“I’ve talked to lawyers and both the Constitution and statute are clear. He’s qualified as he has been for all his previous elections."INDIANAPOLIS – A standoff between leaders in the House and Senate threatens to kill a bill originally meant to further regulate doctors who perform abortions in Indiana.
Key lawmakers involved with Senate Bill 89 met in their first conference committee hearing Monday, and it’s clear House Democrats won’t budge on an amendment that Senate Republicans want removed from the bill.
Sen. Dennis Kruse, R-Auburn – chairman of the committee – conceded the impasse could kill the bill.
The version that passed the Senate required doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital – a measure that supporters say provides better quality of care and that opponents say will shut down abortion clinics.
The House expanded the bill to include health care providers performing any “surgical procedure” and added a provision to the state’s informed consent law that the fetus might feel pain during the procedure.
But it’s the third amendment – one that passed 95-0 – that is causing consternation. It would require the state to reimburse hospitals for free breast and cervical cancer screenings for uninsured women.
Kruse noted the cost is $23 million – a hefty expense not to go through the normal budget process.
Gov. Mitch Daniels’ administration has hinted that he might veto outside bills that affect state revenues.
Senate President Pro Tem David Long, R-Fort Wayne, deemed the screening language unrelated to the original legislation and wants it out.
Two proposed compromises offered by Senate Republicans on Monday both remove the provision, and one even punts the admitting privileges debate to the Indiana Medical Licensing Board.
Rep. Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City, said he won’t sign a report without the screenings that he says could save lives in Indiana.
“The idea that I would agree to take out the breast and cervical cancer screenings is outrageous,” he said. “I won’t do it.”
Pelath noted that he is sometimes at odds with members of his own caucus because he does not support abortion rights, but the screening provision helps protect women.
He said he has heard Daniels doesn’t want to be put in a position to have to veto the bill because of the spending.
“My gut is he won’t veto it,” Pelath said.
Several lawmakers who support the bill said they would like to find another piece of legislation to which they could add the screening provision.
“I would hate to see this bill die for that reason,” said Rep. Jackie Walorski, R-Lakeville.
