Senator Huffman, Senator Williams, Senator Duncan, Senator Deuell, we spent nine hours in committee on this bill. And we came together with a seven to two vote with a better bill. Again, members, this is about a woman's right to know. Mr. President, I move to suspend the regular order of business.
SENATOR WHITMIRE: Mr. President, will the gentlemen yield?
DAVID DEWHURST: Senator Patrick yield to Senator Whitmire?
SENATOR PATRICK: Absolutely.
DAVID DEWHURST: Senator Whitmire.
SENATOR WHITMIRE: Senator Patrick, the most immediate question I want to ask you is how do we know what version will come out of the conference committee? And are you prepared to assure this body that you will protect the current language and go so far as to pull the bill down if it doesn't represent the language that's in your current bill?
SENATOR PATRICK: Are you prepared to vote for it?
SENATOR WHITMIRE: No, I'm going to speak against the bill in a moment, but before we have this important vote to suspend and you speak to the changes and the work that's been done, to have the version that you have before us on the suspension vote, because I assume you have the votes or you wouldn't be standing there. It's amazing how the two-thirds rule does work well. It makes people come together and talk, but I think it's real critical that you speak to what you believe will be the final language that will come from conference committee. And any your assurances you can give this body and those that are going to vote with you to suspend that it will reflect the hard work and the language that you just described.
SENATOR PATRICK: Well, Senator, out of respect for your office and being the dean and as a friend, I will answer the question, but I think that question is more appropriate for the senators that are actually voting for the bill. It seems to be an odd question from a senator who's not voting for the bill because why do you care, you're not voting for this bill anyway. But I'll be --
SENATOR WHITMIRE: I beg to differ with you on that, I still think I have a role to play, not as -- in capacity of the dean, but one of 31 that may decide how much I want to speak on this bill, I think it's my responsibility if I can shed some light not only to the 31 senators but people of Texas that we represent, because it is real important that we know that this version may not be the ultimate vote. And so I hope you understand my reasoning --
SENATOR PATRICK: I understand your reason for that.
SENATOR WHITMIRE: Here I want to have a dialogue with you.
SENATOR PATRICK: Sure.
SENATOR WHITMIRE: And I think all the members ought to have that dialogue.
SENATOR PATRICK: And I will answer the question but it is usually a question asked by those supporting but I'll be happy to answer. First of all, there are four different versions, as I understand it, of a bill in the House. Jeanie Morrison is carrying the companion to this bill. And she will carry the companions to the bill that passes out the committee substitute. At last count she had 62 coauthors or cosponsors.
SENATOR WHITMIRE: Excuse me to interrupt, what version is that?
SENATOR PATRICK: It will be this bill that we pass off the floor today, it will be her bill. Now, there's been multiple bills filed.
SENATOR WHITMIRE: Sure.
SENATOR PATRICK: Speaker Straus, last summer, I called him and said, Mr. Speaker, who would you like to carry this bill? And he recommended Jeanie Morrison. So I have a bill with 62 or 64, 66, I don't know what the latest count is, it was 60 something yesterday, sponsors. The Speaker personally told me last summer that Jeanie Morrison would be a perfect person to carry the bill, and so I'm hopeful that this bill passes as we send it to them. There may be an amendment here or there, I've discussed it with some of the people who are actually voting for the bill, potential amendments would be acceptable but not materially change the bill. Let me suggest this, Senator, that I will not accept a bill back that is fundamentally different and materially changes this bill. I can't guarantee you --
SENATOR WHITMIRE: Would you elaborate and be very specific about what you consider "fundamentally different"?
SENATOR PATRICK: Here's what I --
SENATOR WHITMIRE: Would it have the protection of rape, incest and health of the mother and the fetus?
SENATOR PATRICK: Absolutely, Senator. These are good amendments that Joan Huffman and I worked together on. Here's the fundamentals --
SENATOR WHITMIRE: If it goes to Congress or if it actually comes from the House with those modifications, you would not stand here and try to pass it. Is that your commitment to this body?
SENATOR PATRICK: I want a bill that follows the heart of this bill, and the heart of this bill is a woman's right to know, which says a doctor must perform, a woman can refuse to see or a woman can refuse to hear for rape, incest and fetal abnormalities, has a medical emergency. That's the heart of the bill.
SENATOR WHITMIRE: What about the time issue? Twenty-four hours versus two hours, are you prepared to protect your current two hour timeframe?
SENATOR PATRICK: We have in the bill, Senator, at least two hours. We had 24, this was an amendment that was brought to me this morning and that amendment does not materially change the bill. So that would be our intent to stay with that. Could it be six hours or seven? Potentially. But we would not go back to 24. Could it be a few more hours too? That's possible. That does not materially change the bill. I can't -- Senator, as you know, because I support you on many of your issues, as well, it's going to be very hard for 31 senators, this session more than ever, to stand on this body on every bill and say, I promise that I'm not going to change anything in any bill that I send over there, but I'm going to materially protect the heart of the bill. That's my word as a friend, that's my word as a fellow senator.
SENATOR WHITMIRE: Well, I just think we should pause for a moment before we suspend. And you do know I will vote against suspension, but I have colleagues that I understand will vote to suspend because of the hard work and the compromised language, that they understand that there is a real possibility that if it comes from the House, and certainly a conference committee significantly changed from the version that we're fixing to suspend on.
SENATOR PATRICK: And, again, the senators who have worked with me to offer amendments or support the bill, those are personal conversations that we've had, and as I've always said, we don't reveal within even the brass rail personal conversations but I can assure you that they trust me on this issue.
SENATOR WHITMIRE: Well, I --
SENATOR PATRICK: And I think you'll see --
SENATOR WHITMIRE: After we see the outcome of the suspension, I'll hope that you will yield to me to ask you some --
SENATOR PATRICK: I'd be happy to.
SENATOR WHITMIRE: -- specific questions about the content of this bill.
SENATOR PATRICK: I'd be happy to. Thank you, Senator.
DAVID DEWHURST: Senator Davis, for what purpose do you rise?
SENATOR DAVIS: To ask the author of the bill a few questions.
DAVID DEWHURST: Will Senator Patrick yield to Senator Davis?
SENATOR PATRICK: Absolutely.
SENATOR DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Senator Patrick. I know you've worked very hard on this bill and it's a complex topic and I have some questions about it, if you will bear with me.
SENATOR PATRICK: Yes, ma'am.
SENATOR DAVIS: In your remarks today, you talked about rights of women and protecting their health and safety and you described that there are places in this bill that provide a "may" opportunity for women. She may choose to see the sonogram, she may choose to hear the heartbeat from the sonogram machine, but there are only a particular category of women that are exempted from the doctor's description. Can you talk with us for a moment about what the doctor is to describe under your bill?
SENATOR PATRICK: Yes. If you'll give me one second to go -- I'll find it in a second, Senator. Forgive me. Here we go. It's in the -- it's on page two. I thought it was back further in the bill, I was looking further back in the bill. Under C, line -- let's see -- 220. The physician -- to a layperson, a verbal explanation of the results of the sonogram image including medical description of the dimensions of the embryo or fetus, of the medical presence of the cardiac activity and the presence of external members and internal organs.
SENATOR DAVIS: And Senator Patrick, what is the purpose of requiring the physician who will perform the abortion to describe the sonogram image in that way?
SENATOR PATRICK: That's part of the informed consent. So that the woman has all the information she needs to make that decision.
SENATOR DAVIS: And does informed consent, in your understanding, include within a -- the idea that a woman should be informed of information that's in her medical interest to know, that's materially relevant from a medical standpoint in order for her to know to provide a valid consent to the procedure?
SENATOR PATRICK: Well, under the Texas Medical Association, Senator -- and forgive me, I always like to be looking when I'm speaking but I need to read this.
SENATOR DAVIS: Yes, of course.
SENATOR PATRICK: Their definition in the analysis of informed consent TMA recognizes that informed consent is more than a form, it's a process that includes discussion. They clearly say it's not a monotone delivery. It's a discussion. And what we heard, Senator, and I know you weren't available to be in the committee, but we heard compelling testimony from Planned Parenthood employees, past employees that said there is no doctor/woman relationship today. The woman comes in for the abortion, the doctor shows up, less than five minutes before the abortion, with his surgical mask and a cap, only his eyes visible, performs the abortion and is gone before she even gets to recover. So we want -- that woman should have the same privilege, Senator, of any woman seeking any medical procedure to have knowledge of what is happening. She can choose not to see it. She can choose not to hear the heartbeat, but the explanation is key to her knowledge.
SENATOR DAVIS: Because that medical information is important for her to make an informed decision and provide her consent for the procedure?
SENATOR PATRICK: You know, I believe that could well be the case in some circumstances. I can't get into the mind of every woman who's going in there but some women -- some women will hear the explanation. We have 80,000 abortions in Texas every year. Over 200 a day. Over 6,000 a month. There will be women who go into the abortion clinic who won't want to see and won't want to hear and they'll probably -- the heartbeat, and they probably will tune out the explanation because they made that decision. There will be a number of women who go in who don't know what a sonogram is. Again, average age, 22. 72 percent are between 16 and 29. Almost percent have never had any kind of major procedure before. They may have no idea. I don't know if you've gone to my Facebook page, but last week I posted a live sonogram image of a 12-week-old that we did in the House chamber. I had a grandson this past summer and I have two children but it's been a while since I've looked at a 12 week sonogram.
SENATOR DAVIS: Well, it's been a while since I looked at a sonogram too. My daughters are 28 and 22, so.
SENATOR PATRICK: Let me finish my point, if I may.
SENATOR DAVIS: My question is --
SENATOR PATRICK: Let me finish my point if I may. I'm answering your question. If I could, please. The point is that even to some adults who thought they knew, they looked at that and said, Wow. Maybe a 22-year-old girl goes in there who's never seen one and says, Wow, that's my baby. I want her to have that right to say, Wow, that's my baby.
SENATOR DAVIS: Okay. So let's get back to informed consent. So --
SENATOR PATRICK: I think I've answered the question, but go ahead.
SENATOR DAVIS: The purpose of all three of those requirements to offer the woman the opportunity to see the sonogram, to hear the heartbeat on the sonogram and have the doctor describe that information to her, each of those is a piece of informed consent.
SENATOR PATRICK: Yes.
SENATOR DAVIS: Under the intentions of your bill.
SENATOR PATRICK: Yes.
SENATOR DAVIS: My question is, why we've carved out a unique category of women in the third component, all women may refuse that information on the first and the second and when you described the bill you said this is a "may" bill. This is a bill that allows women to have a choice --
SENATOR PATRICK: Yes.
SENATOR DAVIS: -- in what they see or hear. But isn't it true that in your bill, the way it's filed, not all women have that choice when it comes to that third description, the doctor describing the fetus to the woman.
SENATOR PATRICK: Correct.
SENATOR DAVIS: And what is it about that group of women that have been excluded from having to hear that, what is it about that group of women that somehow uniquely positions them not to need that information and informing their ability to consent.
SENATOR PATRICK: Well, as Dean Whitmire said, on the 21, two-thirds rule, you come to consensus at times and you know my feelings about that. But he is right, it brings people together. And this was something that Senator Huffman and Senator Van de Putte thought was important. There was a lot of questioning to it. We recessed from committee, we went and talked and discussed, and it was also a result of testimony. You know, there's testimony that makes your case, and the testimony that we heard -- we've heard for three sessions makes the case and sometimes there's testimony that even those who don't make your case, you don't change your view but you listen and you respond. And I listened to a couple who had had a pregnancy, and they had a fetal abnormality, and although the testimony was a little cloudy at times, they were here for the right reasons, telling the truth, in my view, and I think the members of the committee. I wasn't sure of the chain of events totally, but they went to a doctor, they were told their baby was not going to live many weeks past birth and then they went to have an abortion and they had to kind of go through the same procedure again because the Planned Parenthood doctor saw the fetal abnormality and started explaining it all again because obviously he needed to do that. And so the point of this exception, which should not be viewed as a negative from you, it should be viewed as a positive, for women who have been raped, women who are victim of incest, women who have a fetal abnormality, that they do not have to go through the explanation when that whole -- either because the baby has a fetal abnormality that's already been predescribed or because they want to have the abortion, they don't want to see the baby. And I believe all babies are equal but that woman may decide, I don't want to see that baby because I'm a victim of rape or incest. And so we made those exceptions, Senator, and those were recommendations of two women, one Republican, one Democrat. And I thought it was a good idea and I hope you'll agree with that.
SENATOR DAVIS: Well, I still have the lingering question though. If that description by the doctor as described in your bill is medically relevant and medically important to informed consent, why is it appropriate to treat different categories of women differently in terms of whether they receive medically important information to provide their informed consent if that, indeed, is the purpose for that requirement?
SENATOR PATRICK: With all due respect, Senator, I respect you, I've answered the question.
SENATOR DAVIS: All right. Let's talk about the doctor/patient relationship for a moment. Have you heard any concerns that the requirements that the doctor provide this information to the woman and that a woman be required to hear it somehow impinges on that doctor/patient relationship?
SENATOR PATRICK: The first answer is no.
SENATOR DAVIS: You haven't heard that at all?
SENATOR PATRICK: No. And here's the reason. There is no doctor/patient relationship. The doctor comes in five minutes before, covered up, almost unrecognizable, performs the abortion, leaves before she's in recovery. That's the testimony of an eight-year employee, employee of the year. That's how they do it. That's how it works. There is no relationship.
SENATOR DAVIS: But, Senator, your bill is prescribing a relationship.
SENATOR PATRICK: Yes.
SENATOR DAVIS: It's putting a doctor into the situation of having a relationship and then telling the doctor as a part of that relationship what he or she is to communicate to the patient, correct?
SENATOR PATRICK: Yes.
SENATOR DAVIS: Yes. Okay. I want to read a couple of letters that we received, and I believe they were provided as part of the committee hearing. The first is from the Texas Medical Association. It's addressed to Senator Duncan as the Chair of State Affairs. And it reads: "The Texas Medical Association is a private, voluntary, nonprofit association of approximately 45,000 member physicians and medical students. TMA was founded in 1853 to serve the people of Texas in matters of medical care, prevention, and cure of disease and improvement of public health. Today our maxim continues in the same direction, physicians caring for Texans. TMA's diverse physician members practice in all fields of medical specialization. TMA's member physicians follow both sides of the abortion debate. TMA's concerns regarding SB16, however, do not pertain to that highly political issue. However, TMA is concerned about the dangerous precedent SB16 and related legislation would set for health care in Texas. A precedent that would lay the foundation for future lawmakers to establish the details of the interaction between physicians and patients and allow nonphysicians to mandate what tests, procedures, or medicines must be provided to patients in what time frame. The sanctity of the patient/physician relationship is the foundation of health care in America, and it must be preserved to assure candid communication and allow patients to evaluate their care options. The legislature's role should not be how to dictate how physicians and patients communicate with one another or what procedures and diagnostic tests must be performed on any given patient. Physician members of the TMA agree to be bound by the American Medical Association principles of medical ethics. SB16 as filed is contrary to establish ethics principles pertaining to the patient/physician relationship. For example, the AMA code of ethical opinion 808 interpreting the AMA principle of medical ethics states that in special circumstances it may be appropriate to postpone disclosure of information. It further states the following: Physicians should sensitively and respectfully disclose all relevant medical information to patients. The quantity and specificity of this information should be tailored to meet the preference and needs of individual patients. Physicians need not communicate all information at one time, but should assess the amount of information that patients are capable of receiving at a given time and present the remainder when appropriate. Furthermore, AMA code of medical ethics code opinion 8082 states that physicians should honor patient requests not to be informed of certain medical information and physicians should assess the amount of information a patient is capable of receiving at a given time and should tailor disclosure to meet patients' needs and expectations in light of their preferences. According to the code of medical ethics and all circumstances, physicians should communicate with patients sensitively and respectfully. The TMA board of counselors also issues ethics opinions to guide Texas physicians. SB15 as drafted would force Texas physicians to practice medicine in a manner inconsistent with Texas medical ethic opinion as well as contrary to the AMA code of medical ethics. TMA is concerned that SB16 not only sets a dangerous precedent of legislation prescribing the details of the practice of medicine, but it also clearly mandates that physicians practice in a manner inconsistent with medical ethics. TMA appreciates the opportunity to provide you with our concerns regarding SB1 and urge you to take these comments into serious consideration."
SENATOR PATRICK: Yeah, that was a question?
SENATOR DAVIS: I'm following it with a question. So my question is, we've had information from TMA as a group, regardless of where they stand on the issue of choice. Regardless of where they stand, they are saying that this is an intrusion in the doctor/patient relationship. So I'm asking you again, have you heard concern that this bill intrudes on the doctor/patient relationship?
SENATOR PATRICK: I think I've answered that long before the letter was read. The answer is no, and this is the only medical procedure that goal ends in death. There is no patient relationship, sadly, between that baby and the doctor. So at a minimum, we should have a relationship between the doctor and the woman who's carrying that baby. And, Senator, I really answered the question multiple times and I'm happy to handle fresh questions or new questions, it would be very respectful but...
SENATOR DAVIS: We have another letter that was received from the Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
SENATOR PATRICK: Is there a question here, Senator?
SENATOR DAVIS: Yes, there's a question here.
SENATOR PATRICK: Are we going to read the letter?
