UPDATE To Hearing on SB179
Bill Amendment Improves Bill.
But Not Enough.
This week, at a hearing on SB179-a bill that proposes various changes to Nevada abortion law, NVRTL Executive Director Melissa Clement said that an amendment to SB179 that both took out language in the bill that would have removed Nevada’s parental notification law and took out language removing penalties for concealing birth by disposing of the child’s dead body, “improves a very bad bill — unfortunately, not enough for Nevada Right to Life to support it.”

The other proposed changes in the bill to Nevada’s already permissive abortion law make this bill an abortionist and abortion clinic protection act.

First, as Clement noted, it "transfers the burden from the doctor to the woman, who may not know what to ask." 

Second, it removes the requirement that physical and emotional implications be explained.

Third, SB179 removes the provision that informed consent to an abortion has been given “freely and without coercion,” removing responsibility for the abortionist to make sure there is no coercion.  Many times when a woman or child presents herself for an abortion, there are other people who have a personal interest in her having the abortion. Coercion screening is especially necessary because Nevada’s parental notification statute is currently suspended.  Abortion clinics should not be accessories to further victimization.

These provisions protect the abortionist and make this a virtual abortionist protection act.

A fourth objection is that the bill would also remove the provision that “Every person who shall manufacture, sell or give away any instrument, drug, medicine or other substance, knowing or intending that the same may be unlawfully used in procuring the miscarriage of a woman, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.” With such a weak unborn victims of violence law in Nevada, were someone to secretly give a drug to a pregnant women to cause abortion, it’s doubtful there would be any penalty for the harm done to the unborn.

NOTE: NVRTL supports the provision to prevent aborting women from being prosecuted for aborting. The pro-life movement has not advocated the prosecution for women who have had an abortion.  Click here to read the reasons why women were not prosecuted for abortion prior to Roe.

Thank you to everyone who came to the hearing or attended by video conference in Las Vegas. Thank you to everyone who wrote to members of the committee and shared their opinion at the legislative opinion site.  The fact that the bill was amended says that legislators heard both you and Nevada Right to Life, loud and clear. 

We’ll have more information as it becomes available. For now please help us defeat this bill by doing the following:

Please email or call the members of the Health and Human Services Committee and ask them to oppose SB179. And please take a moment to register your opposition to SB179 at the legislative poll site. "No on SB179." 

1. Contact the members of the committee by email: 

2. Register your opposition to this bill at the legislative poll site. Go to https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Opinions/80th2019/ Go to Select a Bill, choose SB179 and say "No on SB179" or some other message.

3. Please follow us on Facebook at Nevada Right to Life and share our communications. Try Clicking here to see in web view and post to social media.
BACKGROUND: from our previous alert.

Nevada Right to Life’s Opposition To SB179

Nevada Right to Life opposes the bill as written for several reasons. Contrary to the reported intent of the law to modernize Nevada’s consent requirements for women seeking and abortion, it would strip what little substance there is to the law.  It is important that women considering an abortion be given scientifically accurate information on fetal development, information on different types of abortions, abortion risks, alternatives, and resources for pregnant women as well as a reflection period ranging from 18-72 hours. 

Second, while informed consent is still required, the provision that it be done “freely and without coercion” has been removed.  “ The best estimates indicate that somewhere between 30 to over 60 percent of women seeking abortions in the United States do so under pressure , ” Nevada Right to Life believes that due to the number of coerced abortions, this provision needs to be retained and upgraded to strengthen provisions to detect coercion to protect women from further victimization. This bill removes any responsibility for the abortionist to make sure there is no coercion. This should not be considered an undue burden to the clinic, but a public responsibility. Abortion clinics should not be accessories to her victimization.  

UPDATE: This provision has been dropped. We also oppose SB179 because it would remove Nevada’s parental notification law.  While that law has been enjoined (prevented from going into effect) by the US 9 th Circuit Court of Appeals, the Nevada Legislative Council Digest regarding the bill notes that the only provision that keeps it from going into law is that Nevada’s law does not have “any time limit on the period within which the district court must rule upon a request for judicial authorization” for a minor seeking a judicial bypass to parental notification.   

Vast numbers of Americans approve of parental notification, including many who consider themselves pro-choice on abortion.  The legislature should specify a time period to make Nevada’s law enforceable and mandate that parents be informed. Having no enforceable parental notification requirement in Nevada benefits sexual predators and the sex trafficking industry, which use abortion clinics to cover up their crimes against girls.  

Another provision would remove penalties in regards to selling or giving away “any instrument, drug, medicine or other substance,” to produce miscarriage” ( selling drugs to produce miscarriage ). Nevada has a very weak unborn victims of violence act ( Killing of unborn quick child ) which penalizes people harming the unborn in an attack on the mother with up to 10 years in jail and a $10,000 fine, but that only applies to a “quick child.” “ Quick Child” or “quickening ” refers to the time when motion is felt by the mother. A person could slip an abortion drug into an unsuspecting pregnant mother’s drink and it would seem that prior to quickening, there would be no penalty.  

Note: abortion advocates have defeated attempts to strengthening our law against harm to the unborn in attacks on their mothers.

UPDATE: This provision has been dropped. The bill also removes penalties for “ concealing birth ” and the provision that “every person who shall endeavor to conceal the birth of a child by any disposition of its dead body, whether the child died before or after its birth, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.”

Note 2 On Decriminalization: The bill would decriminalize abortion for the aborting woman. While the abortion industry and its political advocates have long accused pro-lifers of wanting to send women to jail, this is emphatically not the case.  In a story this week , NVRTL Executive Director Melissa Clement notes “We’ve never been in favor of throwing women in jail for a difficult decision like this.” In regards to public policy, even where prosecution of women for abortion may have existed, prior to Roe v Wade, “ There is no documented case since 1922 in which a woman has been charged in an abortion in the United States. ”

The story also noted that Clement “continues to have concerns over removing a discussion about the emotional implications of having an abortion from the informed consent process. She also raised concerns over the unintended consequences of two decriminalization statutes, including one that she said could allow a boyfriend to slip his girlfriend an abortion drug without her knowledge.”