Changes to North Carolina abortion law added to unrelated bill, passed in state Senate despite protests by Democrats
RALEIGH. N.C. (WGHP) – The North Carolina Senate amended an unrelated House bill on Thursday afternoon with changes to the controversial abortion law scheduled to go into effect on July 1.
Sen. Joyce Krawiec (R-Forsyth) made the motion about what she called “technical changes” to Senate Bill 20, which was passed in May after a lengthy debate and became law with an override of a veto by Gov. Roy Cooper.
The Senate added new language about SB 20 to House Bill 190, the so-called “Department of Health and Human Services Revisions,” that had crossed over, and on second reading Senators adopted the amendment and then the bill on party-line votes.
State Sen. Joyce Krawiec (R-Forsyth) (AP)
Democrats, who had asked for a delay until Monday to consider the amendment, then objected to a third reading, which means HB 190 and the amendment can’t get final approval until Monday. The House then must consider the bill as well, presumably on Tuesday. Cooper would get another crack at the veto.
All of this happened just days before a federal lawsuit filed by a physician in Durham, the ACLU and Planned Parenthood is scheduled to be heard in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina in Greensboro. District Judge Catherine Eagles has scheduled an emergency hearing for Wednesday to consider a temporary injunction.
SB 20, the so-called “Care for Women Children and Families Act,” tightens to 12 weeks the window for an elective abortion but retains for longer periods the access to abortions based on exceptions for rape, incest, the health of the mother and fetal abnormalities. The bill also stipulates by whom, when and where an abortion may be performed and adds funding for a variety of related initiatives.
Critics had complained that the 46-page bill was pushed through the General Assembly within 48 hours of first being revealed. The Senate had spent about six hours debating the bill. Both chambers voted along party lines, with some absences, as was the case with the veto overrides.
Krawiec’s amendment on Thursday to HB 190 encompasses four pages and addresses changes in substance and language that appear to address some of the complaints in the lawsuit, such as confirming that medical abortion is legal up to 12 weeks in all cases, that there would be only one 72-hour waiting period and that the reporting period for the Department of Health & Human Services would be 30 days rather than three.
Krawiec, who is a co-chair of the Senate Health Committee, did not respond immediately to an email seeking comment about why the amendment emerged today and why it had to be considered so immediately.
Sen. Ralph Hise (R-Alleghany), who presided over the discussion of HB 190 in place of Senate Leader Phil Berger (R-Rockingham), told WNCN-Ch. 17 that “the timeline we’re working at, these are clarifications. There is nothing in this bill that is different than our intent for the bill and what we believe the bill originally says.”
Sen. Michael Garrett (D-Guilford) said Democrats had asked for a delay to consider the language and what it meant but were denied. He and other Democrats who commented on the amendment said they felt it was designed to “undermine plaintiffs’ argument” in the lawsuit.
The sequence of events
Sens. Michael Garrett (D-Guilford, left) and Natasha R. Marcus (D-Mecklenburg) hold signs in protest of Senate Bill 20. (AP Photo/Chris Seward)
Here’s what happened on Thursday, based on the transcript of the meeting and input from Garrett and others involved:
After the Senate convened at noon, leadership told Democrats that they would add HB 190 to the calendar and that there would be an amendment that dealt with SB 20.
Democrats asked for a delay until Monday night, given the nature of the amendment. They were given a 15-minute recess to consider those four pages.
When Krawiec introduced the amendment and explained what was included, Sen. Jay Chaudhuri (D-Wake) argued that the bill “has been characterized as technical and that it is not.” He cited the reference to the approval of physicians. “We have not had the opportunity to review the bill in full, and DHHS has not been able to opine,” he said.
Sen. Natasha Marcus (D-Mecklenburg) said senators had to go into recess and into the hallway and couldn’t connect with anyone to discuss the bill. She asked Krawiec: “Why are we moving this so quickly? Is this to address issues in pending litigation?”
Krawiec responded that she disagreed. “These are technical changes, not real substantive in nature. They are clarifying in nature,” she said.
Marcus asked why the immediate consideration, but Krawiec would not “yield to the question,” meaning she declined to answer.
Chaudhuri reiterated “the point that Senator Marcus made that this amendment certainly seems to address litigation that appears in court next week.” He asked for a delay until Monday and that the amendment be defeated.
But the vote was 28-17, with three Democrats and two Republicans absent.
Krawiec then introduced HB 190, which she called an agency bill that had “a lot of technical changes.” She mentioned changing “substance abuse” to “substance use” and other similar details.
Said Sen. Sydney Batch (D-Wake): “I support the actual bill. … I take exception to the amendment. The arguments already made need to be considered. I wish our colleagues would have given us additional time to review an important bill like Senate Bill 20, about which we had the longest debate in the history of this chamber.”
After the second reading passed, 27-17, Sen. Mike Woodard (D-Durham) loudly objected to the third reading, which typically is a meaningless voice vote. Because he did, that final reading won’t occur until the Senate reconvenes at 3 p.m. Monday.
About the lawsuit
North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein, who also is a Democratic candidate for governor, announced on his Twitter feed late Thursday that he would not be participating in the suit filed last Friday by Dr. Beverly A. Gray, the ACLU of North Carolina and Planned Parenthood South Atlantic. Stein is the named defendant.
“I support women’s reproductive freedoms,” Stein wrote. “After a thorough review of the case in Planned Parenthood v. Stein, I have concluded that many of the provisions in North Carolina’s anti-abortion law are unconstitutional. My office will not defend those parts of the law.”
The suit asks the court specifically to clarify:
Dr. Beverly Gray
A provision that appears to prevent providers from providing medication abortion after 10 weeks of pregnancy rather than the 12 weeks specified.
The mandate that victims of sexual assault obtain abortions in a hospital after 12 weeks of pregnancy under exceptions for rape or incest.
A provision requiring a 72-hour waiting period before the abortion with no exception for medical emergencies despite other sections of SB 20 that grant an exception to that delay.
A prohibition on advising how a person can access an abortion after 12 weeks of pregnancy, could violate the First Amendment.
“Given the hurried passage of this bill without guidance from the medical community, SB 20 lacks clarity and asks patients and health care providers to overcome impossible hurdles to obtain and provide care,” Gray, an obstetrician/gynecologist who has testified often on these issues, said in a release announcing the suit. “These hurdles are not based in science but are unreasonable and will make it virtually impossible for many people to receive abortion care in our state.”
The plaintiffs also had asked for an emergency injunction on the implementation date and had asked for the court to modify a permanent injunction in a previous case to clarify the type of medical professional who can provide patients seeking care with the mandated information.
Source: WGHP FOX8 Greensboro