SENATOR DAVIS: I'm going to read the letter. It's much shorter. "Dear Senator, I'm writing you on behalf of the Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists about some of the concerns about the sonogram bill filed by Senator Dan Patrick. The Texas Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is intentionally neutral regarding the issue of termination of pregnancies. Many of our members specifically joined TAOG because we are by intention not pro-choice. Our mission is to uphold women's health in Texas. After spending time reviewing the sonogram bill and carefully listening to the points raised by various advocates of the bill, trying to understand this legislation and polling our executive leadership, we have a consensus regarding some serious concerns which are separate from the issue of abortion. We believe that the bill as currently written goes beyond the stated purpose of those who advocate providing accurate information regarding the state of the pregnancy and formation of the fetus for patients who desire that information. We believe the bill as currently written is overly intrusive into the doctor/patient relationship and is overly restrictive in terms of the precise amount of time the precise sonogram is to be performed prior to procedure of an audible heartbeat demonstrated to the patient and the documentation required. We believe that the bill as currently written goes beyond assuring a medical standard care. The unintended consequence of intruding into the doctor/patient relationship will likely go well beyond this bill." I won't read the remainder of it, it's just a closure.
SENATOR PATRICK: Well, thank you. First of all, the letters were written before the committee substitute. And neither oppose the bill. As you read, they're neutral. So I do listen. I'm a very good listener, and we've taken all -- a lot of different ideas into account. They do not oppose the bill, and I don't know what else I can share with you.
SENATOR DAVIS: No, Senator I don't believe that they said they were neutral on the bill, I think they said they were neutral on the idea of choice. But they weren't neutral on the bill. They have very strong opinions on the bill.
SENATOR PATRICK: They did not --
SENATOR DAVIS: The intrusion of the bill on the patient/doctor relationship. All right. Let me ask this question. So what if I go into a clinic and the sonogram machine does not have the capability of providing an audible heartbeat?
SENATOR PATRICK: They'll call a repairman.
SENATOR DAVIS: It's my understanding, actually, that many sonogram machines do not have the capacity to provide an audible heartbeat. What will happen in that instance?
SENATOR PATRICK: If the machine does not supply it, it does not supply it, and I can't try to write legislation for every machine and every situation where a machine may break. If it's not available, it's not available.
SENATOR DAVIS: How will a woman sign a consent form that she was offered the opportunity to hear the heartbeat and she declined it if she was not offered the opportunity because the opportunity didn't exist?
SENATOR PATRICK: Well, maybe you should take that up with Planned Parenthood, they should have better machines.
SENATOR DAVIS: I'm asking you the question, Senator Patrick.
SENATOR PATRICK: And I'm answering the question. I think it's --
SENATOR DAVIS: Because what we talked about, the part -- what we talked about as part of this bill is whether it's going to create additional expense for women who currently are seeking the service.
SENATOR PATRICK: No, Senator Davis, Senator, they're already paying for it. Planned Parenthood is already charging for it.
SENATOR DAVIS: Indeed, they are, but Planned Parenthood right now hasn't had to create the capacity of machines that provide audio for their patients.
SENATOR PATRICK: Well, I think they --
SENATOR DAVIS: Would that requirement exist under your bill?
SENATOR PATRICK: Pardon?
SENATOR DAVIS: Would that requirement exist under your bill?
SENATOR PATRICK: It doesn't require -- it's not a requirement. And. By the way, the bill clearly says, Senator, that there's no penalty attached to this. If -- you know, there's no penalty attached. If the machine doesn't have, you know, the heartbeat and she doesn't listen. She just, you know.
SENATOR DAVIS: Can you point me to that penalty language, by the way, in your bill?
SENATOR PATRICK: I'll be happy to. Give me a moment. Oh, it's current law. Sorry, it's not in the bill. It's current law.
SENATOR DAVIS: And where is that? I'm sorry, Senator Patrick.
SENATOR PATRICK: It's not in the bill. It's under current law. Under Women's Right to Know 315, we do clarify part of it. Let me find it for you. 315, "The physician and the pregnant woman are not subject to a penalty under this chapter solely because the pregnant woman chooses not to view the materials, not to hear."
SENATOR DAVIS: Could they be under penalty if something in addition to this occurs? The "solely because" language leaves me a little bit confused.
SENATOR PATRICK: Would you repeat the question, please?
SENATOR DAVIS: Yes. The way this reads, "The physician and the pregnant woman are not subject to a penalty under this chapter solely because the pregnant woman chooses not to view the printed materials or the sonogram images, hear the heart auscultation or receive the verbal explanation that is described by this section." So they're not under penalty solely for that reason, but can they be under penalty for that reason in addition to others and what would the others be?
SENATOR PATRICK: Not in my view.
SENATOR DAVIS: There's a difference in your bill, Senator Patrick, in how a medical emergency is defined. Pardon me for a moment while I find that language.
SENATOR PATRICK: Senator, I have been informed that only very old equipment, sonogram machines, would not have the ability to record sound, the heartbeat. And if they do have very old equipment, for a very minimal cost, you can get a Doppler unit attached to it for next to nothing. That would accomplish that. So I just wanted to respond since I got some additional information on that.
SENATOR DAVIS: But it is the case under your bill that the physician is required to offer that to the woman, a woman may decline this. I'm very concerned under the penalty provision that if machinery exists in a clinic that does not have the opportunity to provide that, that the physician is subject to a penalty even though there was something out of his or her control in terms of technology availability at the time.
SENATOR PATRICK: There is no penalty. I read what is in our bill, Senator, and the law. This is what I was referring to earlier, as well. Section 171-118, "The offense of a physician who intentionally performs an abortion in violation of the subchapter commits an offense. The offense under this section, misdemeanor, punishable" -- "intentionally" meaning -- refers back to the penal code. There is no penalty.
SENATOR DAVIS: I'm not sure physicians will feel comfortable taking your word for that, but I'll move on. The medical emergency description in your bill uses more stringent language than is used in other sections of the Health and Safety Code. It places a higher burden on the doctor to bypass the informed consent requirements of the bill. In other sections of the Health and Safety Code, it defines medical emergency as a circumstance in which an abortion is necessary to prevent a substantial risk of serious impairment to the physical or mental health of the woman or death of the patient. Your bill would only allow medical emergency exemptions in cases where there is serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function. How will we correspond the differences in medical emergency between the Health and Safety Code and your bill?
SENATOR PATRICK: If Dr. Deuell would like to speak to that, he may later, we have embedded this, we have walked through this, we changed it specifically for that reason.
SENATOR DAVIS: And you understand that there are physicians who may be concern that there's a dual standard in terms of what qualifies for a medical emergency?
SENATOR PATRICK: The sad fact of life is you understand there are always people who are concerned about anything. Any of us, any of the 31 of us do.
SENATOR DAVIS: Thank you, Senator Patrick.
SENATOR PATRICK: Thank you very much.
SENATOR DAVIS: I have an amendment that I am offering for your bill, and I want to ask you a question about that. If your bill is --
SENATOR PATRICK: At the appropriate time, I'd be happy to. I have not seen the amendment. If you'd like to get it to my staff in advance, we'd be happy to look at it.
SENATOR DAVIS: We absolutely have it for you to look at, and if your bill is brought up to the floor, I'd like the opportunity to stand up and make some comments and questions on it.
SENATOR PATRICK: Absolutely. Senator, thank you for your questions. They were respectful and on point and thank you.
SENATOR WHITMIRE: Mr. President.
SENATOR WENTWORTH: Mr. Whitmire, for what purpose?
SENATOR WHITMIRE: Will the gentlemen yield?
SENATOR PATRICK: Yes, sir.
SENATOR WHITMIRE: And could we get some attention, the chambers -- better order? I think this bill, probably more than most bills, deserves everyone's full attention to the discussion.
SENATOR WENTWORTH: Senator, I think the chamber's pretty quiet right now.
SENATOR WHITMIRE: Well, I quite frankly think the conversations other than the debate probably ought to be held to a minimum but --
SENATOR WENTWORTH: All right. Members, if you have a conversation, please take them off the floor.
SENATOR WHITMIRE: Senator Patrick, I was going to wait and ask questions after we saw whether you'd suspend it or not, but the way you're throwing out such generalities, I'd like to have a dialogue with you concerning the language of the bill and your understanding. First of all, you say very generally that no doctors are available during these procedures and you keep giving Planned Parenthood as your example. Are you aware that there are a lot of doctors in this state that do this procedure beyond the Planned Parenthood business or operation or service?
SENATOR PATRICK: Yes. And my reference, Senator, was to the testimony that we've had from Planned Parenthood.
SENATOR WHITMIRE: Okay. So you do agree with me that Planned Parenthood is one organization, but there's probably hundreds of doctors in an independent practice that conduct this procedure?
SENATOR PATRICK: I couldn't tell you if it's hundreds or dozens or more, but there are more.
SENATOR WHITMIRE: Some. Okay.
SENATOR PATRICK: There's some more.
SENATOR WHITMIRE: So it's not correct to say that there's never a doctor available when a woman makes this decision.
SENATOR PATRICK: I don't think I said that. I said in Planned Parenthood. If I did say that --
SENATOR WHITMIRE: You said "no doctor." I wrote it down. And that's the reason I'm rising to try to clarify some of your comments. You said "no doctors are available."
SENATOR PATRICK: Based on testimony from Planned Parenthood.
SENATOR WHITMIRE: Okay.
SENATOR PATRICK: I cannot speak on every --
SENATOR WHITMIRE: And Planned Parenthood is one organization but there are many others, in my understanding. Let me ask you something. This is real important, I think, as we go forward. Senator Patrick, have you ever personally spoken to, consulted with, counseled with a young woman before she has an abortion procedure?
SENATOR PATRICK: No.
SENATOR WHITMIRE: Have you ever personally spoken to a woman, counseled with her?
SENATOR PATRICK: Repeat that question. Go back and repeat that question. Make sure I heard you correctly.
SENATOR WHITMIRE: You just said you have never counseled with, visited with, known, had a conversation with someone prior to her having an abortion.
SENATOR PATRICK: Let me back up.
SENATOR WHITMIRE: Because I think this is real, real important.
SENATOR PATRICK: Let me back up. I can't say that I have or have not because I do not know the personal lives of every woman I've spoken to, but I have done work with crisis pregnancy centers. I've raised money for crisis pregnancy centers, I've spoken with women who have had abortions, I don't know if they're having another abortion --
SENATOR WHITMIRE: Okay. What I was trying to --
SENATOR PATRICK: Let me finish, let me answer the question that I may well have and I surely have talked with women after abortions.
SENATOR WHITMIRE: Let me be real clear what my question is. Not that you have talked to someone who's had an abortion or might have an abortion, I'm talking about have you ever held someone's hand and been their friend, their relative prior to their going down and having an abortion? Have you ever intimately been involved or befriended someone who has to make that decision before they have the abortion?
SENATOR PATRICK: I don't know that I have, and if I had, I don't know that I'd tell you because it's a privilege.
SENATOR WHITMIRE: Well, how about after they've had an abortion? Have you ever had the opportunity or the need or the experience to hold someone's hand and talk to them after they've had an abortion?
SENATOR PATRICK: How long after?
SENATOR WHITMIRE: Shortly thereafter. Maybe hours after.
SENATOR PATRICK: I don't know hours but within days. I've done a lot of work in this long before I was a senator, Senator.
SENATOR WHITMIRE: The reason I ask you that, I don't think that you can understand the seriousness of your legislation and how you can speak for women of the state if you haven't one, had to deal with it on a personal basis. It could be a friend, a coworker, one of your employees, what I'm trying to get you to tell me is have you ever had to share the pain and see the heartbreaking experience that these women go through as they make that decision?
SENATOR PATRICK: As I said to you, I have met with and talked with many women over the years through crisis pregnancy centers, not through an abortion clinic, but through crisis pregnancy centers and the answer to that is yes.
SENATOR WHITMIRE: Well, let me tell you why I'm asking these questions. Two years ago your legislation came through, and I did not speak. I feel strongly about the subject, but it has bothered me for at least two years, until this very moment, that there are thousands of women in this state that cannot be on this Senate floor and they want to ask you these questions in an attempt to not only represent my views and my district but the other citizens of Texas who strongly believed in, that while you feel strongly about this, you cannot speak with such clarity of what the experience is like. If you haven't been there, if you haven't visited with them and actually been a part of the decision making. Let me ask you what would you say to -- and I want to put a face on it. What do you tell, then, the reason you're passing this to a mother who takes her 14-year-old daughter down. They've decided as a family with their doctor and their Lord that that's what they want to do. Do you really think that you need your legislation to require that mother and her daughter, who go to a clinic where a doctor is available, to go through the measures that your bill would require after they've already prayed about it for days and they've made their decision? Why do you want to put that mother and her daughter and her family through that requirement?
SENATOR PATRICK: Senator, why would you want to subjugate a woman to have any less care than any other woman?
SENATOR WHITMIRE: She's not having less care, Dan, they're going to their family doctor.
SENATOR PATRICK: She -- she --
SENATOR WHITMIRE: They're going to their family doctor, and they've made the decision with their husband, the father --
SENATOR PATRICK: And she has a right not to view.
SENATOR WHITMIRE: -- the 14-year-old and their Lord, and it's the most serious decision they'll ever make in their lives and now, you're trying to get government in the middle of that decision. Let me go --
SENATOR PATRICK: There's also someone else, Senator, who's not represented in that equation, and that's the baby.
SENATOR WHITMIRE: And you're doing a fine job representing the fetus. I can see that and I -- you've put a face on that individual.
SENATOR PATRICK: Thank you.
SENATOR WHITMIRE: But please understand the questions I'm asking you is to try to put a face on the person that now you're going to try to regulate their bodies.
SENATOR PATRICK: No. Wait a minute. I can't accept that, Senator. We're not trying to regulate anyone's body.
SENATOR WHITMIRE: Sure you are.
SENATOR PATRICK: What the bill says -- what the bill says --
SENATOR WHITMIRE: If they don't go through your measures, they don't get to go into that clinic.
SENATOR PATRICK: Senator, what the bill says, there's already a long list under Woman's Right to Know that that family that you're talking about already is going to get that information. The additional information, and I won't take the time to read the list, but there's a long list and the Women's Right to Know Act was passed back in 2003, and more information besides that and other lists, that all those women are already getting. This is just simply adding to the list to tell that woman -- to tell that woman that a doctor has performed a sonogram.
SENATOR WHITMIRE: Do you -- do you --
SENATOR PATRICK: She can choose not to see it.
SENATOR WHITMIRE: Do you agree with this? That you cannot make a woman do something with her body what she does not want to? Would you agree with that? You can't make a woman do something.
SENATOR PATRICK: And we're not under this bill, Senator.
SENATOR WHITMIRE: You are, Senator Patrick. You're going to make them go through a procedure.
SENATOR PATRICK: What procedure?
SENATOR WHITMIRE: The sonogram. You've given exceptions. I'm talking to you about individuals that do not fall under your exceptions. And if they don't want to go through your procedure, they can go to Mexico.
SENATOR PATRICK: Dr. -- Senator.
SENATOR WHITMIRE: They can go to an illegal abortion. If they have the money, they can travel out of state.
SENATOR PATRICK: Senator --
SENATOR WHITMIRE: You can't make someone do something with their body that they don't want to.
SENATOR PATRICK: Back in the 80s, both the National Institute of Health and both ACOGs in their bulletin recommends this is standard of care, that it would be malpractice to take the life of a baby. What you're suggesting is that you want to subject a woman -- This is what you're suggesting, and I know you don't, because you have a good heart. But let me finish. What you're suggesting is that --
SENATOR WHITMIRE: I'm talking about the real world.
SENATOR PATRICK: I'm talking about the real world. What you're suggesting is you want to subject a woman to go into an abortion clinic where there's a doctor who doesn't even want to practice the minimal standard of care, who might as well put a blindfold on and reach into her uterus and take that life without even knowing what type of pregnancy it is and that I would say is malpractice.
SENATOR WHITMIRE: You've already stated you've never spoken to someone just prior to that procedure or just after. Now, let me tell you another situation. What do you tell a coworker that I actually had years ago and she's crying at a reception and I asked, Why are you crying? She said, I broke up with my boyfriend two weeks ago and I found out that I'm pregnant. I'm scared, I'm broke and I don't know what to do. She doesn't fall through your exceptions, she's not covered by the exceptions. So she's already made the tough decision ultimately to go have the procedure. It's the most serious decision she'll ever make in her life. Lifeshaping decision. But you don't give her an exception and she knows what she wants to do, she's prayed about it, borrowed money for it, goes into the clinic, goes home afterwards, goes to work in a couple of days and she will tell you she knew what she wanted to do and didn't need you and the state of Texas involved. What do you tell her?
SENATOR PATRICK: And, Senator, besides Planned Parenthood, we did have testimony in the committee from doctors who were in their own practice. Every doctor we've had, Senator, every doctor in three sessions has testified they do sonograms. It is a standard of care. That's what they do.
SENATOR WHITMIRE: But you're requiring them to discuss it, offer it up to them outside of what their normal consultation would be. And we already know you can't make them go through that procedure. If they don't want to have to deal with it after they've made a decision. If they're embarrassed --
SENATOR PATRICK: Senator --
SENATOR WHITMIRE: -- they'll go to Mexico or go to an illegal clinic. That's where you're driving people. Do you not agree?
SENATOR PATRICK: No, we're not, Senator.
SENATOR WHITMIRE: If they don't want to go through your new law, there's ways to get around it.
