Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno
Excused—0
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: President
Protests
Senators Geiss, Moss, McMorrow, Chang, Shink, Polehanki, Cavanagh, Santana, McCann, Hertel and Anthony, under their constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the adoption of the amendments offered by Senator Albert to Senate Bill No. 593.
Senator Geiss moved that the statement she made during the discussion of the amendments be printed as her reasons for voting “no.”
The motion prevailed.
Senator Geiss’ statement, in which Senators Moss, McMorrow, Chang, Shink, Polehanki, Cavanagh, Santana, McCann, Hertel and Anthony concurred, is as follows:
I rise to urge my colleagues to vote “no” on this amendment that is neither based in obstetric medicine or reality. This amendment disrupts again the health care provider-patient relationship. It would hamstring doctors from making the medical decisions they need to make based upon their expertise, and it would return this state to a position of criminalizing the health care providers who perform abortions. The amendment itself is in fact contradictory in its phrasing of what would and would not be permissible depending upon when one does or does not determine gestational age and viability. In short, the amendment is too confusing, too extreme. Let’s leave medical decisions to the medical professionals and not to legislators who have none of the following: the ability to practice obstetric medicine or midwifery or a uterus. I urge a “no” vote on this amendment to Senate Bill No. 593.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows: