Latest news with #LegislativeBill632
Yahoo
15-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Burial, cremation requirement for procedural abortions in Nebraska advances
State Sens. Ben Hansen of Blair, left, and Merv Riepe of Ralston. April 14, 2025. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner) LINCOLN — State lawmakers took a step Tuesday toward requiring Nebraska health care facilities that perform procedural abortions to dispose of the remains by cremation or burial. Legislative Bill 632, from State Sen. Ben Hansen of Blair, advanced 34-11, with one senator who voted 'yes' saying after that he had done so inadvertently. However, whether the bill will have the 33 votes needed to keep moving forward depends on negotiations between Hansen and State Sen. Merv Riepe of Ralston for a possible amendment. Hansen has described the intent of LB 632 as uplifting the 'dignity' of an aborted fetus, similar to a 2003 Nebraska law requiring hospitals to have a written policy for the proper disposition of the remains of any child born dead at a Nebraska hospital. Hansen said other health care facilities, such as Planned Parenthood, are an 'exception' to the 2003 law. He has said LB 632 is mirrored after a similar Minnesota law adopted in 1987. 'Nothing differs in the body of a baby between elective or spontaneous abortion,' Hansen said, referring to the medical term for miscarriages. 'The only difference is the cause of death.' State Sen. Ashlei Spivey of Omaha, whose nonprofit I Be Black Girl is focused on reproductive justice, led opposition to the bill. She was a key part of an unsuccessful ballot measure in 2024 to expand abortion rights in the state to the point of fetal viability. Spivey blasted the bill as a 'back door attempt to ban abortions' in the state, which Hansen repeatedly denied. Spivey said the bill also ignores existing laws for how facilities handle human tissue, including fetal or pregnancy tissue. 'The reality is LB 632 disrespects patients by essentially imposing a funeral requirement for abortion,' Spivey said, stating the 'human dignity' goal 'cannot be further from the truth.' She continued: 'Imposing this type of requirement without the patient having any say in the matter is wrong and, furthermore, insulting.' Under Hansen's bill, a facility would not need to notify the woman upon whom an abortion is induced of the method of disposition of the fetal remains. Abortion is legal up to 12 weeks gestational age in Nebraska after 2023 legislation, and the Nebraska Constitution now explicitly prohibits most abortions in the second or third trimester after a 2024 vote of the people. State Sen. Dan Lonowski of Hastings, who selected Hansen's proposal as his 2025 priority bill, said 'fetal dignity laws' are needed when the abortion 'industry' shows a 'high disregard' for aborted remains. 'It is crucial to start affirming the humanity of the unborn in the law,' Lonowski said. 'Fetal dignity laws help shape a culture that honors and respects the unborn by acknowledging their humanity and affirming the dignity of each life lost through abortion.' Spivey and others said the Hansen-Lonowski partnership could open the door to future 'personhood' legislation, extending civil rights to fetuses often by legally stating life begins at conception. Other religions, such as Judaism, consider life beginning with the first breath. Spivey cautioned that such laws might open the door to banning in-vitro fertilization, care for miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies. State Sen. George Dungan of Lincoln described LB 632 as 'big government overreach' and read a letter from a military veteran who said she was raped while serving and got an abortion. Dungan and Spivey said the bill could revictimize survivors and limit accessibility to women seeking abortions in cases of rape or incest, which are legal exceptions to the current 12-week law. 'We can find ways to support people that don't create these problems and that don't have these hoops to jump through,' Dungan said. 'If your true goal is to try to create a healthier, safer Nebraska, invest in health care, invest in housing, and make the right decision.' State Sen. Megan Hunt of Omaha also questioned whether the bill would require the burial or cremation of fetal tissue or blood, asking 'how much blood has to be on the pad' or what 'evidence' would be needed. She questioned whether the bill could create an abortion 'bounty' and encourage civil penalties against abortion providers. Spivey and Hunt said the end result would be increasing costs to patients, pushing care further or fully out of reach. State Sen. Dave Murman of Glenvil referred to the Health and Human Services Committee hearing for LB 632, when a representative from Planned Parenthood who was asked about the organization's current protocol for disposing of aborted remains did not specifically say what happens. 