SENATOR PATRICK: Senator, they're already getting a sonogram --
SENATOR WHITMIRE: -- but you make them sit there and sign forms.
SENATOR PATRICK: They already sign forms, Senator, under current law. They already sign forms.
SENATOR WHITMIRE: Then you're going to make them sit there -- in the instance of the 14-year-old with her mother, in the instance of the coworker I had, she's made a tough decision. She doesn't need the state of Texas involved and why do you --
SENATOR PATRICK: Senator --
SENATOR WHITMIRE: -- why don't you just come up with -- those exceptions are good, but I'm here to tell you I don't think you've cured this bill by putting exceptions in there. Because I'm telling you real life stories that I have learned of, been around, and what you're doing is making a very tough decision more painful, scarring women in some instances, what do you do?
SENATOR PATRICK: And what do you do, Senator --
SENATOR WHITMIRE: What do I tell another coworker when everyone else in the office is celebrating her pregnancy, the first in her life, that she is so excited about with her husband. Then they decide to have tests run and they found out that it has health issues and they decide to go --
SENATOR PATRICK: And, Senator, we've had testimony from women in committee, had it last week. We had testimony from a registered nurse last week. I believe she was 30 years of age. She said, I had an abortion when I was 19. If I had known there was a sonogram, I'd have an 11-year-old child today. So, you know, your story --
SENATOR WHITMIRE: Proven by that comment, it ought to be an individual decision. It ought to be an individual decision.
SENATOR PATRICK: No, she asked -- the sonogram is a part of the standard of care. The abortion doctors that we've heard from have testified that they show it. We've had testimony saying they don't show it. Women can choose to not see it, not hear it. And, Senator, there's one thing I've gotten to know about you over serving the last four years and particularly over our experiences with last year, you're a man with a good heart, you care about people, so do I. We have a difference of respectable opinion.
SENATOR WHITMIRE: Let me, if you would, ask you one more instance. What would you say to this family. Husband, wife learn that they have triplets, she's carrying triplets. Doctor goes to them and says, You can't carry but one of them. You've got the tough painful decision to decide which you're going to carry and we need to abort the other two. Why you want to make that husband and wife, they cry all night long, they pray about it and now, you got to require her to deal with a doctor, she's got to be offered the sonogram, I guess in this instance she could file for the extension -- it's an exception, but why you got to make that procedure any more difficult for that family?
SENATOR PATRICK: Senator, I dismiss the fact that we're making it any more difficult. And I would say to you since 2007 when I first passed this bill on the floor, that since that time, what would you say to 320,000 babies that have been aborted in Texas and how many of those -- let me finish. If those aborted souls were in our gallery right now, what would you say to them?
SENATOR WHITMIRE: You know what I'd say? I wish we had better sex education, I wish we could have planned families and I wish the world was perfect but it's not. Unfortunately that is reality that those procedures exist and people choose them. I don't think anyone would sit here and condone it being used as birth control for someone to repeatedly have abortions, but I'm citing you, Dan, real life tough decisions that I have personally encountered.
SENATOR PATRICK: I respect that.
SENATOR WHITMIRE: And when -- and in closing, I would ask you as you go forward in this debate, be mindful that everyone does not fit the category that you're describing, because you've got some perception of how Planned Parenthood operates. I'm assuming it probably varies of which clinic of Planned Parenthood you go to, but I'm talking about private practitioners with their patient, their Lord and their family have made very tough decisions and you ought to respect that at least by not --
SENATOR PATRICK: I do.
SENATOR WHITMIRE: -- painting this entire discussion with a broadbrush that people have no doctor available. They do it callously. I tell you what, there's probably women crying right now because this discussion is reminding them of the procedure and the tough decision they had to make. And I would just ask you, as a colleague and a friend, please be mindful of women across this state with their family and their Lord have made the toughest decision of their entire life and you're making them revisit it. And I respect your right to introduce any legislation you choose, but be mindful. I hear from them, I've witnessed them, I've been there while they're crying. They've been abandoned by a boy friend. They've been abandoned by their family. They have no money, they're scared. And now you're going to require them to go through a state of Texas additional red tape decision making before they can do something they've already made. And I will close by saying, do you agree that they don't have to go through the state of Texas, they can go out of state? You might -- one of the biggest results of your legislation is you're going to require or allow or have young women go out of state to Mexico or to some back ally abortion clinic.
SENATOR PATRICK: I am mindful of what you said, I respect your feelings, I disagree with that last premise. But thank you.
SENATOR WENTWORTH: Senator Van de Putte, for what purpose?
SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Will the gentlemen yield for some questions?
SENATOR WENTWORTH: Senator Patrick, do you yield?
SENATOR PATRICK: Yes, ma'am.
SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Senator Patrick. And it was a long day in the State Affairs committee and I have to thank you and my colleagues who serve on that committee because we did change the bill somewhat.
SENATOR PATRICK: You helped me make the bill better.
SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Well, you know, I was very concerned after we heard the testimony of those victims of rape, incest and irreversible fetal abnormalities to put them through this pain again. And I appreciate the language in there but I am concerned about one provision that seems incongruent on another provision in the bill. In 315, with regard to physician penalties, as you stated in questioning with Senator Davis, that there are no penalties or disciplinary actions under that section on 315 if the woman refuses to hear or participate, that neither that there will be no penalties. However, in another part of your bill and it is on four -- fourth page, section six.
SENATOR PATRICK: I'm sorry, say that again. Page four.
SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Page four.
SENATOR PATRICK: What line?
SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Starts section six and it's line 4-4 through 4-8, and it says "the board," and I'm assuming in the definitions that that's the board of medical examiners, "may take appropriate disciplinary action against a physician who violates that," and in chapter 171, which this is, "and that includes refusing to issue a license or renewal who violates this chapter." And so in one section of the bill you said there's no penalty but over here there is and I'm confused. Which one is it?
SENATOR PATRICK: All right. Let me go back and read something for one second, if I may. Well, I don't think there's any confusion. On page three, 315 it says, "The physician and pregnant woman are not subject to a penalty under this chapter solely because the pregnant woman chooses not to view." All right? On page four that you just referenced it says, "The board may take appropriate disciplinary action against physician who violates section -- the Texas Medical Board has the right to look into the practice of any doctor who they view violates" -- this doesn't refer to -- because the woman doesn't see it, it may be something else the doctor did. That woman may feel like it was a botched procedure, whatever that may be. So.
SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Under the provisions of this bill, are there current guidelines and descriptive language that details the type of script and the words that are going to be used? In other words, the Department of State Health Services or the Board of Medical Examiners now forced, because under 4-4 on section 8(a) it says chapter 171 is -- that you are liable, that there's no disciplinary action if she just refuses?
SENATOR PATRICK: Right.
SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: But over here it does. So how would either the Board of Medical Examiners or is it the Department of Health State Services, are there going to be guidelines, since this is a violation, not if they're refusing, but if the physician doesn't adhere to those chapters, it is a violation up to dismissal and nonrenewal of their license?
SENATOR PATRICK: Well, not -- the Texas medical board looks into a number of potential violations. Many of those reports are anonymous, as you know, they can be reported to someone and the list that you're talking about, currently the abortion providers provide that list, they print it up. They know -- they will see what the law says, that they have to provide the sonogram, they will put in their information she has a right not to see it, not to hear it. Obviously if a doctor providing abortions ignores this entire law, they could be subject to the Texas medical board coming in potentially, so.
SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: And I understand currently that sonograms are routinely used by the providers for diagnostic purpose to ascertain gestational age, but the purpose of the sonogram that your bill requires is for the purpose of the woman having an informed consent; is that correct?
SENATOR PATRICK: No, it's also so that there's a standard of care in this procedure, because a doctor performing the surgery should also want to know is it a cervical pregnancy, ectopic.
SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: That's already done.
SENATOR PATRICK: Right, already done.
SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: So my question to you is --
SENATOR PATRICK: We hope it's already done.
SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Well, at least from some of the testimony.
SENATOR PATRICK: They testified they have.
SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: So the sonograms are currently used, and I think that's what the testimony reflected in committee, that sonograms are already done but they are for the purpose of determining gestational age. And you're right, under the standard of care, and I believe you exactly -- I think it's a truthful statement that without that sonogram that it would be a serious question on standard of care. So that's the standard of care for that.
SENATOR PATRICK: Thank you.
SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: My question is, the sonogram that would be required for this is not for the purposes of determining gestational age or standard of care. It's for the purposes stated in subsection seven; is that correct?
SENATOR PATRICK: Well, it actually, Senator, I would -- and thank you for acknowledging that it's standard of care and should be done, but it serves a dual purpose. Obviously, for the purpose of the doctor but the purpose of this bill is so that the woman has the -- has the ability, if she so chooses to see it or hear the heartbeat, because, as you again, know testimony, you've been involved in this with me for three sessions now. That she doesn't have that information, she's not aware, and so that's the purpose of this. We want to be sure. I'm sure there's some outliers out there, we've been reading some very sad stories in the press about abortion doctors in Pennsylvania who's been charged with murder. I'm sure some -- sadly there are some out there who are not living up to the standard of care that's expected. So this would hopefully close that gap, but it also serves the dual purpose of the woman having the ability, having the knowledge, the freedom to know you're doing a sonogram, the freedom to know that.
SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Absolutely. And my question to you was, and I wasn't clear in testimony and I wasn't clear in intention. Can the sonogram that is used for the purpose for the diagnostics for the physician to ascertain gestational age serve also as the same sonogram for the purposes of the consent?
SENATOR PATRICK: Yes, we're not adding sonograms.
SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Thank you. Well, my question is, when -- I understand the exemptions are probably for a very small percentage of women that will be having the procedure and that according to the -- at least the Texas state data that 60 percent of women who have an abortion already have at least one child. At least that's what our -- that's what the state health services, the data is.
SENATOR PATRICK: I'm not sure of the exact --
SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: I think about percent of women --
SENATOR PATRICK: No, that's actually too high, because the actual number is 57 percent. I could be off a point. 57 percent of women who go into -- for an abortion is their first, they have no children. So it wouldn't be 60 percent who have a child, but I could be -- I stand to be corrected on that.
SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: And so my question is, since the purpose of your bill is to help women and to protect their physical and their psychological health, their well being, to help them understand the effect of the abortion procedure on her unborn child and to look at the standard of care, what happens when a woman who is having the ultrasound and she does not fit into the categories of exemption in the bill, can she refuse?
SENATOR PATRICK: Refuse what?
SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Can she refuse if she's not in the categories of the women? So it's not a victim of rape, incest, or irreversible fetal abnormality, can that woman refuse to hear the doctor's description under your bill?
SENATOR PATRICK: No, because we made the exemptions with your suggestion and Senator Huffman's for rape and incest and fetal abnormality. So we are taking an amendment on the floor to address that, I'm going to accept -- and instead of talking about that amendment now, this is an amendment that we're going to accept.
SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: And my question is since most women will not fall into the exemption categories, and we're very happy about that, but we did -- and I appreciate you working on it. We talked in the committee about the concept of captive listener, in other words, she didn't -- so can you explain to me actually what is going to happen during the sonogram that is for the purpose of protecting that psychological insight, that physical and psychological health?
SENATOR PATRICK: I'm not sure I totally understand the question, but let me try to attempt. Because we have language in the bill that we also added with your help that the sonographer should be certified, so we have a qualified person doing it, and I know I just had a sonogram not too long ago when I had my physical on my heart and certified sonographers do not share that information, they always tell you the doctor will. So the purpose -- the purpose is for that doctor to explain to the woman the simple information, Your baby is nine weeks old, 12 weeks old, whatever the gestational age is, has a heartbeat, has all its limbs, and that's the extent of it.
SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: And you took out -- removed the word "simultaneous" or is that --
SENATOR PATRICK: We took that out in agreement with you.
SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Thank you. And my question is what happens if a woman gets up and refuses to listen?
SENATOR PATRICK: Nothing happens. She's not under penalty to hear or -- we can't -- one thing that you know, and you're a pharmacist, all of us go into a doctor, we can't control every situation between every patient and every pharmacist, every nurse, every doctor, this bill was never intended to force a woman to do something she doesn't want. The bill says the doctor should explain it, but I guess in some situations a woman could say, It's not in the bill, he has to explain it. But we can't force a woman not to tune him out. You know, we speak here on the senate floor, and as we know, sometimes as we're speaking, that people tune us out. I can't control a woman tuning the doctor out. It's probably a 15 second explanation at the most. I don't know. You know, we're not telling the doctor what to say.
SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: And that's my problem.
SENATOR PATRICK: We're just giving the parameters.
SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: If you give the parameters, and so I don't know how the -- how provisions in section six, how their license can be revoked or not renewed for something that you don't have parameters.
SENATOR PATRICK: I know the Texas -- neither do I, that's the Texas medical board. They have to make that decision.
SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: And, Senator, I appreciate, as I'm not going to question your intentions. I know that in dealing with this for the last three sessions but I would hope that -- I imagine that you have the votes to suspend or you wouldn't be bringing it up, but if the real intention here is to protect women and to have more live births, to protect the unborn child, then it is our responsibility to protect that child once that child is born too.
SENATOR PATRICK: I totally agree with you.
SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: And so when we debate the budget, when we start debating things, let's make sure we don't cut 100,000 vaccines like we did two weeks ago. Let's make sure we don't rip preK, let's make sure that we've got health insurance. Because I don't know what it is, but we seem to worship what we cannot see. But as soon as that baby's born, Oh, no, government doesn't want to be intrusive. So maybe we should tell Grover Northwest, Hey, step aside, step aside, Texas is going to shrink government until it fits into a woman's uterus.
SENATOR PATRICK: Do we have any other questions or can we move to suspend the regular bills?
DAVID DEWHURST: For what purpose do you rise, ma'am?
SENATOR NELSON: Was that me?
DAVID DEWHURST: Senator Nelson, yes.
SENATOR NELSON: To --
DAVID DEWHURST: Will Senator Patrick yield to questions?
SENATOR NELSON: The bill author --
SENATOR PATRICK: Yes.
SENATOR NELSON: I have a uterus, Senator. Senator Patrick, there are six women in this Texas Senate, and we each have experienced something that you men have not experienced and that is the joy of feeling a baby inside of us. And wherever you are on this issue -- and, you know, it distresses me a little bit that this issue has gotten to be an abortion issue rather than a sonogram issue. But having said that, there are women in this chamber today who have given life, given birth, there are women who have lost a baby before it was born, there are women in this chamber who have terminated a pregnancy. And it's true, Senator Patrick, that you will never, as a man, know that joy of carrying a child. But you're a father.
SENATOR PATRICK: And a proud grandfather.
SENATOR NELSON: And a proud grandfather. And you probably remember when your wife was pregnant feeling that baby kick and listening to that heartbeat. Now, back in my days sonograms were very primitive. I only had it with one of my children because they thought she was twins, and I'll tell you how primitive it was, they told me she was a boy. But the sonogram that we're talking about, you know, if we get right down to it, and I think maybe we're avoiding talking about why we're doing this, and I'll tell you why I would want to do it. I strongly support your bill because I believe that -- what we're really doing here, yes, sonograms are a standard of care but they also are affirming life. Let's face it, that's why some people support it and some people oppose it. Senator Whitmire, I have held the hand of a girl right after she had an abortion, and I know how hard that decision was. I have also -- I'm old enough that I have held friends who 30 years ago aborted a baby, and 30 years later they still think about that baby every single day. No woman makes that decision lightly, but we're not discussing abortion today. I believe the discussion is whether or not we are going to allow that woman to see and hear that affirmation of life. Because honestly once you see it, that is a baby. The technology today is miraculous. I've gone in with my daughters, and I've seen it. You know, 30 years ago a child that was only six months in utero would never have lived; yet today, every day we're seeing children born and in the neonatal units and they grow up to be strong, healthy children. But once a woman sees that sonogram and hears that heartbeat, she knows that's a baby inside of her. And until that point, some women won't know that. They won't know it. So, you know, while we're dancing around it, let's just get right down to it and say are some people afraid of that, are they afraid for that woman to see or hear that baby because once they do may they decide whatever they need to do, they will do to carry on and bring that baby into the world? And if that's the issue -- and Senator Patrick, I will have to say, you and I are both conservative. Okay? And I will have to say that as conservatives, sometimes we don't think about it. And I know you have been very active in your local pregnancy crisis centers. But if we do show that woman the baby she's carrying inside her, we dadgum better be there to help her take care of that baby once it's brought into this world.
SENATOR PATRICK: Absolutely.
SENATOR NELSON: But Senator, I want to tell you how supportive I am of this and how I know as a man you may not be able to say that you've carried a baby in you, you've felt this. But I have and I will tell you that wherever you are in the whole abortion issue, you need to think about allowing a woman the opportunity to have that affirmation of life before she makes that decision. Thank you, Senator.
SENATOR PATRICK: Thank you, Senator.
DAVID DEWHURST: Senator Gallegos, for what purpose do you rise?
SENATOR GALLEGOS: Ask the author a question.
DAVID DEWHURST: Will Senator Patrick yield?
SENATOR PATRICK: Absolutely, Senator.
SENATOR GALLEGOS: Senator Patrick, and I am a new grandfather, again.
SENATOR PATRICK: Congratulations.
SENATOR GALLEGOS: Thank you.
SENATOR PATRICK: No. 6, correct? No. 6.
