Ohio doctors asked lawmakers this week to back off of a bill that would require a 24-hour wait before abortion procedures.
In a hearing before the Ohio Senate Health Committee, physicians emphasized the informed consent that’s already part of the standard of care under they were trained to use.
They said Ohio House Bill 347 not only bars patients from getting timely care, but creates disparate treatment for those who treat individuals who can get pregnant.
“Requiring physicians who perform abortions to do this, without similar requirements for all other procedures, is discriminatory and frankly, it is patronizing to people seeking abortion that they would need extra rules and time to decide about abortion,” said Dr. Elise Berlan, an Ohio physician who treats pediatric and adolescent patients.
Berlan and other opponents of the bill spoke at the last expected hearing of the committee before legislators head for a break that may last until after the November election.
The committee didn’t vote to advance the bill before the break, but heard from several Ohioans about their feelings on the bill.
Ohio House Republican lawmakers passed H.B. 347 along party lines in March.
Abortions rights advocates who spoke in the most recent hearing gave similar arguments to those in previous hearings when the bill passed the House.
They criticized the bill for not only being unnecessary, but also in conflict with a 2023 amendment to the Ohio Constitution that established rights to abortion and other reproductive health issues.
H.B. 347 would establish a requirement in Ohio law that physicians meet with patients 24-hours before an abortion procedure, which sponsors and supporters of the bill said allows patients to receive and reflect on needed information about risks and methods of abortion procedures.
A 24-hour abortion care waiting period has been in state law before, but a Franklin County court called off enforcement of the law until a lawsuit has been completed.
In pausing enforcement, Judge David C. Young cited the constitutional amendment passed by voters as part of his ruling.
Dr. Annalise Celano, a family medicine resident physician, said informed consent is already a “critical, and heavily mandated, piece of all medical care.”
“Informed consent ensures that our patients know the benefits and risks of any procedure or medication indicated, enabling autonomy and empowerment for the patient to make the best healthcare decisions for their lives,” Celano told the committee.
The doctor said the 24-hour waiting period could create more barriers to care, and having physicians provide state-mandated information, including information about abortion “reversal” that she and Berlan said has been debunked in multiple medical studies, would not help her empower her patients.
“H.B. 347 would be legally forcing me to coerce my patients into doing what state legislators want them to do, not what is best for them and their family,” Celano said.
Unlike decisions such as which antibiotic to use for an infection or a particular inhaler to be used for asthma, reproductive health decisions are “highly sensitive to patients’ priorities and values,” Berlan said.
However, the same delays that are included in H.B. 347 aren’t being considered for other procedures, like vasectomies.
“Having worked in urology for a number of years prior to medical school, I saw the consent process for (vasectomies) quite a few times,” Celano said.
“I can assure you that nowhere in the process of consent was there counseling on anxiety, depression, or PTSD.”
The bill has until the end of the year to come up for a vote before it would need to be reintroduced as new legislation in the next General Assembly.
Committee chair state Sen. Steve Huffman, R-Tipp City, said “unless something extraordinary comes up,” he does not plan to hold another committee until after the legislature’s break, “most likely in November.”
This story is republished from the Ohio Capital Journal under a Creative Commons license. View the original article.