'What we do currently is completely in line with what most other health care providers who manage fetal tissue do,' she responded at the hearing. Planned Parenthood Advocates of Nebraska estimated that about 18% of abortions in the state are procedural, not medication abortions. Hansen said that if burial or cremation was not being done, providers might be disposing of remains by 'throwing them in a dumpster.' Hunt and Spivey said the lack of a policy didn't mean the allegations that Lonowski, Murman and Hansen stated were accurate. Murman argued that if the remains were treated with dignity, then Planned Parenthood should have been able to detail the process. 'I believe every human, no matter how small, deserves some measure to ensure human dignity,' Murman said. Riepe spoke little during the four-hour debate but echoed a comment from Dungan that the bill is a serious topic. He continued to work with Hansen off the legislative floor and said little during debate, other than arguing that women having an 'option' for the disposition of fetal remains might be better. His possible amendment has not been filed, but in details shared with the Nebraska Examiner, Riepe is looking to give mothers the choice of mass cremation, individual burial or cremation or the disposition of remains in a manner determined by the health care facility. If the woman doesn't choose, it would be up to the facility. Riepe's in-progress amendment also is looking to explicitly protect in-vitro fertilization and medication abortions, the latter of which Hansen sought to fix by having his language cover abortions performed and 'completed' at the same facility. Riepe told the Examiner that he and Hansen are at a 'very friendly point' and that he feels good about the negotiations. Second-round debate would be limited to up to two hours on Hansen's bill, pursuant to scheduling from Speaker John Arch of La Vista on 'controversial and emotionally charged' bills. That could narrow the time needed to amend Hansen's bill to secure Riepe's support, putting him in a similar position as he was two years ago when he defeated a near-total abortion ban. Also similar to 2023: Hansen and Riepe working behind the scenes for a path forward. The two worked together to craft the current 12-week law, rising from the ashes of the near-total ban. 'If we don't get what I feel is needed on this thing, to try to make it a less controversial issue, then at that point in time I would not vote for cloture,' Riepe said, referring to the procedural motion to cease debate, which requires at least 33 votes. Riepe is likely to be the 33rd vote. Freshman State Sen. Victor Rountree of Bellevue spoke against the bill during the debate and voted against cloture, but he later voted to advance Hansen's bill. He said that was a 'mispunch' and remains opposed to the bill. State Sens. Dan Quick of Grand Island and Jason Prokop of Lincoln were 'present, not voting' on the advancement of Hansen's LB 632. Prokop opposed cloture, while Quick did not take a position, the same stance he took when the bill advanced 5-1 from the committee. Quick said he has some concerns about whether the new requirements would apply uniformly and that he understands, for instance, the disposition policy of CHI Health St. Francis in Grand Island but not the policies of non-faith-based facilities. Quick said it's possible that an amendment could address his concerns. Prokop said he would continue listening to ongoing negotiations. State Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh of Omaha, a progressive who is friends with Riepe, said an unintended consequence of Nebraska's 2003 law required providers to ask parents what they wanted to be done with fetal remains after a miscarriage or abortion in a hospital setting. She said dictating medical practice in law means 'we muck things up that we don't even know we're mucking up.' Cavanaugh detailed that she had been pregnant with twins but had a nonviable pregnancy that was so early in her pregnancy she had no remains. Eight months later, as she was preparing to give a live birth to one of her children, she was still asked to fill out paperwork to cover the hospital's liability. While Hansen's bill wouldn't require providers to talk to the parents, Cavanaugh said they would still take a family's baby. 'I'm not going to let you take my baby and bury it without my permission, without my say-so. No. Absolutely not, 100% not going to happen,' Cavanaugh said. 'If I want to bury a baby, I will grieve how it's best for me and my partner and my family. I don't need the state telling me how to grieve my losses.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
13-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
HHS Committee advances two abortion-related bills to full Nebraska Legislature