SENATOR GALLEGOS: No. 6.
SENATOR PATRICK: I hope to have five.
SENATOR GALLEGOS: But, you know, I've been listening to the debate and I really -- I think in the, you know, past times this bill has come up hadn't really debated, you know, long on it, and then I've listened to Senator Nelson, obviously I can't debate her because I'm not a female and -- but I was listening to Senator Whitmire and Senator Davis and the others that have spoken. And I started looking back, you know, to when I was growing up. I grew up in a very close-knit, very Catholic, Latino community. And there's a lot of cultures in this state that I don't understand but I understand mine and the Latinos on this floor understand what I'm fixing to -- the description that I'm going to give to you, and I want -- and then I'm going to ask you a question. Back in the 50s, and it still happens today in the Latino community, when a young lady got pregnant out of wedlock, she was shunned. She was shunned by the family, and it happened many times in my community. I'm sure it happened in San Antonio and I'm sure it happened in the valley and it goes on right now. It's going on right now as we speak. I can't speak to the other cultures on how they handle unwanted pregnancies or unexpected pregnancies, but I can talk to this because it was right there in -- let's just say in and around our family. And I could tell when the female got pregnant, how she felt. She felt ashamed, she was shunned by her family, and she didn't know what to do and sometimes she was by herself. A lot of times by herself. And you would think, Okay, what am I going to do? Now, I can't think like a female but I can just imagine this young lady out of wedlock, pregnant, Okay, what am I going to do? Am I going to get an abortion and my family take me back in and all this? And she's already thinking about that. I mean, just the trauma in being shunned by her family and friends. And I want to speak in the Latino community. Like I said, I don't understand the other cultures on how they deal with this. But if she makes that decision to go have an abortion and she's already in a traumatic frame of mind, your bill is just adding more trauma into her decision. Now, back then I could tell you for a fact that either it was an abortion or commit suicide, and there was plenty of those. So when I'm asking you, Senator, why, especially when I just explained to you what is happening and is happening in my community, that you would add on an added -- an added trauma to this young lady? She's already being felt shunned by her family and friends and having to go through your procedures here and Heaven knows what she's going to feel having to go through your 24 hour provision and all that. Senator, I'm asking you why would you want to do that to somebody that's already in that frame of mind?
SENATOR PATRICK: Senator, I respect your point of view. I respect your personal history on that. I think for the last hour and a half, I guess, I've pretty much stated my case that I believe a woman seeking an abortion should not be relegated to any less care than anyone else. And if she chooses to, she -- if she chooses to hear the heartbeat, that should be -- she should be entitled to that and that's her choice. And I understand there are members on floor who disagree. I respect your right to disagree, and I know you respect my right to stand on this issue that I believe is so important for Women's Right to Know.
SENATOR GALLEGOS: Senator, I just wanted to point out that when these bills are introduced, that sometimes, you know, those of us that sit on this floor and represent our constituents don't understand the different cultures that your bill is fixing to affect. And I, for one, would not even have tried to delve into the Asian community or -- and I don't know it. In this issue on sonograms or unwanted pregnancies or whatever the issue is. But I just wanted you to know that that's going on as we speak in many of the Latino communities, when a woman is all of a sudden with an unwanted pregnancy and being shunned by her family and friends. Now, there's another -- I got two more questions, Senator. This refers to Senator Whitmire's questioning is: When you go through the process, and you're asking this female, the 24 hour provision and all that, and I'm not talking about Planned Parenthood, I'm talking about all these family clinics that are in all of our districts. You go in, I mean, there's a waiting line, and I've been through -- going back on my checkups, they put you in a room and I don't know what they do as far as sonograms and checkups, they put you in a room, they put you there, they sit you down, they tell you to unrobe and all that. I don't know when they turn the machine on or not. And then the doctor comes back and all of a sudden, well, let's say the nurse has already turned the machine on and she's already seen it without being read, I call it the Miranda act here that you're asking for here, and she's not being -- she has not been read her rights under your bill. What does she do in -- I mean -- and all of a sudden, let's say she's heard the heart and the doctor has yet to read her options here under your bill? I mean, does she -- after he reads it, Wait a minute, I already heard the heart, what does she do? Does she just jump off the table and walk out the door? I mean, who's to blame there?
SENATOR PATRICK: The clinic.
SENATOR GALLEGOS: I didn't hear you, I'm sorry.
SENATOR PATRICK: The clinic would be to blame.
SENATOR GALLEGOS: I mean, there's no provision in here on it that happens. I mean, you know, what's her right, what's her right --
SENATOR PATRICK: We can't write legislation that prevents people from making mistakes in anything that we write, and the clinic is clear under this bill what they should be doing. If they make a miscue, they make a miscue. But just so you know, Senator, and I'm surely not a doctor, but the certified sonographer who will do this sonogram will do it and complete it. She has to be there when they do it obviously, and they're in control of that screen. It's up to them to turn it off, it's up to them to wait for the doctor. Just like they do when you go to the doctor or I go to the doctor. I mean --
SENATOR GALLEGOS: What you're saying to me is it's the clinic's fault. There's no -- does she have any rights on that? Does she sue?
SENATOR PATRICK: Under this bill, she's going to have more rights than she has today.
SENATOR GALLEGOS: Senator, one last question. Nowhere in the bill do I see that these rights or these options that you're asking for are in Spanish or any other language that's appropriate. I mean, I know it's statute you got to have, but it's not in your bill. So I'm asking you, you know, if it does suspend the day that you have in some form or fashion that you put that in your bill.
SENATOR PATRICK: I'm not sure what the code is on that, I'll look at that. Obviously we would address that properly.
SENATOR GALLEGOS: Thank you, Senator.
SENATOR PATRICK: Thank you, Senator.
DAVID DEWHURST: Senator Uresti, for what purpose do you rise, sir?
SENATOR URESTI: To ask the author a question.
DAVID DEWHURST: Will Senator Patrick yield?
SENATOR PATRICK: Yes.
SENATOR URESTI: Thank you, Senator Patrick. You and I have worked for, I guess, the past week, it seems like, trying to get some language they feel comfortable with regarding your bill. And I appreciate the time that you've given me.
SENATOR PATRICK: I appreciate the time you've given me.
SENATOR URESTI: Yes, sir. And, as you know, for the last two sessions, I voted to suspend on this issue. And I have concerns about this bill as it came out of committee, as you know, but nonetheless, I've been consistent not only on my vote but also on my position with regard to sonograms and also my concern about victims of incest or sexual assault, both adult women and, of course, children, as you know. And the other concern that I've had about the bill is the 24 hour waiting period that was offered, I understand as an amendment last Friday in committee, particularly given the size of my district, you know we kid about that often, but notwithstanding the fact that my district is the largest in Texas, there's not one single clinic in my district. An area of 55,000 square miles. So the burden -- 24 hour waiting period would be extreme. And so given those concerns that I have, which I intend to offer, and I intend to offer an amendment later which addresses those two concerns.
SENATOR PATRICK: Which I agreed to accept, we've talked to you.
SENATOR URESTI: Right. And that was going to be one of my questions, Senator Patrick, and so the members would know what my concerns were, primarily, we had other issues. But my two primary concerns being victims of abuse and sexual assault rather; and two, the hour waiting period. So the amendment that I'm going to offer that I think you have reviewed and my question to you will be, will you accept this amendment as a condition of my vote to suspend the regular order of business?
SENATOR PATRICK: Absolutely, Senator.
SENATOR URESTI: And also, Senator Patrick, you have given me your word and your handshake, which I appreciate and I honor that, will you stand firm on the amendment that I will offer; is that correct?
SENATOR PATRICK: Yes. I think as we discussed on the amendment where we took care of the issue you were concerned about, women being sexually attacked, absolutely. On the issue of 24 to two, I don't think we did have a discussion. Is it possible to tweak four hours or six hours, I can't control that. And I thought we would work together because it says at least two. And if someone in the House says it's at least four, you have my commitment, we're working together on this. So you and I will make that happen and I would -- I would ask that you would be on the conference committee with me.
SENATOR URESTI: Well, hopefully that will be the case. But just so we're clear, Senator Patrick, I want to be clear, like I've said, we have spent hours and hours on this.
SENATOR PATRICK: We have.
SENATOR URESTI: In trying to tweak that language, so this speaks specifically to the amendment that I'm going to offer that deals with victims of abuse, of sexual assault and incest.
SENATOR PATRICK: I will not change what you and I have agreed to.
SENATOR URESTI: Because we've struggled hard to find language that I think doesn't make us happy but more importantly addresses those victims and the trauma that one, they've already gone through; and then two, not having to go through the explanation of the sonogram.
SENATOR PATRICK: Yes. I'm glad you brought that to me. I think it's a very good -- as I told you yesterday, I thought it was a very valid point that you made and it was a good catch.
SENATOR URESTI: And then secondly, the amendment will address striking the 24 hour waiting period.
SENATOR PATRICK: Right.
SENATOR URESTI: And reducing it to two. And I just want to be clear that for this purpose, that we're going to stand firm on the two hours. I understand that there may be amendments that the House may try to attach, we can't control the amendments that they want to put back on there. But as the bill comes back over here and we've worked hard on this language, as you know, we've struggled with it and that our understanding our agreement is that we will stand firm on that two hour waiting period.
SENATOR PATRICK: Well, again, I thought we had talked about a little flexibility on that. If you are saying today that you want to absolutely lock in at least two hours, that's the language and that's what you're saying on the floor, it's better that we have these conversations off the floor, but if that's your understanding, then I will make that commitment. Carlos, you have been -- you have been shoulder to shoulder with me as a freshman in Health and Human Services, where this first bill was filed. Anyone who goes to your web site, Proverbs 29:18 leads your web site. It is clear that your heart is a godly heart, you're a godly man who cares about children and the reason you spent so many hours, precious hours, during these busy times to work with us on this bill, and I know sometimes pressure gets on all of us to vote for or against something, you stood tall because you want to do the right thing and I will stand by you to make sure we do the right thing together.
SENATOR URESTI: Thank you. And I appreciate that. And because we've worked hard, I just want to be sure to the folks that I've represented to on this issue that we're going to stand tall on that waiver or reduction of the 24 hours to two hours. So I appreciate that.
SENATOR PATRICK: Thank you. And I think it's important, Senator, for us as a Senate body, when we pass a particularly major legislation but any legislation, when we pass significant legislation from this body to the House, that they respect the will of the Senate and know that we stand together. Even when we choose to agree to disagree, we stand together as 31. And so when we speak as one voice, I hope the Senate will be respected. At the same time, we understand there are a lot of people with their own visions, their own ideas, and there may be some good amendments that we may agree to. I've talked to other members. But on these issues I hang with you, we're not going to materially change the bill. And I hope the House, Jeanie Morrison has this bill, 60-some sponsors, the Speaker suggested she should be the person to carry this bill last summer. I hope they will take this bill. They have a committee hearing next week on multiple bills. I hope they will take this bill as is, if there's some positive amendments they want to add, we'll welcome them, we'll discuss them, bring this bill back with two-thirds vote in the House and two-thirds vote in the Senate, this bill can become law immediately or as soon as we can -- you know, there's some planning time and this can be at the governor's desk and we can start to impact Women's Right to Know immediately. You've got my commitment, Senator.
SENATOR URESTI: Well, I appreciate that. It's just when people talk about or you go buy a car and they say, How much was that car, it's $5,000 more or less. Well, is it more or is it less? And so when we say it's two hours, more or less, I just want to be sure that it's two hours. And so I guess my last question to you, Senator Patrick, and you eluded to it, just to be sure notwithstanding those amendments, some may be good, some may be bad, we may agree to them, but that you agree that you own it, you will not accept the amendment that will undermine not only my amendment but the intent of the bill that the body is voting to suspend.
SENATOR PATRICK: Absolutely. Look, I like this bill. This is the best bill we've passed in the three sessions, and it's because it's been a collaboration of you, Senator Van de Putte, even though I assume she's voting against the bill, but we've gotten suggestions and help and ideas and wisdom and counsel and the hand of God. You know, so often in life we try to do things on our timing, there's the hand of God right there with the cry of a baby who says vote for this bill, let's get it moving, let's get the 24 votes to suspend it -- but life is about God's timing, not our timing. This bill wasn't ripe in 2007 and obviously wasn't ripe in 2009, and this is God's time to pass this bill.
SENATOR URESTI: Thank you.
SENATOR PATRICK: Thank you.
DAVID DEWHURST: Senator Deuell, for what purpose do you rise, sir?
SENATOR DEUELL: Ask the author questions.
DAVID DEWHURST: Will Senator Patrick yield?
SENATOR PATRICK: Yes.
SENATOR DEUELL: Thank you, Senator Patrick. We've heard lots of emotional testimony from heartfelt people about this issue, and I've been taking notes and just wanted to ask you some questions to clarify. Let's go back to the original intent of the bill. Would you state that, please?
SENATOR PATRICK: Yes. The intent of the bill is that a woman has all the information that I believe she's entitled to before she makes a decision that cannot be reversed.
SENATOR DEUELL: So it's about informed consent?
SENATOR PATRICK: Yes, sir.
SENATOR DEUELL: Not just a sonogram.
SENATOR PATRICK: Yes.
SENATOR DEUELL: Senator Van de Putte, you're exactly right. It mystifies me how some people can be so concerned about a baby prior to birth and then not concerned, and I think that is reason to think about we do in this session as we go forward, not with this bill, with other bills. And, Senator Whitmire, I think you'd agree Senator Patrick is correct that it's a tough decision for a woman to have an abortion.
SENATOR PATRICK: Absolutely.
SENATOR DEUELL: And I have spoken to women just before and just after. I've spoken to women in all stages after an abortion. Some of the women that I've counseled, and some have been very, very young. Teenage pregnancies are sometimes very tragic. In the course of my obstetrical career I delivered a girl as young as 12 and a half years of age who kept the baby. So I take care of these people, and I understand the decisions. They understand that I'm pro-life and I've counseled and some have made the decision to keep the baby and others have not. I don't do abortions, I don't refer to abortion clinics, but these women have come back to me afterwards and it's a tough decision. I have seen women, as perhaps you've talked to, that have regretted that decision. Some because they were not given proper informed consent. They were not aware of the development of the baby, they found out later it's not taught particularly well anywhere in schools. I think you would agree -- agree to that. And with our popular culture and sometimes a face, if you will, to Senator Whitmire's, not put on the baby. You talked with TMA, I suspect, about the patient/physician relationship and it is sacred. But as you mentioned earlier, and we've discussed earlier, that this is the only medical procedure where the object is to kill a human being. And so we have an obligation, I think, to protect the woman and under some of our laws currently we protect an unborn child. We do it through injury to a baby before it's born, we pay for prenatal care. And yes, abortion is illegal, I think that's unfortunate -- or abortion is legal, and I think that's unfortunate, but I think we do, as a state and as a people, have an obligation to protect the baby up to that point. The fact is, is that many, many abortion clinics don't give proper informed consent. I think you found that out. Is that right, Senator Patrick? Perhaps some do. We don't know. There aren't records out there that we can check. Virtually everything in my medical clinic is subject to review by a multitude of individuals in terms of reviewing my records, looking at informed consent. It can be -- I can be sanctioned by the Texas medical board for not giving proper informed consent even for taking off a mole, a benign mole. A medical -- or abortion is not health care. Doing an abortion is a violation of the original Hippocratic oath. They've taken that out. They took it out when we took that oath when I graduated from med school in 1983. They left that part out. But in the original Hippocratic oath it is there. So where do we go from here? This is actually the vote that we're doing to suspend the two-thirds most important vote of this bill because this takes the most votes to get. A serious decision. The state of Texas, Senator Whitmire's involved because of safety to the mother, I can't imagine -- I did DNCs, I didn't do abortions -- doing a procedure on the uterus without having a sonogram. Now, it is left to the discretion of the doctor by ACOG and other entities, but sometimes the position of the uterus can be abnormal, sometimes the uterus can be malformed. Sometimes when you hear about complications in abortion, that's why. And I suspect that a proper sonogram was not done. And I'll close, many of you remember Henry Hyde, the great congressman from Illinois when discussing partial birth abortions said, Can we not draw the line at torture. But we're not talking about that. What I would think, Senator Patrick, that can we not give the mother all the information and can we not take all means to provide for her safety? And can we not at least give the baby at least one more chance for survival by giving that mother that information? That's what this bill does. And thank you for filing the bill.
SENATOR PATRICK: Thank you, Dr. Deuell. You're well respected among the members. Your wisdom, your guidance, your counsel, your experience and your integrity. Thank you.
DAVID DEWHURST: Senator Lucio, for what purpose do you rise?
SENATOR LUCIO: Will the gentlemen yield?
DAVID DEWHURST: Will Senator Patrick yield?
SENATOR PATRICK: Yes, I will.
SENATOR LUCIO: Senator Patrick, I want to thank you for not giving up on your bill. I know I'm sitting here, and I'm reminiscing the three sessions I had to go through to be able to pass life without parole with the help of my fellow senators. And I know you've worked very diligently on this particular issue. I, as you well know, I'm pro-life. Abortion is not morally acceptable to me and my family, but I do believe that people should comprehend the enormity of their choices. A lot has been said, I'll be as brief as I can.
SENATOR PATRICK: Take all the time you wish. Senator, you've earned it, you've been with me since day one.
