Wisconsin Senate passes abortion consent bill

(WEAU) - Under current law a woman must provide voluntary and written consent to have an abortion.

Yet, Bill 306 requires the doctor performing the procedure to speak to the woman in person and be present when prescribing abortion-inducing drugs.

“It strikes me as a bill that shouldn't be particularly contentious, suggesting a doctor only give a physical before,” said Brian Westrate, Chairman Republican Party of Eau Claire

The bill was introduced by four Republican senators and its purpose was to prevent coerced abortions. But, some are in disagreement about what this means.

“The issues in Wisconsin right now are jobs and the economy. I just don't understand what this is doing to create jobs,” said Democrat Elise Sitzman.

After talking with people on the street, some also feel it’s an attack on women's health.

"This bill is really kind of an unprecedented move by the Republican leadership and the state legislatures….The issue they have been pushing have nothing to do with priorities of Wisconsin voters," said Nicole Safar of Planned Parenthood.

Meanwhile Democrats and Republicans make their own points about the bill.

“This bill allows that person to have an opportunity, a one on one opportunity before it’s all said and done, because abortion is not something that can be undone,” said Westrate

“It’s unnecessary and scares me to think what else they are going try to do,” said Sitzman.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ORIGINAL STORY

MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- The Wisconsin state Senate has passed a bill placing new requirements on doctors and women before abortions can be performed.

The Senate passed the bill Wednesday after Democratic opponents blocked a vote on Tuesday. It passed 17-15 on a party line vote.

The bill would require doctors be present when prescribing abortion-inducing drugs. It would ban the use of web cams to do that, a practice not currently done in Wisconsin.

The measure would also require doctors inform a woman on her right to refuse or consent to an abortion. The doctor would be required to speak to the woman away from any partner or family member.

Republican supporters say the bill will protect girls and women from harm.

It now heads to the Assembly.

(Copyright 2012 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

You must be logged in to post comments.

Password (case sensitive):
Remember Me:

Read Comments

The comment sections of our web set are designed for thoughtful, intelligent conversation and debate. We want to hear from the viewers but we are not obligated to post comments we feel inappropriate or violate our guidelines. Here are some of the criteria you should follow when posting comments:

Comments cannot be profane or vulgar. Children and families visit this site. We will delete comments that use profanity or cross the lines of good taste.

We will delete all comments using hate speech. Slurs, stereotypes and violent talk aren’t welcome on our web site.

Comments should not attack other readers personally.

We will delete comments we deem offensive, in bad taste, or out of bounds. We are not obligated to post comments that are rude or insensitive.

We do not edit user-submitted comments.