State Sen. Ben Hansen of Blair. March 22, 2023. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner) LINCOLN — Abortion appears likely to be debated on the floor of the Nebraska Legislature again this year after a legislative committee advanced two related bills on Wednesday night. The Health and Human Services Committee voted 5-0 to advance Legislative Bill 632 from State Sen. Ben Hansen of Blair. That bill would require any health care facility performing and completing on-site elective abortions to dispose of the remains of the aborted fetus by cremation or burial, or, if not possible, in a manner directed by the State Board of Health. The committee also voted 4-2 to advance LB 512 from State Sen. Rick Holdcroft of Bellevue, which would require doctors to screen pregnant women for ectopic pregnancies and schedule a follow-up appointment 3 to 28 days after prescribing abortion-inducing medications. LB 632, from Hansen, is mirrored off of a Minnesota law adopted in 1987, which at least 15 other states also have adopted. The Minnesota law defines 'remains of a human fetus' to mean a fetus that has 'reached a stage of development so that there are cartilaginous structures, fetal or skeletal parts after an abortion or miscarriage.' Hansen's bill defines 'aborted unborn child' as 'physical remains of an unborn child at any stage of gestation whose life has been terminated by an elective abortion.' Hansen also noted that a Nebraska law from 2003 already requires licensed hospitals to have a written policy about the 'disposition of the remains of a child born dead at such hospital.' LB 632 would not require health care facilities to notify women who receive an abortion of the method of disposition. At his bill's hearing last week, Hansen said LB 632 is about public health and human dignity. 'All of us understand the horror that is felt when a human body has been subjected to indignity, desecration or neglect,' Hansen testified. 'Both reasons — public and environmental health and the basic respect to the bodies of the dead — are as applicable to the tissue and blood of children who have died by elective abortions as to babies who have died from natural causes.' Andi Curry Grubb, executive director of Planned Parenthood North Central States, blasted the bill as 'vague and unworkable' and said it would effectively impose a funeral requirement at any stage of pregnancy. She called the requirements 'shortsighted and disrespectful' and said the bill could impose religious or spiritual views. 'It does nothing other than burden abortion providers and patients, shame and stigmatize care and further remove patients' control over their own health,' Curry Grubb testified. 'All of these issues highlight that this bill is unserious and simply a political statement.' State Sen. Brian Hardin of Gering, chair of the HHS Committee, and Curry Grubb disagreed over whether the bill addressed 'human remains' or 'fetal tissue,' and Hardin asked what Planned Parenthood currently does with the remains after an abortion. 'What we do currently is completely in line with what most other health care providers who manage fetal tissue do,' she responded. Hansen responded that he had never seen a testifier 'grasp at so many straws.' On her religion allegations, he said his bill had 'nothing to do with that whatsoever' and that he wasn't seeking to restrict access to care. State Sen. Dan Lonowski of Hastings chose Hansen's bill as his 2025 priority, increasing the likelihood it will be scheduled for debate this year. 'Just to dispose of aborted remains in a haphazard way, I think it just lowers the dignity and the respect we should have for all human life,' Lonowski said Thursday. Opponents of Holdcroft's bill related to chemical abortions said it could put reproductive care farther out of reach or push them to find the medications in less safe or regulated ways. State Sen. Merv Riepe of Ralston, a Republican and former hospital administrator, opposed that bill. He said Wednesday that Holdcroft's bill wasn't about protection and was instead a blockade. State Sen. Glen Meyer of Pender countered that he viewed the bill as in the interests of women's health and that he would oppose the bill if it was a back-door attempt to ban access. Hansen noted Holdcroft's bill would not require women to show up for the follow-up appointment. State Sen. John Fredrickson of Omaha, the other 'no' vote, said voters had already weighed in. State Sen. Dan Quick of Grand Island was the lone senator not to vote for or against the bill, saying he was waiting until he understood more how the bill would impact women. Quick and Fredrickson were 'present, not voting' on Hansen's bill. Holdcroft confirmed Thursday that his bill is unlikely to get a priority designation this year, but said he would still work to find a path forward for his measure he said was 'pro-women's health.' 'We're going to just look for an opportunity on the floor to possibly amend it to a like bill and see what can be done there,' Holdcroft said. 'Otherwise, we'll carry it over to next year.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