SENATOR LUCIO: Well, I think that with the last 24 years I've seen a lot, I've heard a lot, and I've been able to be -- have been involved in a lot of pieces of legislation that really is pro-life legislation. I remember the .08 bill that Senator Gallegos carried, you know, for breath -- for Governor Bush. You know, he was trying to save lives. I didn't think bringing it down 2/100ths of a percent would do the trick. I really don't think that's the direction we should have taken with that bill, so I didn't support it for that reason. I wanted to make sure we punish people if they were way beyond the .10 and got behind the wheel and killed somebody and we do that. People go to prison for killing somebody if they had too much to drink. They break the law. Now, unfortunately in this country it's okay to have an abortion. Since 1973 on. And I don't agree with that, but it's the law. But I think we should make the effort that you're making. We should try, as Senator Deuell just said, if it makes a difference to one -- and I was wrong back then when I didn't support the .08, I did the following session because I thought if it saves one life, it's good enough for me. This bill saves one life. That's wonderful. The fact is statistics don't lie. There's literally millions of abortions going on each year in our own state. I told Senator Shapiro that I would really like to see the definition of abortion, it really needs to be looked at. A miscarriage is considered an abortion, and I don't think it should be considered an abortion because that's a natural thing that unfortunately happens. Even though I'm one of ten kids, my mother had a couple of miscarriages, I should be one of 12 or 13 and I would have been even happier standing here on this Senate floor here today. I think the point I want to make is this. If we have a law that sends a person in the state of Texas to prison for getting behind the wheel for drinking too much and killing someone, we send them to prison and punish them, the least we can do is have a law in our state that attempts to save lives without punishing people. We're not punishing anybody with this bill. No one's getting hurt. But I do want to finish with this, Senator Patrick, members, what I want to see this session is bigger than this bill. What I want to see in this session is a pro-life budget. One that saves lives from the concession -- conception to natural birth. One that safeguards life at its fullest -- fullness. That is what's important to me, as I sit as a member of the finance committee and I hear their testimonials and the witnesses that come forth and share with us their needs. It's a matter of life and death for so many in our state that we don't do the right thing. Senator Ogden said it beautifully this morning, we will be criticized for our actions and we will be, you know, spat at maybe but we try to stand up for those that can't stand up for themselves. We try to fight for the rights of those that can't be here to fight for themselves or speak for themselves. I respect people's opinions. What they shared here, I think, comes from the heart. Senator Whitmire's one of those that speak from the heart and others who really believe in their position. So I am not going to be critical of how we stand on this bill, I can only tell you what I feel, what I think and what the direction I feel we should have and test end of this session, I truly hope members, that we can have a pro-life budget that truly directs us in making sure we address the needs of the people of our great state. I congratulate you on your bill, I urge you not to water it down. I don't want to vote for a bill that's watered down. I want it to be a meaningful will. One that will save lives in the future.
SENATOR PATRICK: Senator, again, thank you for your strong stand from the first time I met you, and just as I have given my word to others, that we're not going to have a bill come back on steroids, we're not going to have a bill come back watered down either. We want this to be the heart of the bill and I also -- you were there, you gave a great prayer today, message to lieutenant governor, Senator Ogden did. And as I listened to Senator Ogden today, a thought occurred to me. He's a man of great capability, and he's a man with a great heart, and the budget will reflect both, I'm sure. And the one thing you learn about this body for folks who have the privilege to be inside the brass rail is that even though we may disagree from time to time, there will be people who disagree on this bill, people who disagree on another bill, there's not a member who sits at a desk in here who really doesn't care about the people of Texas, the poorest of the poor, the most needy, and that Texas can be assured of. Thank you, Senator.
DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator. Members, Senator Patrick moves to suspend the Senate for its regular order of business to take up and consider committee substitute to Senate bill 16. The secretary will call the roll.
PATSY SPAW: Birdwell, Carona, Davis, Deuell, Duncan, Ellis, Eltife, Estes, Fraser, Gallegos, Harris, Hegar, Hinojosa, Huffman, Jackson, Lucio, Nelson, Nichols, Ogden, Patrick, Rodriguez, Seliger, Shapiro, Uresti, Van de Putte, Watson, Wentworth, west, Whitmire, Williams, Zaffirini.
DAVID DEWHURST: Members, there being 21 ayes and 10 nays, the rule is suspended. The Chair lays out a second reading, the committee substitute to Senate Bill 16. The secretary will read the caption.
PATSY SPAW: Senate bill 16 relating to informed consent to an abortion.
DAVID DEWHURST: The Chair lays out the following floor amendment, Floor Amendment No. 1 by Senator Deuell. The secretary will read the amendment.
PATSY SPAW: Floor Amendment No. 1 by Deuell. Under CSB No. 16 in section two of the bill and added section 171.012(A)(4)(D.
DAVID DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Deuell on Floor Amendment 1.
SENATOR DEUELL: Thank you, Mr. President, members. This is more of a clarification amendment than any substantial change. It just adds a section to -- to insert the phrase, "The physician who is to perform the abortion or the agent of the physician is also a sonographer certified by a national registry of medical sonographers." Many physicians do not do the actual sonogram themselves, some do, depending on their experience, training and desire. But this just allows a physician doing a sonogram in this case to allow a certified sonographer to do that and then it would be, of course, reviewed by the physician later and before the procedure as for this bill.
DAVID DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Patrick on Floor Amendment 1.
SENATOR PATRICK: Thank you, Mr. President. This amendment is acceptable to the author, and I would urge members to support it.
DAVID DEWHURST: Members, you've heard the motion by Senator Deuell. Is there objection from any member? Do we have objection from any member? There being no objection from any member the amendment, Floor Amendment No. 1 is adopted. Chair lays out Floor Amendment No. 2 by Senator Uresti. The secretary will read the caption.
PATSY SPAW: Floor Amendment Number No. 2 by Uresti amends CSB No. 16 by pristine as follows: In section 20 -- in section two of the bill strike 24 and substitute two.
DAVID DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Patrick on Floor Amendment No. 2.
SENATOR PATRICK: Senator Uresti you mean? Recognize Senator Uresti.
DAVID DEWHURST: I'm sorry.
SENATOR PATRICK: And can I get a copy from staff? I don't have a copy.
DAVID DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Uresti on Floor Amendment 2. We'll let you explain your own amendment, Senator.
SENATOR URESTI: Thank you, Mr. President, members. As I mentioned earlier in my comments, you know, the bill that passed out of committee was not a bill that I could fully support and I had serious concerns regarding the protections in that previous version to the bill for women, both adults and children, who had been victims of sexual assault or incest and as a result became pregnant. So this amendment before you will provide protections for those women who have become pregnant because of those unfortunate and extreme circumstances. As we all know, members, the fact is that most rapes are never reported. In fact, rape is the violent crime least often reported to law enforcement. According to the 2005 U.S. Department of Justice national crime victimization study, only 38.3 percent of all rapes are reported to police. That number is even worse when the rape victim is a child, with only 12 percent of those rapes reported to law firm. And of course, members, while we should strive to see that every instance of rape or sexual assault is reported to authorities, there are many, many reasons why a woman may choose not to involve law enforcement. A major factor in that is that 73 percent of the time the rapist is someone known to the victim. So it's important that we treat these victims differently based on their decision to seek help or not to seek help from law enforcement, and this amendment addresses that issue. It will amend -- this bill as amended will allow women who have been sexually assaulted to avoid unnecessary hardship by allowing women who have been sexually assaulted to avoid unnecessary hardship by allowing them an alternative to filing a police report required under the previous version of the bill. The amended bill will also allow women to avoid the hardships of returning to their provider on two separate occasions by allowing the woman to receive the required notifications by telephone rather than in person and also to eliminate the 24 hour waiting period and reduce it to at least two hours. With that, Mr. President, I move adoption of Floor Amendment No. 2.
SENATOR PATRICK: Mr. President, this amendment is acceptable to the author. And, again, thank you, Senator Uresti, for working with me on this. And I urge members to support it.
DAVID DEWHURST: If you'll hold just a moment. I've just been informed by the parliamentarian that the wrong Floor Amendment had been passed out. If you'd approach the podium, Senator Uresti. Senators, we have some redundant language in this so if you'd just stand, we're going to stand at ease for just a moment. Just a paragraph which is redundant. (At ease.)
DAVID DEWHURST: Members, the Senate will come to order. There was a redundant paragraph and Senator Uresti pulls down Floor Amendment No. 2. You're being distributed right now Floor Amendment No. 3. Floor Amendment No. 3. And so the chair's going to recognize Senator Uresti on this new amendment which is identical other than the redundant paragraph. Chair recognizes Senator Uresti on Floor Amendment No. 3. Excuse me -- excuse me, the Chair lays out Floor Amendment No. 3 the secretary will read the caption.
PATSY SPAW: Floor amendment No. 3 by Uresti. Amendment CSSB No. 16 as follows.
DAVID DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Uresti to explain Floor Amendment No. 3, and I'm going to go to you right after this.
SENATOR URESTI: Thank you, Mr. President, members. I apologize for that drafting error. Simply what we did is struck -- in the amendment you have before you, we struck paragraph three which was a redundant part of the amendment requires that notice be given to the woman before receiving the sonogram -- for those women that are victims of rape and incest that we spoke about earlier in order to be exempt from the description of the sonogram. And that is what was strucken (sic) from this amendment compared to the amendment that I laid out before. There are other changes, like I said previously, strike the 24 hour waiting period and restore the original two hour waiting period, as was last stated in the original bill, and also restores the language regarding telephonic communication which was again in the original bill by Senator Patrick. With that members, I move to -- for adoption of Floor Amendment No. 3.
DAVID DEWHURST: Senator Hinojosa, for what purpose do you rise, sir?
SENATOR HINOJOSA: Will the gentleman yield?
DAVID DEWHURST: Will Senator Uresti yield?
SENATOR URESTI: Yes, sir, I yield.
SENATOR HINOJOSA: I guess I'm a little bit confused on what -- which amendment we're on. The one that I have here talks about -- you look at page No. 2 and then -- or No. 5 up on top "I elect to receive" -- "not receive a verbal explanation of the sonogram images, check one of the following."
DAVID DEWHURST: Senator Hinojosa, the correct amendment, Floor Amendment No. 3 has 20 lines. It has 20 lines. The previous one had 22 lines on the first page.
SENATOR HINOJOSA: Well, I have both here, the one that's been passed out.
DAVID DEWHURST: We'll distribute it.
SENATOR HINOJOSA: I will ask a question, Mr. President.
DAVID DEWHURST: Would you like another copy of Floor Amendment No. 3?
SENATOR HINOJOSA: No, I have the amendment. I think the explanation that I heard didn't quite correlate with the language in the amendment. But if I will, I guess, Senator Uresti, on page No. 2 the section says that "Because I am pregnant as a result of a sexual assault, incest or other violation of the Texas Penal Code, it has been reported to law enforcement authorities or has not been reported, because I reasonably believe that doing so will put me at risk of retaliation or result in serious bodily injury." What does that mean?
SENATOR URESTI: Well, what we're trying to do, Senator Hinojosa, is my concern, again, was for those individuals that have been sexually assaulted or victims of incest. We didn't -- I didn't feel comfortable with having to put them through the trauma of going through the sonogram and the doctor explaining to that victim the -- or articulating to the victim the sonogram and so I thought they should be exempted from having go through that trauma once again. And so we came up with, we tried to come up with language so that that woman wouldn't have to be stigmatized, one; not have to go through that trauma again, two.
SENATOR HINOJOSA: But they'll still be able to see the sonogram, right?
SENATOR URESTI: If she chooses to. If she chooses to.
SENATOR HINOJOSA: Okay. So --
SENATOR URESTI: It doesn't change the viewing or the hearing part of it. She still has the ability to choose to not to view it or hear it. This simply goes to the explanation of the sonogram.
SENATOR HINOJOSA: Okay. So I guess if a woman comes in and she's been raped, she can elect not to see the sonogram?
SENATOR URESTI: She can elect not to see the sonogram, hear the sonogram or the --
SENATOR HINOJOSA: Verbal.
SENATOR URESTI: -- verbal from the doctor.
SENATOR HINOJOSA: Okay. And it says here that -- or if it has not been reported "because I reasonably believe that doing so would put me at risk or a retaliation" and on, will anyone verify that?
SENATOR URESTI: No.
SENATOR HINOJOSA: You will take her at her word?
SENATOR URESTI: We take it at her word. Again, going back to the comments I made earlier about how many rapes are unreported for many different reasons. Women are probably mostly fear of -- they fare of retaliation, they're humiliated, they're embarrassed and that's why we try to leave that language as vague as possible so they wouldn't once again feel that humiliation of the assault. And so to your question specifically, Senator Hinojosa, and that's a very good question. There's nothing to requiring anyone to verify the fact that she'd been assaulted. That's why I put the language in there that states that has been reported or has not been reported.
SENATOR HINOJOSA: Okay. So there's no penalties?
SENATOR URESTI: Absolutely not.
SENATOR HINOJOSA: Okay. And she doesn't have to swear to it?
SENATOR URESTI: No, sir.
SENATOR HINOJOSA: Okay. Thank you.
SENATOR URESTI: Thank you.
DAVID DEWHURST: Senator Van de Putte, for what purpose do you rise?
SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: To ask the author of the amendment a question.
DAVID DEWHURST: Will Senator Uresti yield?
SENATOR URESTI: I yield to my friend Senator Van de Putte.
SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Thank you, Senator Uresti. And let me thank you because I think your passion particularly for women who are victims of violence is certainly well known in our community in San Antonio and thank you very much for, I think, including those women in a mechanism. My question has to do within the previous version of the bill, we did not have a certification. We did not have a form that would have an election. It was just some statements. My question relates, and maybe you can answer it and maybe Senator Patrick can, since now, we are providing a form about the election to view or not to view and expanding the criteria of women who can refuse not to hear the description but still must undergo the sonogram. Where is this record kept of the election of what you're putting, where is this going to be?
SENATOR URESTI: And I'll yield to Senator Patrick because I don't want to guess, but my understanding is that would be kept in the doctor's medical records. But I'll yield to Senator Patrick, Senator Van de Putte, because I don't know the exact answer.
SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: And my question is we have several reporting requirements of facilities, as I passed the bill in -- when I was in the House, greatly restricting and really adding the types of reporting that the facilities or that any provider would have to do. So my question is where does this go? Is it in the woman's medical records? Is this part of data that would be collected by the Department of Self Services since we are adding in an election? And we have in other parts of the code the types of circumstances, everything? Do you know?
SENATOR DAN PATRICK: Right. The only record that we're keeping now is the medical emergency record. Right.
SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Where does this record go?
SENATOR DAN PATRICK: It would be either kept by the doctor, would not be sent to the state.
SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: So you can assure me that this new election that the woman will have to certify will only be in that woman's medical records held either at the facility or at the physician and not sent to disclosure by this Department of State Health Services or any other state agency?
SENATOR URESTI: It's a great question, Senator Van de Putte, and perhaps we need to clarify it via amendment. But it's always my intent, which is the reason I drafted this language, for there not to be disclosure. Hence, the reason we drafted this language regarding the fact that the woman did not have to file a police report because I didn't feel that she needed to go through that. So that would be my intent, and you can ask Senator Patrick to confirm that.
SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: In certain medical procedures and certain consent, the woman is given a copy just -- in just other surgical procedures, so it's not your intent to require that the woman have a copy of this or is this going to be part of the informed consent that she gets back?
SENATOR DAN PATRICK: No, it's not in the bill, it's not addressed. It's not going to be given.
SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Thank you. And it's your intention, and if during the process -- I just wanted to clarify it and make sure this election, this form which was not in the bill that we talked about, that this stays in the patient's medical record.
SENATOR URESTI: Yes. And that's my intent. And just to qualify my answer, Dr. Deuell informed me that there may be an occasion where those records are submitted to the Texas medical board for other reasons. But just to be specific in answering your question, but other than that, it's certainly my intent that there be no recording requirement which was the whole reason, the trust behind what I was trying to accomplish here.
SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Thank you, Senator, and I appreciate this and I will gladly vote for your amendment.
SENATOR URESTI: Thank you, Senator Van de Putte.
DAVID DEWHURST: Mr. -- just a moment, Senator Davis, for what purpose do you rise?
SENATOR DAVIS: To ask the author of the amendment a question.
DAVID DEWHURST: Will Senator Uresti yield?
SENATOR URESTI: I gladly yield to my friend Senator Davis.
SENATOR DAVIS: Thank you, Senator Uresti. I appreciate your intention with your amendment, but I have a concern as I'm reading it that I don't think is an intention that you have, but I'm afraid that it may be a consequence. Right now the form that's provided to the woman clarifies for her that she understands that she has the right to view the sonogram image. She understands that she has the right to hear the heart auscultation. Later on in Senator Patrick's bill, it indicates that a woman has the right not to see the sonogram and not to hear the heart auscultation, but there's nowhere on this form that's informing her that that's the case. So my question is if we haven't clarified how that is to be imparted to her, how that knowledge is to be imparted to her? How can we be sure that it's going to happen? And it seems to me that the election statement that you have prior to not receiving the verbal explanation should also be added not with the categories, of course, because all women have the right not to see and hear, but that election statement should also be added to your paragraphs three and four. "I understand that I have a right to view or not view the sonogram images. I understand that I have a right to hear or not hear the heart auscultations." and the woman should be able to sign an election indicating what her choice is in that regard. If that's the intention of the bill. And it's my understanding from Senator Patrick's statements that it is, and from your statement that that's what you're trying to make sure that you ensure, I don't think it's happening yet in this amendment, and I would ask if we can amend your amendment in order to achieve that goal that I think you both have.
