AP: Texas

04/13/2005

By JIM VERTUNO  / Associated Press

The emotional battles over abortion and parental involvement cranked up Wednesday in the House, where a committee began taking testimony on several abortion-related bills.

Among the notable bills are measures that would require parental consent before a minor could have an abortion and one that would allow pharmacists to refuse to participate in an "abortion procedure." Abortion rights activists say approval of that bill could lead to pharmacists refusing to fill birth-control prescriptions.

"This is a parents' rights issue," Joe Pojman of Texas Alliance for Life said of the parental consent measure, which is in three bills before the State Affairs Committee. "Parents should have a right to be involved and to protect their daughters from abortion."

Pojman said 25 states have consent laws. Texas already requires parental notification, although a girl can ask a judge to waive the requirement.

The notification law was passed in 1999, and efforts to create a consent law have previously failed. Abortion-rights groups say a consent law is unnecessary and could result in girls seeking unsafe abortions or lead to abuse by parents.

Emily Snooks, spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of North Texas in Dallas, said parents are already involved in many abortion decisions, but that some girls come from unstable and potentially abusive homes.

"That's wonderful if everybody came from a loving, supporting family," Snooks said. "But that's not the case for everyone in Texas."

The committee was expected to take testimony on all the bills late into the night Wednesday, but a vote was not expected.

Early debate centered on a bill filed by Rep. Frank Corte, R-San Antonio, which he said would allow a pharmacist to be a "conscientious objector" to the termination of life.

The bill would give pharmacists and physicians assistants the same legal protections as doctors, who can refuse to participate in abortion procedures. State law allows pharmacists to decline filling prescriptions if the medication could harm a patient, but not for moral reasons

In several states, anti-abortion organizations have been encouraging pharmacists to refuse to distribute emergency contraceptives, which they consider a potential form of abortion.

Abortion rights groups insist emergency contraception prevents pregnancy and is not abortive.

Corte originally filed his bill to allow pharmacists to refuse emergency contraception, but changed his bill to the "abortion procedure" language that alarmed abortion rights groups. Corte said he did not intend for pharmacists to be able to object to procedures that prevent pregnancy.

"The purpose is to give pharmacists conscientious objection if they feel there is termination of life," he said. "It does nothing to limit birth control. The opposition is trying to misinform and scare."

But Rep. Jessica Farrar, D-Houston, challenged Corte, noting that some women use birth-control pills for other health reasons, including to regulate their menstrual cycles and prevent painful cysts from developing.

Farrar said women in rural areas could be forced to travel long distances to get a prescription filled if their local pharmacist refused.