Some Of Rep. Bill Zedler's Abortion Reporting Rules Are A Step Closer To Reality, Even If State Health Services Won't Say They're His

Categories: Politics

Thumbnail image for Rep. Bill Zedler smaller
DSHS: Bill Zedler is not making rules in your uterus.

Once upon a time in the last legislative session, Arlington state rep Bill Zedler tried and failed to introduce a law requiring a whole slew of new information that abortion-seeking women and their doctors would have to provide to the state. His bill failed, but as we told you a couple months ago, Zedler seems to have asked the Department of State Health Services to go ahead and implement his rules anyway. He must have been really nice about it, because as former Observer-er Andrea Grimes reports over on RH Reality Check, the department's doing just that.

More specifically, DSHS is poised to implement just a few of Zedler's proposed rules, chief among them asking a woman to provide her educational history, and requiring physicians to report "complications" from abortion procedures, without defining just yet exactly what that means.

"The more information you can find out about who's getting an abortion and why they're getting it is helpful," Zedler told the Dallas Morning News Friday. "The other side is always saying they want to make it legal but rare. So first we have to get the information."

The state Health and Human Services Commission is now drafting the proposed rules, which will soon be published in the Texas Register. They'll be available for public comment there for 30 days, after which time they'll return to HHSC to be considered for final adoption.

DSHS was initially pretty clear about the fact that the rules were going forward because of a request from Zedler. At a meeting DSHS had in April with doctors and clinic workers, a representative from the department, Renee Clack, said specifically they were there to discuss "some amendments the department has included that specifically relate to a request by Representative Zedler."

RH Reality Check and Unfair Park both reported those words. A few days later, UP was contacted by DSHS press officer Carrie Williams, asking us to make a correction. She told us that Clack "misspoke." The possible change to the rules, she said, was the result of "a general discussion among state leadership that resulted in us agreeing to look into it once it was clear the Rep. Zedler amendment would not be added to SB7."

"It wasn't at his specific request," she wrote. "We agreed to look at it after his amendment ultimately did not get added."

We didn't know what "a general discussion among state leadership" actually means or who it involves, and we still don't. As the rules move forward, DSHS is increasingly unwilling to say what role Bill Zedler had in making them a reality. We spoke with Williams again late last week to clarify.

"An amendment was brought forward that would have added additional requirements last session," she told us. "It didn't go through. There were discussions about the possibility of looking at whether we should add some of those element to the requirements. We agreed to take a look at that at the time, which is the process we're in now. We took a look at the various elements and drafted the rules."

So who asked DSHS to "take a look," if not Zedler?

"It was his - well, I really just can't speak to that level of detail," she replied. "He put forward the amendment that didn't ultimately pass. That generated discussions about the possibility of looking at those elements. So we agreed to that. I can't be more specific about that at this point. I don't know the details. I just - the conversations that took place months ago, I don't have information about those. I do know that it generated discussion about the possibility. I'm not aware of who the discussions were specifically between."

(Update, 12:47 p.m.:: Grimes reminds us of a previous article she wrote in which an open records request showed that DSHS was already corresponding with Zedler's office on getting his requirements put into statute the week before his amendment failed. Although Williams may not recall just who the discussions involved, it sure looks like it was Phil Fountain, Bill Zedler's chief of staff, and reps from HHSC and DSHS. Those conversations, once again, began rather earlier than Williams states.)

Williams added that the rule-making procedures are meant to be totally transparent. "Any person in the public can come to us at any point in time if they have a concern about a rule we have in place, a flaw in a rule or something that has to be added. Our rule-making process is very open. People can make suggestions to us and provide comment. That's what's happening in this case."

Williams reiterated a point she's made in previous conversations (we have a lot of them lately), namely that DSHS has a legal right to change their own rules at any time.

"The changes are within our authority to pursue," she said. "We're always looking at our rules, making decisions about whether the rules need to be strengthened, clarifications that need to be made to help us do a better job as the entity that regulates health facilities. And the complication reporting will help us track potential problems at a particular facility and help us make sure that patients are safe."

The state's abortion facility inspectors, she said, "go out to facilities, inspect the facilities annually, and investigate complaints. The focus of their job is to go into a facility and make sure patients are getting the best care possible."


My Voice Nation Help
7 comments
A-nony-mouse
A-nony-mouse

 The biggest difference between the two is that Republican politicians (especially if they claim to be "Tea Party Favorites") will stand up and loudly proclaim that they want smaller government and fewer regulations. I rarely see Democrats do that. Still, the point about them being two sides of the same coin is spot on.

Oak Cliff Townie
Oak Cliff Townie

I Posted this some where else Might as well post it here The way I see it is All of the For Show reductions such as cuts using attrition retirement not hiring and cutting empty positions have been made. Agency's are now having to  reduce their actual staffs to meet the  "Mandated?" percentage points reductions brought about by deep budget cuts. If pleasing a Legislators whims will allow more of them to remain in place . They have no problem doing it .  

RTGolden
RTGolden

Conversely, this has always been true of Democrats, especially Godless, Liberal ones.  They don't want any government, except where it 1) protects their personal right to do/be/say whatever the hell they want 2)Enforces their specific agenda (see EPA, NMTSB and other agencies designed to protect us from ourselves) or 3) Enforces their specific opinion of moral behavior. If you want to be honest about the situation, both sides of the aisle have used regulatory agencies to further their agendas.  Both sides have appointed judges to legislate from the Bench.  Our two primary political parties are flip sides of the same coin.  If we want real change, we're gonna need more coins in the bag.

Jared Heath
Jared Heath

this has always been true of Republicans, especially devout Christian ones.  They don't want any government, except where it 1) protects their specific interests 2) enforces their specific agenda 3) enforces their specific opinion of moral behavior.

Jared Heath
Jared Heath

it gives the appearance that the people actually have some measure of control.  (we don't)

RTGolden
RTGolden

This is why, as a fairly conservative-minded person, I cannot, will not, vote Republican.  The amendment failed to secure the legislative votes to become law.  There is a reason for that, it's a stupid requirement that would have gotten a lot of representatives un-elected most ricky tick. It is patently wrong to run an end-around using the executive branch to implement a law that failed to pass the legislative branch. This is the same tactic the enviromental movement uses with the EPA, and the oil companies and republicans bitch about it to no end.  Their hypocrisy is painted vividly now, when they are using the same ploy.  It is time the executive branch of our government, at all levels is reigned in.  It's pretty simple, I think I learned it in the 3rd or 4th grade: Legislature - passes laws, Judicial - interprets the law, Executive - enforces the law.  If our laws are going to be legislated from the Bench and implemented by bureaucratic decree, what the hell do we even HAVE a legislature for?

Barbara
Barbara

Big, big brother!  Get out of our wombs!

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...