SENATOR PATRICK: I think it would be redundant. I think it's clear in the bill. She has a right to -- without an exception, Senator. I just don't think we need it, and I'm always happy to have belt with suspenders because my intent is my intent. And Senator Uresti and I are together on this but the bill already clearly says you don't have to have any reason not to view or not to see. I don't think we need to duplicate this again.
SENATOR DAVIS: Well, members, all, please I want us to pay very close attention to this question. It's a very important question, and I think a number of you who voted to suspend on this bill voted to suspend because you believed that women were going to be given the right not to see the sonogram and the right not to hear the heart auscultation. It doesn't do any good for that language to be in a bill that passes into law if it doesn't wind up in the woman's hand informing her that she has that right. And the way the bill is written right now, Senator Patrick, with all due respect, and I do respect you, I do not believe that simply because it's written in the bill that the woman has that right, if it's not provided to her in the form that she is signing, how will we ever be assured that she's made aware of it and that she's given the opportunity to elect under the intention of your bill?
SENATOR PATRICK: This will be added in the printed materials that the abortion clinic or abortion provider -- she already receives a list. This will be additional information on the list.
SENATOR DAVIS: What is it in your bill that tells us that's the case? And why, if we're giving a woman a form, and making sure she understands that she has the right to view and the right to hear --
SENATOR PATRICK: Senator, on page --
SENATOR DAVIS: Excuse me, I'm asking a question. Why when we're giving her this form that's telling her she has the right to view and the right to hear are we not willing to also on the same form tell her that she has the right not to view and not to hear? Why is that a problem?
SENATOR PATRICK: It's not a problem, Senator. I believe it's addressed in the bill on line -- on page 263, "viewing printed materials and sonogram image, hearing heart, verbal explanation. A pregnant woman may choose not to see the printed materials provided under the section after she has been provided the materials." She's going to be provided printed materials that say she has a right not to view and not to hear.
SENATOR DAVIS: It also says, Senator Patrick, to my two points about the right not to view the sonogram and not to hear the heart auscultations. If you go to line 68, "A pregnant woman may choose not to view the sonogram images required to be provided to and reviewed with the pregnant woman under section 171." "A pregnant woman may choose not to hear the heart auscultation required to be provided to and reviewed with the pregnant woman under section 171." But nowhere does it indicate that she's going to be given written materials that inform her that she has those rights.
SENATOR PATRICK: Well, and it's left -- it's left to the abortion clinic. This is the law, a doctor may decide he wants to personally inform her of that and the abortion clinic may decide they want to print that on their list. A doctor may say, Under law, I have to perform a sonogram, you have a right not to see it or not to hear it. So we're giving that choice to that clinic to decide do they want to inform her -- if anything, I might be the one saying, Gee, I wish we'd tightened that because what if the doctor doesn't say it, we expect him to follow the law. And so it can either be print or it can be communicated verbally.
SENATOR DAVIS: Senator Uresti, your amendment is the amendment on the floor and it is what my question pertains to. And I'm asking as a courtesy for the concerns that I have and, I think, the intent of this body as it voted to suspend the rules and bring this to the floor, the intention was to give women the opportunity to decline. And I'm asking if you would be willing to amend your amendment to incorporate that understanding.
SENATOR URESTI: Senator Davis, what I would like to do, if Mr. President would allow us, a couple of minutes so we can confer on this issue. And I see where you're coming from and I understand where there could be some inconsistency between those elections.
DAVID DEWHURST: Senator Uresti temporarily pulls down Floor Amendment No. 3. The Chair lays out Floor Amendment No. 4 by Senator Harris. The secretary will read the amendment.
PATSY SPAW: Floor amendment No. 4 by Harris. In CSSB No. 16 by adding the following appropriately numbered section to the bill.
SENATOR HARRIS: Members, all this does is separability clause into the act. Move adoption.
SENATOR PATRICK: The amendment is acceptable to the author. Thank you, Senator Harris.
DAVID DEWHURST: Members, you've heard the motion by Senator Harris.
SENATOR PATRICK: Oh --
SENATOR LUCIO: I apologize, Mr. President, I --
DAVID DEWHURST: Excuse me.
SENATOR LUCIO: We had not received a copy of the amendment, so just give me the chance to read it, see what it is.
DAVID DEWHURST: Of course. Of course. Has not a copy of Floor Amendment No. 4 been passed out? All right. You just got it?
SENATOR LUCIO: Thank you, Mr. President.
SENATOR HARRIS: Is that okay?
SENATOR LUCIO: Yes.
DAVID DEWHURST: Members, Senator Harris moves adoption of Floor Amendment No. 4. It's acceptable to the author, Senator Patrick. Is there objection from any member? Is there objection from any member? The Chair hears no objection from any member, and Floor Amendment No. 4 is adopted. The Senate will come to order. The Chair lays out the following Floor Amendment, Floor Amendment No. 5 by Senator Davis. The secretary will read the amendment. Has Floor Amendment 5 been passed out? Okay.
PATSY SPAW: Floor Amendment No. 5 by Davis. Amend CSSB No. 16 by striking all the (inaudible) language clause and substituting the following.
DAVID DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Davis to explain Floor Amendment 5.
SENATOR DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. President. Floor Amendment 5 is a reflection of the bill that circulated through the House last session. It's actually a stricter bill than the bill that passed from the Senate floor last session. Last session the sonogram bill that passed on the senate floor was a permissive sonogram bill. When it went to the House it was changed to a mandatory one. This bill exactly mirrors the bill in the House making the sonogram mandatory. Senator Nelson, you said earlier that this isn't a question of abortion rights, this is a question about sonograms. And I agree with you. Is that right? Patrick said this is about entitling women to information. Senator Nelson. you talked about this allowing the opportunity for a woman to make an informed choice. And what this amendment does, which again is a reflection, an exact duplication of the Republican bill, a mandatory sonogram bill that came from the House last session. It requires that the sonogram be performed, and then it has three simple election provisions. Those election provisions provided opportunity for the woman to elect to see or not see the ultrasound. To elect to hear or not hear the ultrasound. To elect to receive or not receive a verbal explanation of the ultrasound results. It gives all women exclusive opportunity to elect or not elect on each of those. It does not create a special category of women who may elect or not elect to receive the verbal explanation of the ultrasound results. I believe this bill, again, models -- exactly mirrors exactly a Republican bill from the House last session that is stricter than the bill that passed off of this senate floor last session. Incorporates the intentions that Senator Patrick states are his intentions, what he's trying to do with this bill to make sure that women have the absolute right to see a sonogram, the absolute right to hear the heart auscultation, the absolute right to receive a verbal explanation of the ultrasound results. All of that is incorporated here, and it avoids the complications that I think we find ourselves in as we're talking about the amendments that are passing around the senate floor today. I am willing to support this mandatory bill, and I'm willing to support it because it gives women the election rights that I think hopefully most of us on the floor will agree are important to her. She is being made aware of the procedures, informed consent is incorporated in this bill. Again, a Republican bill from the House last session, stricter than the bill that passed off the senate floor last session. And I would move approval of this Floor Amendment.
DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Davis. The Chair recognizes Senator Patrick on Floor Amendment 5.
SENATOR PATRICK: Yes, Mr. President, this amendment, members, is not acceptable to the author and I move to table this amendment.
DAVID DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Davis to close.
SENATOR DAVIS: In closing, thank you, Mr. President. I would ask us to refrain from making our votes on this issue on a partisan basis. I would ask us to think about what our state's intentions are in passing this legislation, and I would ask us to consider the impact that the legislation will have in the lives of women across the state of Texas. We have an opportunity to respect the impact that this legislation has on the rights of those women by giving them the ability to elect or not to elect. The intention of informed consent is incorporated here. Again, last session this was supported in a partisan way, primarily by Republicans in the House and Senate alike. It was sufficient two years ago because it made sonograms mandatory, so the intention of informed consent is realized. It allows the woman to make a decision on whether she intends to receive that information, and I think it incorporates the heart of what we say we are intending to do today, and I'm asking your support on this amendment. Thank you, Mr. President.
DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Davis. Members, you've heard the motion by Senator Davis, you've heard the -- I'm sorry, you've heard the motion by Senator Patrick to table. The secretary will call the roll.
PATSY SPAW: Mr. Birdwell, Carona, Davis, Deuell, Duncan, Ellis, Eltife, Estes, Fraser, Gallegos, Harris, Hegar, Hinojosa, Huffman, Jackson, Lucio, Nelson, Nichols, Ogden, Patrick, Rodriguez, Seliger, Shapiro, Uresti, Van de Putte, Watson, Wentworth, west, Whitmire, Williams, Zaffirini.
DAVID DEWHURST: There being 22 ayes and nays, the motion to table prevails. Do we have -- Senator Patrick, is there a solution on Floor Amendment 3? Members, the Senate will stand at ease for about three or four minutes. Members we're in the process of passing out Floor Amendment No. 6, which will be an amendment to Floor Amendment No. 3. Senator Davis on the floor. Okay. Let you review this Senator Uresti. The Chair lays out Floor Amendment No. 6 by Senator Uresti. The secretary will read the amendment.
PATSY SPAW: Floor Amendment No. 6 by Uresti amending Floor Amendment No. 3.
DAVID DEWHURST: Chair recognizes -- Senator Davis, I think that reflects what you -- but I'm going to go to Uresti first. The Chair recognizes Senator Uresti on Floor Amendment -- to explain Floor Amendment 6.
SENATOR URESTI: Thank you, Mr. President, members. Based on the discussion I had with Senator Davis and Senator Patrick, this actually brings some consistency to the amendment that I offered wherein we gave the election regarding the articulation of the sonogram to the victim, and we're simply making it consistent regarding the woman's right to view or not to view the sonogram images and her right to either hear or not to hear the heart auscultation as well. So with that I move adoption of Floor Amendment No. 6.
DAVID DEWHURST: Senator Davis, for what purpose?
SENATOR DAVIS: To agree with the author of the amendment. I believe this change incorporates our conversation. I appreciate you including it. Senator Uresti and Senator Patrick, thank you.
DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Davis. The Chair recognizes Senator Patrick on the amendment.
SENATOR PATRICK: Members, this amendment and the amendment to be amended is acceptable to the author as we've discussed, Carlos.
SENATOR URESTI: Thank you, Senator Patrick.
DAVID DEWHURST: Members, the motion by -- we have a motion by Senator Uresti on Floor Amendment No. 6, it's acceptable to the author of the bill, Senator Patrick. Is there objection from any member? Chair hears no objection from any member, and Floor Amendment No. 6 which is an amendment to No. 3 is adopted. The Chair recognizes Senator Uresti on Floor Amendment 3 as amended by Floor Amendment 6.
SENATOR URESTI: Thank you, Mr. President, members. I move adoption of Floor Amendment 3 as amended by Amendment No. 6.
DAVID DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Patrick.
SENATOR PATRICK: Acceptable.
DAVID DEWHURST: Members, you have heard the motion by Senator Uresti. Is there objection from any member? The Chair hears no objection from any member, and Floor Amendment No. 3 as amended by Floor Amendment No. 6 is adopted. The Chair lays out on second -- the Chair recognizes Senator Patrick for a motion.
SENATOR PATRICK: Yes, Mr. President, I move to third reading.
DAVID DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Lucio for the purpose of a clarification.
SENATOR LUCIO: Mr. President, thank you. Members, I would like to have your attention for just a moment. Senator Patrick, a while ago when I was speaking with numbers, I misspoke with my numbers. I'd like to make a correction for the sake of clarity. And obviously I was trying to remember in my head an article that I read in the Austin American Statesman political fact, the truthometer, and the headlines was -- said there has been 50 million abortions since Roe v. Wade, they were referring to Governor Perry's speech of January 23rd that he made. And this article that he made was accomplished on the 1st of February and the truthometer in his remarks finds it to be true. I just wanted to make it clear, Mr. President, members, that I was trying to refer -- my comments were referring actually to those comments made by the governor. And then after I read that article as a member of the State Affairs committee, I was -- had the opportunity to question one of the witnesses, and he indicated, and I asked Senator Duncan if he had been on the chair at the time that happened, he indicated to me that he personally had done over a thousand abortions himself this last year. And I just wanted to make it clear, members, that that was really what I was alluding to. That millions of abortions have taken place since Roe v. Wade in 1973. Over a thousand abortions is what the gentlemen made reference to, not in the year, but over a thousand abortions that he personally had been involved with. So I just wanted to make it clear, I apologize to the press if they felt I might have misled anybody, because that certainly was not my intent. And I appreciate this opportunity to clarify that, Mr. President and members. Thank you very much.
DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Lucio. Senator Wentworth, did you wish to speak?
SENATOR WENTWORTH: At the appropriate time I wanted to speak against the bill.
DAVID DEWHURST: And that is on third reading or as we pass to engross.
SENATOR WENTWORTH: Well, whenever that's -- we're not going to pass the third reading today anyway, are we?
DAVID DEWHURST: Yes, we are.
SENATOR WENTWORTH: We're going to suspend the constitution on a fourth, fifth vote?
DAVID DEWHURST: Well, we're going to adjourn in a few minutes.
SENATOR WENTWORTH: I see. Well, I'd like to speak against it on the second reading.
DAVID DEWHURST: You are so recognized.
SENATOR WENTWORTH: Mr. President, I want to say to -- speaking for Senate District 25, since the census just came out, and I represent about a million people in Texas, and there's no clamor for women in Senate District 25 for more information than there already has. I just had my staff calculate the number of e-mails, phone calls, letters that I've gotten in relation to this particular bill, and the total is 356 people contacted me to vote against it. And a total of asked me to vote for it and most of those 28 were men. I personally am a hairy legged male who will never be pregnant myself, and I find it interesting that the leaders in this -- on this issue are people that will not ever be personally involved, and I am voting for my district and I vote no and will continue to vote no. Thank you, Mr. President.
DAVID DEWHURST: Senator Rodriguez, for what purpose do you rise?
SENATOR RORIGUEZ: Mr. President, I'd like to also, like Senator Wentworth, register my objection to this bill at this moment, if I could, please.
DAVID DEWHURST: You're recognized.
SENATOR RORIGUEZ: I'm doing this because I've listened to the debate very carefully, I've paid attention to Senator Patrick's suggestions that -- I listened to the debate and I heard a lot of different viewpoints, I respect all the viewpoints, I think that while there's been some comments made about this being a right to know bill or a bill on sonograms, bottom line I think it is a bill about abortion, I think it is a measure that is not so much about a woman's right to know but about abortion. And as a lawyer and as a person who has adhered to observing the law and supporting the law over the years, I feel that the law of the land is very clear. I think that a woman has a right of privacy, a constitutional right of privacy that would be intruded upon by these kind of measures. I have a serious question as to whether or not this will be able to sustain any challenge in the courts. I think that it is an unnecessary intrusion on a woman's right to choose by the government as well as an intrusion on the physician/patient relationship. And for those reasons, Mr. President and members, I cannot support the bill.
DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator. Members, Senator Patrick moves the passage to engross. Of committee substitute to Senate Bill 16. The secretary will call the roll -- I'm sorry, your light was not on, but do you wish to speak now or on third reading, sir?
SENATOR WHITMIRE: Mr. President, I'd like to be recognized to speak.
DAVID DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Whitmire to speak against the bill.