As a host WEAU 13 News welcomes a wide spectrum of opinions. However, we have a responsibility to all our readers to try to keep our comment section fair and decent. For that reason WEAU 13 News reserves the right to not post or to remove any comment.
  • by samantha Location: inis on Mar 15, 2012 at 08:18 PM
    Studies indicate that the women who go through life regretting their abortion were pressured into it one way or another, whether by parents or the father. This isn't choice. I like the idea of being able to talk to the doctor away from the family.
  • by No on Feb 23, 2012 at 08:16 PM
    If you've read the actual bill you would see it covers more then the surgical abortion option. The abortion pill is also covered. It can only be dispensed by an MD...must be taken in front of the MD and a return visit is mandatory in a certain time frame to prove the pregnancy was terminated. This report does not cover everything that is in the bill.
  • by Todd Location: Chippewa Falls on Feb 23, 2012 at 03:33 PM
    I don't go to a Doctor to see an emotional consultant. I go to the doctor when I need in order to see what the medical options are and how to process from that point. Sometimes I go to the doctor because the family is pressuring me to go, I don't see why the doctor needs to ask, because I have got things that could have turned out different than I even would have wanted if I did not go. This legislation is made for the religious right.
  • by Free Will Location: earth on Feb 23, 2012 at 01:26 PM
    How do so many so called religious individuals still have a leg to stand on with this argument. Gods one main edict is I have rules you need to follow to enter my kingdom, but you have the free will to choose. Every one else but the families involved need to stay the f out of their business. And to appease you religious sheep, the person making the decision to abort will (according to your god) be judged and if it really is killing, they will be judged. Why doesnt the church carry this same argument over to war? Its ok to kill in the name of god and country? What about self defense? I could keep going but I know this sound argument will only go in one ear and out the other of a massively delusional religious population.
    • reply
      by Duh! on Feb 24, 2012 at 04:53 AM in reply to Free Will
      Bottom line, if you want to stop all abortions, make it a capital crime for any woman to get an abortion. And, make it subject to the death penalty (by stoning). Allahu Akbar
  • by nels on Feb 23, 2012 at 10:29 AM
    at last a real jobs bill
    • reply
      by Anonymous on Feb 23, 2012 at 01:42 PM in reply to nels
  • by Eau Really Location: Former EC on Feb 23, 2012 at 09:52 AM
    I can't believe all the emotional mis-informed posts. I think only Cathy and Claire get it. This isn't about preventing a woman's choice. It actually strengthens it. It prevents outside pressure from a BF or H or Parent or anyone else when the pregnant woman makes her decision. It doesn't say the Dr must try to talk her out of it. The Dr will just talk to the patient to make sure it HER CHOICE and than move forward. I think a Dem had put this through the Dems would see it that way and the Repubs be against it. No need for spin. Figure it out on your own and keep your party's opinion out of it.
    • reply
      by anonymous on Feb 23, 2012 at 01:40 PM in reply to Eau Really
      One thing I don't think you readily understand is that when a woman goes to get an abortion it is not a flippant decision...have you ever had one yourself? the paperwork that one has to fill out (including signing consent before this law existed) is a process that takes hours before any procedure occurs. I am not saying one shouldn't give consent...but they do..many many times they sign their consent before any action is taken.
    • reply
      by No on Feb 23, 2012 at 08:21 PM in reply to Eau Really
      I dont beleive the three of you have read the bill at all.
  • by Sr on Feb 23, 2012 at 08:28 AM
    Wow. This is admittedly a VERY emotional issue. However, many of the posters here did not actually read (or at least address) the article. The bill simply requires a doctor have one-on-one contact with the mother. It allows her to have a professional consultation, without outside influence. I fail to see how this is a bad thing.
  • by doc on Feb 23, 2012 at 07:55 AM
    All this bill is really doing is making it required that a doctor actually communicate with the patient, in person, which as a female doctor I feel should be required, regardless of the drugs being prescribed. And I feels that it's especially important to see the patient in private, as too often it's clear that the patient has concerns that she is not comfortable talking about in front of family members. All too often to I discover important information once a parent/partner is not in the room. This is about making an informed choice, which every woman should be in favor of.
    • reply
      by Jimmy on Feb 23, 2012 at 02:21 PM in reply to doc
      Great comment. I agree
    • reply
      by coffeeNOTtea on Feb 23, 2012 at 07:12 PM in reply to doc
      So basically, the Dr. can say to anyone other than the mother, "excuse us for a minute, the law prevents anyone from being present while we discuss abortion". Very interesting piece of legislation. I fail to see the need but, whatever
  • by Anonymous on Feb 23, 2012 at 06:28 AM
    I find it interesting that Viagra was developed well before temporary male birth control options. If the governement were to enforce male birth control when those options are available what would be the public outcry?
    • reply
      by Jimmy on Feb 23, 2012 at 02:20 PM in reply to
      That is an interesting concept. I like it.
  • by Anon on Feb 23, 2012 at 05:43 AM
    Walk a mile in her shoes.
WEAU 13 NEWS 1907 S. Hastings Way Eau Claire, WI 54701 By Phone: Main Number (715) 835-1313 and (715) 832-3474. Tip Line (715) 839-WEAU - (715) 839-9328 Sports Line (715) 852-1537
Copyright © 2002-2016 - Designed by Gray Digital Media - Powered by Clickability 139988343 - weau.com/a?a=139988343
Gray Television, Inc.