Skip to main content

Newly released documents show Texas Health and Human Services Commissioner Tom Seuhs instructed his staff to try to create new abortion reporting requirements that would please one anti-choice legislator--and also "not be offensive to women."

Written by Andrea Grimes for RH Reality Check. This diary is cross-posted; commenters wishing to engage directly with the author should do so at the original post.

In opposition to new proposed abortion reporting restrictions in Texas, ten Democratic legislators have sent an open letter to Health and Human Services Executive Commissioner Tom Suehs urging him to not to move forward with the new rules, which would increase the amount of information gathered on abortion-seeking people and require doctors to report vaguely defined "complications" from abortion.

"The proposed rule does not represent the will of the legislative body and, if implemented through rulemaking, would serve to circumvent the legislative process," wrote the legislators.

The new rules are being proposed after anti-choice, Tea Party-endorsed legislator Rep. Bill Zedler and his past colleagues were repeatedly unable to enact them through democratic means in the Texas Legislature over the past several years. Texas health officials have agreed to look into adopting the failed legislation by rule rather than law. In their letter, the Democratic legislators say this sets a "terrible precedent."

"If this rule is published and adopted, it sets a terrible precedent and will have serious ramifications for years to come," write the legislators.

But Texas health officials seem anxious to appease Zedler, though they are increasingly backtracking on initial openness about cooperating with the legislator.

As originally reported by RH Reality Check, at the first public meeting discussing the new requirements in April 2012, Department of State Health Services regulatory unit manager Renee Clack said the meeting was called to discuss "some amendments the department has included that specifically relate to a request by Representative Zedler."

DSHS' openness about the origins of their new rule are also illustrated in documents obtained by the Austin Chronicle and shared with RH Reality Check this week. They include a March 21, 2012 memo sent from Department of State Health Services Commissioner David Lakey to Executive Commissioner Suehs "to discuss possible reporting requirements that relate to an amendment by Representative William Zedler." The memo describes the rules' background thusly:

During the special session [of the 2011 Texas Legislature] Representative William Zedler offered an amendment to SB 7 that would have added additional abortion reporting requirements. This amendment was not added, but it was agreed that the Health and Human Services Commission and the Department of State Health Services would look at the additonal requirements and determine what elements could be adopted by rule.

The same memo refers to an August 2011 meeting wherein Suehs instructed his staff to "continue working through possible abortion reporting elements to see which elements are within current authority, useful for public health, feasible to obtain and not offensive to women." 

Despite Clack's statement and repeated Zedler name-dropping in DSHS and HHSC documents, DSHS press representative Carrie Williams told the Dallas Observer that Clack "misspoke" and that the requirements are 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," and not "at his specific request."

Williams either could not or would not tell the Dallas Observer or RH Reality Check who participated in the "general discussion among state leadership" or why Bill Zedler's particular, individual wishes are being catered to considering the vast amount of legislation that doesn't pass into law each session in Texas.

The proposed requirements would, among other rules, require abortion-seeking people to report their highest level of education and doctors to report to DSHS, within 30 days, "when abortion complications occur." The department has provided no guidance on what might constitute a complication or what the consequences for non-compliance might be, despite requests for both from Texas physicians at the intial abortion stakeholders meeting in April.

Texas legislators, in their letter issued this week, are predominantly concerned with what appears to be a blatant subversion of the democratic process by DSHS and HHSC:

The proposed rule stems directly from legislation that has failed over the course of two legislative sessions and that repeatedly did not receive the support of the majority of the Texas Legislature. As such, we should not allow the political agenda of a single member to circumvent the democratic process and the will of the Legislature. If this rule is published and adopted, it sets a terrible precedent and will have serious ramifications for years to come.

It remains to be seen whether the letter will sway Commissioner Suehs. He has not, in the past, been particularly receptive to his pro-choice critics. Earlier this year, he sent angry and dismissive replies to Texans who opposed his signature on a rule that excludes Planned Parenthood from participating in the state's Medicaid Women's Health Program, writing, "Are you for real? Who is paying your bills?"

Earlier this month, Suehs announced that he would retire in August, which is before the Health and Human Services Council will meet to discuss the new reporting requirements.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  other than the fact that (0+ / 0-)

    you probably agree with one and not the other (and I happen to agree with those judgements), how is this different than the President implementing immigration policy administratively that he couldn't get through Congress?

    "The proposed rule does not represent the will of the legislative body and, if implemented through rulemaking, would serve to circumvent the legislative process," wrote the legislators.
    The same could be said about a lot of what President Obama has done - immigration and recess appointments, to name just two.

    Is using executive power always bad, or always OK, or situational?

    why I'm a Democrat - Isaiah 58:6-12, Matthew 25:31-46

    by marking time on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 12:54:29 PM PDT

  •  An agency head is hardly the President (0+ / 0-)

    Of course, the executive is the governor.  Most likely an executive action that might circumvent the representative process for deliberating policy come from the governor's office.

    Perry, of course, may have forgotten what the deal was.  

    Given the lack of public transparency for state agencies, in Texas or anywhere else, and given that the agency head is insulated from the public behind high walls (as an appointed figure) the Dept of Health setting policy is truly a dangerous precedent.  

    I hope the legislative Democrats can rally support and put this genie back in the bottle.

    hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

    by Stuart Heady on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 01:42:12 PM PDT

  •  Local columnist adds these snarky suggestions (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BlackSheep1, Larsstephens
    1. What makes you think you and your left-leaning, elitist, secular-humanist doctor know what’s right for you? Kind of full of yourselves, aren’t you?

    2. Why did state-approved abstinence education available to all Texas public school students not work for you? Did you cut class or were you just not listening?

    3. Please rate, on a scale ranging from “chagrin” to “abject humiliation,” the intensity of your shame.

    3A. Which of the following methods would be most effective in maximizing the aforementioned shame? (Circle one).

    a. Addition of costly, invasive, logically unwarranted medical procedures.

    b. Ideologically biased “counseling” combined with mandatory delays.

    c. Dissemination of your private medical information to your employer, your neighbors and that busybody couple who play bridge with your parents.

    4. What is your occupation? Do you consider career more important than motherhood? Do you understand how bizarre and unnatural that is? Please list all men with families to support who, to your knowledge, are also qualified for your job.

    5. Describe, to the best of your knowledge, your understanding of God’s individual plans for men and for women. Explain why you think it doesn’t apply to you (use back of paper if you need extra space).

    6. According to your beliefs, what is the purpose of sex? (Circle a or b).

    a. The glorious perpetuation of God’s most perfect creation, man.

    b. Selfish entertainment for cheap, easy bar bimbos who exploit male vulnerability to temptation.

    7. How did you happen to screw up on birth control in the first place? Can’t you count? Don’t they have drugstores in your neighborhood? Didn’t anybody ever tell you to take an aspirin — and hold it between your knees, har-har?

    8. So what if you don’t want and can’t afford a baby? Can’t you: (circle all that apply)

    a. Dump it off at your mother’s house.

    b. Drop out of high school to take care of it.

    c. Trust a jobless, drug-addled, ex-con boyfriend to baby sit.

    d. Starve and neglect it until CPS puts it in foster care.

    The state of Texas suggests you consider all these alternatives.

    9. Have you received pastoral counseling? If the counselor has supported you in this decision, have you tried another pastor? Don’t you agree that people who hold elected office have special insight into God’s preferences and desires? Wouldn’t they know more than you about what God wants you to do?

    10. Have you changed your mind yet?

    from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

    by Catte Nappe on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 02:51:55 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site