SENATOR WHITMIRE: Thank you, Mr. President, members. I'll take to opportunity to speak against this legislation. First of all, I'm concerned about unintended consequences. Senator Patrick, the first unintended consequence of your legislation is I believe it is clearly demonstrated, the value of the two-thirds rule. And I mean that with all sincerity. Members, this bill would not be in its present form if members would have been necessary to pass it or if Senator Patricks proposed some days 19. There are a lot of hard work, and you built a consensus of this body. And I think it definitely demonstrates the value of the two-thirds rule as we watched this delivered body reach this point. I'm very much opposed to this bill, Senator Patrick, because I think it will have unintended consequences. I'm still -- or the belief will be that it's unintended, although, Senator Uresti, a moment ago when you spoke to your amendment, I wrote it down, you were trying to protect that group of individuals that would be covered by your amendment and you said to protect them from the traumatic experience of a sonogram. So that tells me that there's awareness on this floor by some members that it will be traumatic to some young women who are forced to deal with this procedure. I think there'd be a lot of other unintended consequences. But before I speak to them, Senator Patrick, I want to speak to your comment about our good friend Senator Uresti being a godly person who cares about children. I want to you to know there's some opponents of this legislation, and I know you weren't inferring that maybe opposition would make you less godly or less caring about children, but I know we all share a concern for children and the godly principles. But what discouraged me most of all is that we're still not recognizing that the world is not, for the most part, black and white. It's not going to be nearly as good as you claim. Probably not nearly as bad as the opponents. It's mostly made up of grey. There is a lot of grey in this world and a lot of grey that this bill will speak to that we're not discussing this morning. Individual circumstances cannot be covered this in its entirety in your bill. I'm speaking in opposition to it because I know for a fact of circumstances that your bill are going to create traumatic experiences for people that are already traumatized by the choice they have to take. Let me also, Senator Nelson, you said this should be more about sonograms and not about abortion, you're absolutely right. But unfortunately the discussion about who's for abortions, who's not has not been discussed on this floor. Senator Patrick, I want you to know that just because you rep -- I represent a pro-choice view does not mean that I'm pro-abortion. It simply means as a father of two daughters, I want them to control their own bodies and make their own intelligent and rational decisions and get the best medical assistance they can get. I think this bill will lead some young ladies that don't want the trauma, Senator Uresti, that you spoke to, they'll go to Mexico, they'll go out of state, they'll go to a back ally. And as the father of two daughters, I don't want them or their friends to call me in the middle of the night because they don't want to deal with your sonogram and the embarrassment and the trauma of going to a clinic and dealing with a sonogram and having to have it explained to them, choose a bad decision and go to an unqualified doctor. So I think it is a bad bill, it's going to have unintended consequences. And I will even make this concern, I will be shocked, members, that the bill comes back from the House looking like the one that we're fixing to vote up or down. I don't care what the intentions and the commitments made over here, that's a pretty hard headed bunch of folks, they got a bunch of new members that feel strongly, Dan, that your language is probably not going to be the bill that they choose to support. This body will have a real tough decision. Certainly the proponents of this legislation will have a tough decision to make when it comes over. I hope I'm wrong because I think the two-thirds rule has greatly improved this bill, it's reputable, it's a much better bill with the time changes and the exception that is you've included in it. But let me say in closing it is a darn shame, members, that we've spent so much time on this bill without very little discussion, maybe almost none, about prevention. We wouldn't be having this discussion if we had an effective prevention education, maybe birth control. We've got to do a better job of prevention and we won't have to deal with these serious matters. And No. 2, when you have someone see the sonogram and they change your mind, it's a darn shame that our budget is cutting the support for those people that you're going to encourage people to have. While we're having this discussion, finance is over there cutting back the services for the young that you're going to hopefully encourage to be brought into this world. Let me close by saying I am dismayed in this day and time with the tea party language, with the conservative rhetoric in this building that we're fixing to pass a bill that takes a huge step towards government intrusion into people's private lives. Thank you.
DAVID DEWHURST: Senator Birdwell, for what purpose do you rise?
SENATOR BIRDWELL: In support of the bill.
DAVID DEWHURST: Do you wish to speak?
SENATOR BIRDWELL: Yes, sir.
DAVID DEWHURST: You're recognized.
SENATOR BIRDWELL: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, members, I rise to support this bill. As one of the new members, I, too, wanted to take an opportunity as my fellow new member, Senator Rodriguez did, I want to commend Senator Patrick in taking three sessions to put together a bill that he afforded me the opportunity to author -- cosponsor, I should say. One of the things I think we need to keep in mind is when we raise that right hand and we take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, some of us in this room have done so with the phrase "against all enemies foreign and domestic," there are some of us in here that have potentially, and I know I have, taken lives on behalf of this nation in support of defending that nation. And in stepping into foreign countries and doing so, I needed to have the greatest amount of intelligence, information and data to do so. And in taking that oath of office, we took that oath to defend the Constitution, Article VII of the United States Constitution brings forward the Declaration of Independence as original law and the key phrase in the Declaration is that "we are endowed, we are the creator of certain inalienable rights and among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." And the founders have it in the exact order because without life there is no liberty. Without liberty, there is no pursuit of happiness. And it is our duty to protect that life and that's why I rise in support of your bill. Thank you, Senator Patrick.
DAVID DEWHURST: Members, you've heard the motion by Senator Patrick as he moves the passage to engross. Of committee substitute to Senate bill 16. The secretary will call the roll.
PATSY SPAW: Birdwell, Carona, Davis, Deuell, Duncan, else less, Eltife, Estes, Fraser, Gallegos, Harris, Hegar, Hinojosa, Huffman, Jackson, Lucio, Nelson, Nichols, Ogden, Patrick, Rodriguez, Seliger, Shapiro, Uresti, Van de Putte, Watson, Wentworth, west, Whitmire, Williams, Zaffirini.
DAVID DEWHURST: Members, there being 21 ayes and 10 nays, committee substitute to Senate bill 16 passes to engross. The Chair recognizes dean of the Senate for a highly privileged motion.
SENATOR WHITMIRE: Thank you, Mr. President, members, I would move that we adjourn until 2:35. So don't go anywhere.
DAVID DEWHURST: Members, you've heard the motion by Senator Whitmire. Is there objection from any member? Chair hears no objection, and the Senate will stand adjourned until 2:45 -- 2:35 today. (At ease.)
DAVID DEWHURST: Members, the Senate will come to order and the secretary will call the roll.
PATSY SPAW: Birdwell, Carona, Davis, Deuell, Duncan, Ellis, Eltife, Estes, Fraser, Gallegos, Harris, Hegar, Hinojosa, Huffman, Jackson, Lucio, Nelson, Nichols, Ogden, Patrick, Rodriguez, Seliger, Shapiro, Uresti, Van de Putte, Watson, Wentworth, West, Whitmire, Williams, Zaffirini.
DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Madam Secretary. Members, a quorum being present. Would all those on the floor please rise in the gallery, please rise for the invocation this evening to be delivered by Senator Craig Estes.
SENATOR ESTES: Members, for those of you that were not there this morning, I'd like to say that both Chairman Ogden and Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst gave wonderful inspirational talks and thank you both very much for that. A short reading from the Bee Attitudes and then a prayer by St. Francis. When Jesus saw the crowds, He went up to the mountain and after He sat down, His disciples came to Him. Then He began to speak and caught them saying, blessed are the poor in spirits. For theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are those who mourn for they will be comforted. Blessed are the meek for they will inherit the earth. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. Blessed are the merciful for they will receive mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart for they will see God. Blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called the children of God. Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness sake for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Oh, most high, glorious God, enlighten the darkness of our heart and give us a right faith, a certain hope, a perfect love, understanding and knowledge, oh, Lord that we may carry out Your wholly and true command. Amen.
DAVID DEWHURST: Amen. Thank you. Please be seated in the gallery. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Members, Senator Whitmire moves to dispense of yesterday's journal. Is there objection from any member? Chair hears no objection from any member, so ordered. Members, if there's no objection, I'd like to postpone the reading and referral of bills until the end of today's session. Is there objection from any member? Chair hears no objection. So ordered. Members, the following message from the governor. The secretary will read the message.
PATSY SPAW: To the Senate of the 82nd legislature regular session, I ask the advice, consent and confirmation of the Senate with respect to the following appointment. To be judge of the 334th Judicial Court Harris County, Kenneth Wise, Humble. Respectfully submitted Rick Perry, governor of Texas to nomination.
DAVID DEWHURST: Members, Senator Fraser has asked legislatively what day is today. Today is legislatively Thursday. Just thought I'd clarify that for the press in case -- the Chair recognizes Senator -- excuse me the Chair recognizes Senator Ellis for an introduction.
SENATOR ELLIS: Mr. President and members, I have some very special guests with me that have been with us for the last two days here in the senate, and I'd like to recognize them. We have James Fowler and Lisa Marie Dirks with the -- with Best Buddies. And also Anthony Schrieber who is the founder of Best Buddies. His family has contributed a lot to our country over the years, I know he lost his father not too very long ago, Sergeant Schrieber, who many of you know. Would you please welcome Anthony Schrieber and his guests to the Texas Senate.
DAVID DEWHURST: Members, that concludes the morning call. The chair recognizes Senator Patrick for a motion to suspend the regular order of business to take up and consider committee substitute to Senate Bill 16.
SENATOR PATRICK: Thank you, Mr. President, I do move to suspend the regular order of business to --
DAVID DEWHURST: Senator Patrick, if you may just for a moment.
SENATOR PATRICK: I'm sorry.
DAVID DEWHURST: Senator Van De Putte, did you wish to rise on the -- excuse me, you're recognized.
SENATOR PATRICK: I move to suspend the regular order of business to take up Senate Bill 16 for third reading and final passage.
DAVID DEWHURST: Senator Van de Putte, for what purpose do you rise?
SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: If the senator will yield just for a --
DAVID DEWHURST: Will Senator Patrick yield?
SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Members, we've been through this now for three sessions, and I really am appreciative of the dialogue and everything that occurred both during the State Affairs hearing and our chairman there and the civility of what we witnessed today. But I received an e-mail from a young woman at 4:36 a.m. on Wednesday, yesterday, and I would be remiss I did not read it since she asked me to read this. It says, "Dear Senator Van de Putte, I am writing to you because I know my father might find it difficult to read this to his colleagues. I am preparing to give birth to his sixth grandchild, and I know he wants to be here to see his granddaughter after she is born. I would rather my father stay in Austin to vote against the sonogram bill in its current form. My father and I don't always agree on issues and we have had a few heated debates on certain bills. And even though my sister currently supports Senator Patrick's bill in its current form, my father and I agree that this bill in its current form is not fair at all to women and their rights. As a pregnant woman, I believe this bill is a tool to shame women into a different choice when facing an already traumatic decision no matter the circumstances that bring a woman to having to decide to keep a child or not, they should not be forced in any way to hear or see a sonogram. About to give birth to my daughter, I can appreciate the value of a sonogram and the special bond that it can bring to a mother and child. But I can also appreciate the fear that a sonogram brings. I have been in that situation, where I was happy to be pregnant and went for a sonogram only to find that at four months' pregnant my unborn had no heartbeat. Imagine the devastation that I felt wanting a child and the doctor tells me that this pregnancy would not end in the way that I would hope. My entire world changed in two minutes all because of a sonogram. And now imagine that every sonogram after that would set a whole new fear in my life, and even though I have had three beautiful children and about to give birth to my fourth, every sonogram holds a bit of terror for me. I have a wonderful supporting family that somehow always finds a way to be with me when I have a sonogram, and my mom still holds my hand when the screen turns on. But imagine the thousands of women that don't have the support systems or moms to hold their hand when the screen turns on. An unnecessary severity that this bill would bring about thousands of women should only be an option. I know that my father cares about you and the other senate ladies he serves with such distinction as you, Senator Judith Zaffirini, Senator Wendy Davis, Senator Jane Nelson, Senator Florence Shapiro and Senator Joan Huffman. He would not want any unnecessary fear forced upon you or your loved ones. I must leave now for the hospital, and I'll have one last sonogram before surgery. Wish me luck and don't worry, I have someone to hold my hand and I know my father will be praying for me. And his granddaughter Christina will be born today, and we will wait for Paw Paw to come visit her after he votes against this bill. Thank you for being a wonderful mother and a Senator. Sincerely, Melissa Gallegos, daughter and mother of four now." Senator Patrick, I want to thank you because Melissa's worst fears were brought to your attention and that of the committee, and at least there is language in this bill that takes care of her worst fear by the inclusion of language of irreversible fetal abnormality. Irreversible. And so I want to thank you. And I'm only reading this today because Melissa asked that I would. And so now, we must tell our colleague, It's time for you to go home. It's time for you to go see your daughter and your newest granddaughter.
DAVID DEWHURST: Senators, Senator Patrick moves to suspend the Senate's regular order of business to take up and consider -- Senator Gallegos for what purpose do you rise, sir?
SENATOR GALLEGOS: Just to speak against the bill.
DAVID DEWHURST: All right. I'm going to recognize you, but I'm also going to say on behalf of the other 30 members of the senate and myself, a big welcome and we're very happy on the birth of your fourth.
SENATOR GALLEGOS: Thank you. And Jane is fixing to give one to. But let me -- members, I wasn't going to get up, but I just want to, Senator Patrick, tell you my true feelings, I think Senator Lucio put it pretty good. You know, if you look at how many grandkids I got, with me and my church and my God, I'm pro-life. But -- and you talked about the brass rails. You know, once I come in on this floor, I don't believe it's incumbent on me as a lawmaker to legislate on a female how to govern her body and I just can't live with that. But I am pro-life and I've told that to my bishop, my priest. I mean, obviously they've talked to me about this piece of legislation and others, and I just wanted y'all to know that I am pro-life. But when I come on this floor, you know, I actually feel that I owe it to my constituents that I not regulate any part of their bodies. I mean, imagine, Senator Patrick, if a bill was filed to regulate all the males on this floor and their bodies. I don't think you'd be getting the same reaction that you're getting now. I wouldn't want -- Senator Jackson, would you want to be told that you had -- and you must watch that sonogram for ten minutes? I don't think you'd like that. You know, I wouldn't. You know, I can't speak for all the males s here, but I can tell you this: I wouldn't want anything legislative on my body. Why should we do it on a female? I don't think so. And, Senator Birdwell, with all due respect, you know, you read the Constitution a while ago, I hope you didn't mean that we vote no on this bill that we're going against the Constitution, that's the implication. And if that's the case, I'm offended by it. So I just wanted y'all to know my true feelings as far as life. I am pro-life. I'm a Catholic, and I'm pro-life. But when I come on this floor, I don't believe that it's incumbent upon a lawmaker to tell anybody what to do with their bodies.
DAVID DEWHURST: Senator Patrick moves to suspend the Senate's regular order of business to take up and consider committee substitute to Bill 16. The secretary will call the roll.
PATSY SPAW: Birdwell, Carona, Davis, Deuell, Duncan, Ellis, Eltife, Estes, Fraser, Gallegos, Harris, Hegar, Hinojosa, Huffman, Jackson, Lucio, Nelson, Nichols, Ogden, Patrick, Rodriguez, Seliger, Shapiro, Uresti, Van de Putte, Watson, Wentworth, west, Whitmire, Williams, and Zaffirini.
DAVID DEWHURST: There being 21 ayes and nays, the rule is suspended. The Chair lays out on third reading and final passage committee substitute to Senate Bill 16. The secretary will read the caption.
PATSY SPAW: Senate Bill 16 relating to informed consent to an abortion.
DAVID DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Patrick for a motion.
SENATOR PATRICK: Before I move to final passage, I'd like to make a closing comment unless there's another senator who wants to speak on the bill. Members, for those of you for or against, thank you for once again displaying on the Senate floor how we can disagree but do it not in a disagreeable way. We're going to have many challenges this session, and I hope and pray that we handle all of the debate in the same way. And so far, as I've been here the last three sessions, we've maintained that dignity on this floor. John, by no means would I suggest anyone opposing this does not have the same heart of God that I or Carlos. In fact, again, many members know the time we spent in Louisiana this summer when I saw you stand before men in a church and give one of the best sermons I've ever heard, and it was from your heart and it was because you care about those men behind bars and you want to make prison safer, you want to make our streets safer by changing the character of men. And with your leadership, the two of us are going to see the first seminary in the history of Texas, only the second in the United States to be built in a prison. That's the leadership, I know where your heart is. Members, there are a lot of people I'd like to thank. Senator Zaffirini, Senator Lucio, Senator Uresti, thank you for your votes. This is a bipartisan effort. Thank you for your support. Many other senators, many of my Republicans colleagues who shared with others, shared their hearts. 80 percent of the women on the floor did vote for this bill, that was important to have your support. To my colleagues who are lawyers who made sure we did it right, I thank you. This is a great day for Texas. I have every hope this year, unlike the last two sessions, the House will pass this bill. And it's my intention, Senator Whitmire, Senator Uresti, others have passed this bill in the form that we have sent to them. And I think we have sent that clear message. The Speaker always likes to follow the rule of the House, 67 or 66 sponsors are on this bill. So, since he recommended Jeanie Morrison to carry it, and that's the will of the House, I hope that happens when it comes up for hearing. And lastly members, I'll just close with this bit of scripture which I think is (inaudible), Jeremiah 1:5 says, "Before I formed you in the woman, I knew you." He knows all of us. And I thank Him for knowing all of us. Jeremiah from the Old Testament. I move for final passage.
DAVID DEWHURST: Members, Senator Patrick moves final passage of committee substitute to Senate Bill 16. The secretary will call the roll.
PATSY SPAW: Birdwell, Carona, Davis, Deuell, Duncan, Ellis, Eltife, Estes, Fraser, Gallegos, Harris, Hegar, Hinojosa, Huffman, Jackson, Lucio, Nelson, Nichols, Ogden, Patrick, Rodriguez, Seliger, Shapiro, Uresti, Van de Putte, Watson, Wentworth, west, Whitmire, Williams, Zaffirini.
DAVID DEWHURST: There being 21 ayes and nays, a committee substitute to Senate Bill 16 is finally passed. The following motion in writing by Senator Eltife, the secretary will read the motion.
PATSY SPAW: Motion in writing. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for Senate Bill 349 relating to the hotel occupancy tax rate in certain municipalities to be withdrawn from the committee on Finance and rereferred to the committee on Intergovernmental Relations. Senator Eltife, author, Senator Ogden, Chair committee, for which this bill is being withdrawn, Senator West Chair committee to which this bill is being rereferred.
DAVID DEWHURST: Members, you've heard the motion by Senator Eltife. Is there objection from any member? The Chair hears no objection. The motion is adopted. Members, are there any additional announcements? Are there any? Chair recognizes Senator Shapiro for an announcement.
SENATOR SHAPIRO: Thank you, Mr. President and members. The Senate Finance subcommittee on public education funding will meet at 3:15 in room E1028.
DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Shapiro. The Chair recognizes Senator Nelson for an announcement.
SENATOR NELSON: Thank you, Mr. President, members of the Senate. Finance subcommittee on Medicaid will resume its meeting in the finance room which is E1036 at 3:00 o'clock --
DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator.
SENATOR NELSON: -- today.
