INDIANAPOLIS (AP) -
An Indiana House panel on Tuesday approved an amended version of a measure
that would require abortion providers to give women considering drug-induced
abortions information on stopping the procedure midway through - even though
that process is scientifically disputed.
Republican Rep. Ron
Bacon’s proposal would require the State Health Department to create a form
with information on the potential method, including a disclaimer that no
“scientifically validated medical study” confirms it is possible. Critics
say the method hasn’t been sufficiently vetted and shouldn’t be provided to
“abortion reversal” measure passed Tuesday in a 7-6 vote that exactly
mirrored the original version’s vote last Wednesday, with two Republicans
joining Democrats in voting no.
Its return to the
same panel for consideration a second time is a rare legislative step, as
measures that clear committees are typically amended further on the floor of
committee meeting, the panel approved changes to clean up the bill’s
language, including clarifying the “reversal” time period and requiring some
redaction on forms that abortion providers send to the state if they are
released to the public. Another change removes a provision that would have
required abortion doctors to use an ultrasound to determine the age of the
fetus - a mandate that one Democratic lawmaker had raised concerns with just
ahead of last week’s committee vote.
House Public Policy
Committee Chairman Ben Smaltz said the proposal’s return to his committee
came in consultation with House Speaker Brian Bosma, a fellow Republican.
“When you identify
something you think needs to be fixed, the best thing to do is suck it up
and fix it,” Smaltz said.
He said he was
unsure if the changes will completely address concerns that came up in a
private caucus with GOP lawmakers. The measure now moves to the full House
The two Republicans
on the panel who again voted against the measure, Reps. Edward Clere and
Sean Eberhart, said after Tuesday’s vote that they could not support a
measure that doesn’t have scientific evidence to back its claims.
“We don’t direct
any other health care provider to distribute information that lacks an
established basis in science or doesn’t meet a peer-reviewed research
standard,” Clere said.