Texas Senate Bill SB1948

Texas 2017 - 85th Regular

Caption

Relating to electronic reporting requirements for an abortion facility.

Impact

The introduction of SB1948 is expected to influence existing statutes in the Health and Safety Code, particularly Section 245 concerning abortion reporting. By transitioning to electronic reporting, the bill aims to modernize the existing framework, potentially enhancing the efficiency and accuracy of abortion statistics. However, its requirement for monthly reporting represents a shift from the previous annual reporting standard, which could generate increased workload for facilities. The Department of State Health Services is tasked with adopting the necessary procedures to enforce these new requirements, thus centralizing and securing abortion data reporting within the state’s health infrastructure.

Summary

SB1948 aims to enhance the electronic reporting requirements for abortion facilities in Texas. The bill mandates that each facility must submit a monthly report detailing the abortions performed, utilizing a secure electronic reporting system established by the Department of State Health Services. This requirement seeks to streamline data collection and improve oversight of abortion facilities, as well as to maintain public health standards related to abortion procedures. The implementation of such electronic systems is also intended to facilitate easier data access while ensuring compliance with state law regarding abortion services.

Contention

SB1948 is likely to incite debate related to privacy and the implications of increased oversight in women's healthcare services. While proponents may argue that enhanced reporting could ensure better regulations and health outcomes, opponents might contend that it introduces unnecessary burdens on abortion providers and may deter them from offering services. Concerns regarding patient anonymity are also pertinent, as the bill stipulates that the reports published must not identify facilities, healthcare providers, or patients. This raises questions about the balance between oversight and the right to privacy in sensitive medical decisions.