DAVID DEWHURST: Members, are there any additional announcements? Hearing none, the Chair recognizes the dean of the Senate for a highly privileged motion.
DEAN OF THE SENATE: Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. President, members, I move that the Senate adjourn until 11:00 a.m. Tuesday February 22nd pending the reading and referral of bills.
DAVID DEWHURST: Thank you, Dean. Members, you've heard the motion by Senator Whitmire, is there objection from any member? Chair hears no objection, and the Senate will stand adjourned until 11:00 a.m. Tuesday, February the 22nd pending the reading and referral of bills.
PATSY SPAW: Senate Bill 7 by Nelson. Relating to strategies for and improvements in quality of health care provided through and care management in the child's health plan and medical assistance programs. To Health and Human Services. Senate Bill 8 by Nelson. Relating to improving the quality and efficiency of health care. To Health and Human Services. Senate Bill 11 by Williams. Relating to the enforcement of state and federal laws governing immigration by certain governmental entities. To Transportation and Homeland Security. Senate Bill 19 by Nichols. Relating to the development, financing, construction and operation of toll projects. To Transportation and Homeland Security. Senate Bill 501 by West. Relating to the establishment of an inner agency council for addressing disproportionality. To Health and Human Services. Senate Bill 502 by West. Relating to determinations of paternity. To Jurisprudence. Senate Bill 503 by Jackson. Relating to coverage for certain towing and storage expenses under a motor vehicle insurance policy. To Business and Commerce. Senate Bill 504 by Davis. Relating to discounted utility rates for school districts. To Business and Commerce. Senate Bill 505 by Williams. Relating to state financing of public transportation. To Transportation and Homeland Security. Senate Bill 506 by Deuell. Relating to consumption advisories for mercury contamination in fish, crustaceans, shellfish, and other aquatic and animals. To Health and Human Services. Senate Bill 507 by Deuell. Relating to the confidentiality of newborn screening information. To Health and Human Services. Senate Bill 508 by Lucio. Relating to the extent of extraterritorial district for certain less populous municipalities located on a barrier island. To International Relations and Trade. Senate Bill 509 by Lucio. Relating to the invasion of a home, rules, charter for certain municipalities. To International Relations and Trade. Senate Bill 510 by Van de Putte. Relating to a voluntary statewide diabetes registry. To Health and Human Services. Senate Bill 511 by Van de Putte. Relating to the designated doctor's examination by workers compensation system. To State Affairs. Senate Bill 512 by Hegar. Relating to the qualification of supervisors of a freshwater supply district. To Natural Resources. Senate Bill 513 by Ellis, et al. Relating to the adoption and implementation of a policy by Texas Transportation Commission. To Transportation and Homeland Security. Senate Bill 514 by Birdwell, and et al relating to the acquisition of land and facilities by the Texas State Technical College system. To Higher Education. Senate Bill 515 by Patrick and Carona. Relating to required individual health insurance coverage. To State Affairs. Senate Bill 516 by Patrick and Carona. Relating to an exemption for ad valorem taxation of a resident's homestead of the surviving spouse of a 100 percent or totally disabled veteran. To Finance. Senate Bill 517 by Watson. Relating to the appropriations of certain and unclaimed money. To Finance. Senate Bill 518 by Shapiro relating to an initiative to design to improve performance of public school students enrolled in the 6th, 7th and 8th grade levels. To Education. Senate Bill 519 by Hegar. Relating to the period during which a motion for null trial and criminal proceeding in a justice or municipal court to be made. To Jurisprudence. Senate Bill 520 by Hegar. Relating to the creation of administration powers and duties of counties assistance district. To Economic Development. Senate Bill 521 by Carona and Deuell. Relating to the operation of certain health care management with respect to health care providers. To State Affairs. Senate Bill 522 by Carona. Relating to equal parenting orders and suits affecting the parent/child relationship. To Jurisprudence. Senate Bill 523 by Nichols. Relating to the allocation of certain motor vehicles sales tax revenue. To Finance. Senate Bill 524 by Hegar. Relating to the issuance of certain permits for the movement of oversized or overweight vehicles. To Transportation and Homeland Security. Senate Bill 525 by Deuell. Relating to registration of water quality in certain bodies of water. To Natural Resources. Senate Bill 526 by Fraser. Relating to the power of Bell County Water Control and Improvement District No. 1 to issue bonds. To Natural Resources. Senate Bill 527 by Fraser, et al. Relating to air monitors and Texas Commission on the Environmental Quality regions three and four. To Natural Resources. Senate Bill 528 by Huffman. Relating to meetings of University of Houston System board of regents. To Higher Education. Senate Bill 529 by Huffman. Relating to the regulation of motor vehicle dealers, manufacturers and distributers. To Transportation and Homeland Security. Senate Bill 530 by Huffman and Carona. Relating to granting limited state law and enforcement authority to special agents of inspector general. To Transportation and Homeland Security. Senate Bill 531 by Davis. Relating to the authority of the Department of Public Safety of certain local law enforcement agencies to establish a check point on a highway or street to determine whether persons are driving while intoxicated. To Criminal Justice. Senate Bill 532 by Davis. Relating to the study of Department of Family Services regarding establishing a system to identify children born to certain parents. To Health and Human Services. Senate Bill 533 by Davis. Relating to minimum standards for the certifications of sexual assault training programs. To Criminal Justice. Senate Bill 534 by Davis. Relating to the state designation Highway 21 and Tarrant and Johnson County as the Chisum Trail Parkway. To Transportation and Homeland Security. Senate Bill 535 by Davis. Relating to persons who may be prosecuted for improper relationship between educator or student. To Criminal Justice. Senate Bill 536 by Davis. Relating to the use of certain disciplinary practices. To Education. Senate Bill 537 by Ellis and Davis. Relating to the consequences of an arrest for or conviction of certain intoxication offenses. To Criminal Justice. Senate Bill 538 by Nichols. Relating to transportation by reinvestment zones. To Transportation and Homeland Security. Senate Bill 539 by Carona. Relating to the award of cost and attorneys fees for certain proceedings. To Business and Commerce. Senate Bill 540 by Van de Putte. Relating to the study of fiscal impact of adjusting the amount of the ad valorem tax exemption to which disabled veterans and surviving spouses in children are entitled. To Finance. Senate Bill 541 by Carona. Relating to the cost associated with proceedings regarding cruelty treated animals. To Criminal Justice. Senate Bill 542 by Hegar. Relating to regulation of law enforcement officers by the Commission of Law Enforcement Officers standards in education. To Criminal Justice. Senate Bill 543 by Hegar. Relating to a probate fee exemption by states of certain law enforcement officers, firefighters, and others skilled in the line of duty. To Jurisprudence. Senate Bill 544 by Seliger. Relating to unlawful acts against a criminal offenses involving the Medicaid program. To Health and Human Services. Senate Bill 545 by Seliger. Relating to employment records for certain law enforcement officers. To Criminal Justice. Senate Bill 546 by Deuell. Relating to the dispensing of certain drugs by physicians. To Health and Human Services. Senate Bill 547 by Deuell. Relating to provision by health benefit plan in a prescription drug coverage. To State Affairs. Senate Bill 548 by Nichols, et al. Relating to the Texas Department of Transportation's environmental review process. To Transportation and Homeland Security. Senate Bill 549 by Ellis and Gallegos. Relating to applications for permits issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. To Natural Resources. Senate Bill 551 by Williams. Relating to liability for interest on ad valorem taxes on improvements that escaped taxation of previous year. To Finance. Senate Bill 553 by Carona. Relating to the nonrenewal of and the assessment of premium surcharges against certain insurance policies. To Business and Commerce. Senate Bill 554 by Carona and Ellis. Relating to contracts between dentists and health maintenance organizations. To State Affairs. Senate Bill 555 by Watson. Relating to the relation of LP gas utility companies. To Natural Resources. Senate Bill 556 by Davis. Relating to a highway maintenance fee imposed in connection with operation of overweight vehicles, a vehicle combination. To Transportation and Homeland Security. Senate Bill 557 by Duncan and Zaffirini. Relating to the distribution of money appropriated from the National Research university fund. To Higher Education. Senate Bill 558 by Duncan. Relating to the Memorial Hospital district. To Intergovernmental Relations. Senate Bill 559 by Duncan. Relating to the Rankin County Hospital district. To Intergovernmental Relations. Senate Bill 560 by Van de Putte. Relating to tuition and fee exemptions at public institutions of Higher Education for certain military personnel. To Veterans Affairs and Military Installation. Senate Bill 561 by Wentworth. Relating to damages in an action arising out of deficiency in a construction or repair of an improvement to real property. To State Affairs. Senate Bill 562 by Wentworth. Relating to the waiver of sovereign immunity of certain claims. To State Affairs. Senate Bill 563 by Jackson. Relating to information regarding job matching services provided by Texas Work Force Commission. To Economic Development. Senate Bill 564 by Uresti. Relating to the election of members of the board of directors of Brownville Conservation District. To Natural Resources. Senate Bill 565 by Hegar and Watson. Relating to the appeal of authority to establishment and operation of a trans Texas corridor. To Transportation and Homeland Security. Senate Bill 566 by Williams. Relating to regulation of a practice of public accountancy. To Business and Commerce. Senate Bill 567 by Williams. Relating to the Texas Life Accident Health and Hospital Guaranty Association. To State Affairs. Senate Bill 568 by Williams. Relating to access by a public institution for higher education to the criminal history record information of certain persons seeking to reside in on campus housing. To Criminal Justice. Senate Bill 569 by Jackson. Relating to the rates charged by certain conservation and reclamation districts for potable water or waste water service to recreational vehicle parks. To Natural Resources. Senate Bill 570 by Shapiro. Relating to the (inaudible) induction and measuring programs for public schools. To Education. Senate Bill 572 by Nichols, Gallegos and Patrick. Relating to certificates of public convenience and necessity to provide water or utility service. To Natural Resources. Senate Bill 573 by Nichols, et al. Relating to certificates of public convenience and necessity for water or sewer services. To Natural Resources. Senate Bill 574 by Van de Putte. Relating to the requirement and study of insurance coverage for serious and emotional service of a child. To State Affairs. Senate Bill 575 by Van de Putte. Relating to the expansion of the Women's Health Program Demonstration Project. To Health and Human Services. Senate Bill 576 by Eltife. Relating to reports filed with the controller concerning certain alcoholic beverages sales. To Business and Commerce. Senate Bill 577 by Duncan. Relating to the use of electronic signatures for certain documents. To Intergovernmental Relations. Senate Bill 578 by Fraser. Relating to the testimony of children in criminal cases. To Criminal Justice. Senate Bill 579 by Hegar. Relating to the total benefit of prepaid funeral contracts. To Business and Commerce. Senate Bill 580 by Hegar. Relating to Community Assistance and Economic Development program activities of the Lana, Navidad River Authority. To Economic Development. Senate Bill 581 by Nichols. Relating to the authorities and powers of regional mobile authorities. To Transportation and Homeland Security. Senate Bill 582 by Harris. Relating to the service of process of certain domestic and foreign entities for election of delinquent property taxes. To Jurisprudence. Senate Bill 583 by Nichols. Relating to criminal penalty for failure of a trustee to pay the beneficiaries of a trust for timber sold by the trustee. To Agriculture and Rural Affairs. Senate Bill 584 by Nichols. Relating to the unauthorized harvesting of standing timber. To Agriculture and Rural Affairs. Senate Bill 585 by Watson. Relating to program services and information relating to women's health, family planning and human sexuality. To Health and Human Services. Senate Bill 586 by Davis. Relating to proof of acceptable (inaudible) identifying individuals acknowledging written instruments. To Jurisprudence. Senate Bill 587 by Uresti. Relating to jurisdiction in certain proceedings brought by the attorney general with respect to charitable trusts. To Jurisprudence. Senate Bill 589. Relating to appraisal review board members. To Intergovernmental Relations. Senate Bill 590 by Estes. Relating to retainage under certain construction contracts. To Business and Commerce. Senate Bill 591 by Carona. Relating to office of public insurance council authority to initiate a hearing on or object to insurance rates or rate filing. To Business and Commerce. Senate Bill 592 by Williams. Relating to the power and duties of the state auditors office. To State Affairs. Senate Bill 593 by West. Relating to the portion of disciplinary action by certain school districts. To Education. Senate Bill 594 by Van de Putte. Relating to certain procedures applicable to electronic prescriptions, Schedule II controlled substances. To Health and Human Services. Senate Bill 595 by Ellis. Relating to the hours of sale for liquor. To Business and Commerce. Senate Bill 596 by Shapiro. Relating to transition planning for a public school student receiving special education services. To Education. Senate Bill 597 by Shapiro. Relating to the guarantee of open enrollment charges, school bonds by the permanent school fund. To Education. Senate Bill 598 by Ellis. Relating to the limit on size of prekindergarten classes in public schools. To Education. Senate Bill 599 by Ellis. Relating to the availability of free prekindergarten classes in public school. To Education. Senate Bill 600 by Rodriguez. Relating to a probation of law enforcement inquiries regarding the nationality or immigration status of a victim or witness to a criminal offense. To Criminal Justice. Senate Bill 601 by Rodriguez. Relating to the authority of El Paso County Hospital district to employee and commission peace officers. To Intergovernmental Relations. Senate Bill 603 by Rodriguez. Relating to the filing and posting on the internet of reports of political contributions and expenditures in regard to connection with the office of the board of trustees or certain school districts. To State Affairs. Senate Bill 604 by Rodriguez. Relating to the execution of lawful process by county jailers. To Criminal Justice. Senate Bill 605 by Rodriguez. Relating to the creation of an appellate judicial system for the 8th court of appeals district. To Jurisprudence. Senate Bill 606 by Rodriguez. Relating to court costs imposed on conviction and deposited to the courthouse security fund. To Criminal Justice. Senate Bill 607 by Rodriguez. Relating to the assessment of court costs on conviction of a class C misdemeanor. To Criminal Justice. Senate Bill 608 by Rodriguez. Relating to the regulation of fireworks by counties. To Intergovernmental Relations. Senate Bill 609 by Rodriguez. Relating to the exemption of certain property from municipal drainage charges. To Intergovernmental Relations. Senate Bill 610 by Rodriguez. Relating to the period of continuous eligibility for the medical assistance program. To Health and Human Services. Senate Bill 611 by Rodriguez. Relating to the child health care program. To Finance. Senate Bill 612 by Rodriguez. Relating to examination and requirements for certain applicants for license to practice medicine. To Health and Human Services. Senate Bill 613 by Rodriguez. Relating to educational requirements for licensing as a speech language, pathologist or audiologist. To Health and Human Services. Senate Bill 614 by Rodriguez. Relating to the creation of the state supported living center realignment commission. To Health and Human Services. Senate Bill 615 by Rodriguez. Relating to requiring a retail seller of motor vehicles tires to render certain tires unusable. To Transportation and Homeland Security. Senate Bill 616 by Rodriguez. Relating to the sale or transportation of certain desert plants. To Agriculture or Rural Affairs. Senate Bill 617 by Rodriguez. Relating to a manifest system to record the transportation of certain liquid waste. To Natural Resources. Senate Bill 618 by Rodriguez. Relating to an exemption from the sales tax for certain solar energy devices. To Finance. Senate Bill 620 by Nelson. Relating to the reporting of health care associated infections and preventable adverse events. To Health and Human Services. Senate Bill 621 by Nelson. Relating to the authorized activities of a winery permit holder. To Business and Commerce. Senate Bill 622 by Nelson. Relating to the privacy and protected health information of personal information. To Health and Human Services. Senate Bill 623 by Whitmire. Relating to the disqualification of a district or county attorney who is the subject of a criminal investigation. To Criminal Justice. Senate Bill 625 by Wentworth. Relating to authorizing the county clerk in certain counties to conduct a marriage ceremony. To Jurisprudence. Senate Bill 626 by Carona relating to a lottery winnings including assignment of winnings periodic payment of winning reduction of child support. To State Affairs. Senate Bill 627 by Davis. Relating to the (inaudible) into the tax increment fine. To Economic Development. Senate Bill 628 by Duncan. Relating to the authority of the Childress County Hospital District to provide facilities and services for certain persons. To Health and Human Services. Senate Bill 6289 by Hegar. Relating to the ranch at Clear Port Creek municipality district No. 1. To Intergovernmental Relations. Senate Bill 630 by Hegar. Relating to the ranch at Clear Port Creek municipality district No. 2. To Intergovernmental Relations. Senate Bill 631 by Hinojosa. Relating to the statutory references to the common electronic infrastructure project commonly known as Texas Online. To Government Organizations. Senate Bill 632 by Hinojosa. Relating to the application of the Information of Resources Management Act of public junior colleges. To Government Organization. Senate concurrent resolution No. 16 designating the month of March each year from 2011 to 2020 as Women Veterans Month by Nelson, et al. To Administration. Senate concurrent resolution 22 by Nichols. Proposing a constitutional amendment dedicating certain revenues derived from the tax (inaudible) to sell motor vehicles to the state highway fund. To Finance. SJR23 by Wentworth. Proposing a constitutional amendment in increasing the rates of taxes imposed on gases and diesel fuel, adjusting those rates annually for inflations and dedicating certain revenue for those taxes. To Finance.
SENATOR PATRICK: Pursuant to the motion previously adopted, the Senate stands adjourned until Tuesday at 11:00 a.m. (Adjourned.)
