A searchable audio archive from the 2013-2016 legislative sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly.

searching for


Reliance on Information Posted The information presented on or through the website is made available solely for general information purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials by you or any other visitor to the Website, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents. Please see our Terms of Use for more information.

Senate | July 2, 2013 | Chamber | Session Part 2

Full MP3 Audio File

Senate come in order. Sergeant Rahms close the doors. Members go to their seats. Members as well as guests in the gallery, please take a moment to silence all of your electronic devices. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Apodaca for purpose your ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Motion please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Apodaca has the floor for motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President I move that the rules be suspended to the end that house bill 695 foreign laws that was read in while we were on recess be brought forth for media consideration. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Nesbitt, objection. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Nesbitt objects to the motion to suspend the rules so we will have to take a vote on that. It'll need a three fifths majority to pass. So the question before the Senate is the motion to suspend the rules. All in favor vote aye, opposing vote no. Five seconds will be allowed for the voting pro quo quo for the vote. Senators I did, I forgot to mention that part of that vote Senator Rucho, Arzel, Bingham, and McLaurin have excused absences. Senator Woodard, Tillman aye. Allran no. Woodard no. Brown aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President, he changed that vote to no? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Ford changes his vote to no. Is everybody's vote in? We have 29 having voted in the affirmative and 12 in the negative. With 41 I think we needed 25. Forward vote 28 to 13. Is that correct Madam Clerk? We need 25 for three fifths so the motion to suspend the rules does pass. House bill 695 critical reading. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House bill 695: Family, Faith, and Freedom Protection Act. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Daniel recognized to explain the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. President, members of the Senate. This bill is a consolidation of several House bills and portions of one Senate bill that have been filed this session, specifically the first section of the bill I guess if you have questions I may defer those to Senator Goolsby as the debate goes on but I can certainly explain the rest of the bill. So I guess the best way- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President, can I ask you a question? I apologize for interrupting, but it’s not on my dashboard is it up on everyone else’s? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It is up on the dashboard. Senator Kinnaird does not have it on her dashboard either. Senators raise your hand if it's not showing up on your dashboard there are a handful of hand so let’s give this a second to regenerate. Regenerate your devices Senators and make sure everyone's connected to the network. Is there anybody that does not have it on their device yet? Hands, anybody that does not have it. Senator Kinnaird we’re still waiting on Senator Kinnaird. Senator Walters you can look on with your neighbor. Senator Kinnaird do you have it up on your screen? Everybody has it on their screen? Senator Daniel you can continue [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. President section 2 of the bill deals with the application of foreign law. This provision guarantees the protection of constitutional rights granted to individual and businesses from foreign law.

It prevents courts from applying foreign law in divorce, alimony, child custody actions and contracts if doing so would violate that persons fundamental Constitutional rights. The next section is healthcare conscience protection. Currently state law protects doctors and nurses only. This merely expands the definition of healthcare providers to include pharmacists, nurses assistants and other providers who currently have no right to object to performing an abortion on these grounds because we believe that healthcare workers deserve the same protection that doctors and nurses have. This next section is limiting abortion funding. We are exercising North Carolina's right, under the Affordable Care Act, to opt out of covering abortions under plans offered through a healthcare exchange except in cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother is endangered. Twenty-two states have already exercised this right, and it's consistent with both our state health plan law and with federal healthcare for federal employees. Next section is...well, actually the other part, too, is that this provision extends down to local and county governments. If they have local health plans, those would prohibit government funds from providing elective abortion coverage but would still have the exceptions for the life of the mother, rape and incest. The next section is prohibiting sex-selective abortions. We believe that having an abortion because the child is not the desired gender is just plain wrong and that it is discrimination and should be condemned. We don't tolerate gender discrimination in the workplace nor should we tolerate it when a child's life is at stake. The last section is sort of titled...I believe it's titled Amendments to Women's Right to Know Act. What this is, these are basically safety provisions to ensure the safety of women who would be undergoing a procedure in an abortion clinic. So the main provision here is that the physician would be required to be present throughout the surgical procedure or whether its a medical, surgical abortion or whether it's a medicinally induced abortion. This is just a safety measure. We've all seen in the news the great tragedies that have happened in Pennsylvania, and we don't want that to happen in North Carolina. There is a piece that's after that that's sort of a rule-making directive to the Department of Health and Human Services for them to begin to analyze the administrative code as it relates to abortion clinics and surgical centers and to try to ensure that we have one set of standards in North Carolina for the safety of our clinics and our women and not to have dual standards. That is pretty much a summary of the bill, Mr. President, and I urge your support and would be glad to answer any questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do we have any discussion or debate? Senator Kinnaird, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do not see the public debate which this body has always represented. We present things in front of the public so that the public can know what we're doing. We don't sneak things in at 7:00 at night with no notice to the public, no chance to debate. But my own personal opinion about this bill is it has so little merit that I will not even do what I've done before on every bill that I've cared about, which is present facts, present logic, present the view of my constituents. This bill does not even merit debate on this floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McKissick, what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McKissick has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Like my colleague, Senator Kinnaird, I'm deeply concerned about the lack of public notice before this very important and significant piece of legislation was brought before us. As if we're waiting until a day before the Fourth of July, when the House is not even in session, when there are few members of the press which are here to unfold this very significant and far-reaching legislation. This legislation essentially has the effect of putting a padlock on the door of health facilities in this state that offer healthcare to women and most particularly abortion services. Put a padlock on the door to pretty much eliminate that option. And that's really, in my mind, unconscionable. This is the type of bill that deserves far-reaching debate; the opportunity for people with pros and cons to come forward and express their thoughts and opinions. [AUDIO ENDS]

If you look at what we're attempting to do with the health benefits exchange, it's unfortunate that we here in North Carolina we've decided not to offer a state exchange, it's going to be the federal exchange, but to say that the health plans that they offer, private plans that people might purchase, won't be able to obtain coverage for abortions. That's wrong. People deserve that right. To say to our cities and towns will not have the right any longer under their medical coverage plans to offer coverage for persons who might require an abortion. That's wrong and it's unconscionable. To establish standards for these facilities that are so stringent and far-reaching that most of the facilities in this state that offer that type of choice, it's unconscionable. It's the wrong thing to do. I hate to see this state of North Carolina that I am so very, very proud of, I hate to see it turning its back on women's rights. I hate to see us moving in a direction that, in my mind, is stamping out the right of choice. And when I think of when Roe v. Wad was considered by the United States Supreme Court and the very premise that it's based upon is the right of privacy, the right for somebody to choose in the privacy of their own mind with their family, with their friends, or even individually and personally what is right for them, regardless of whether your pro-choice or anti-choice, women deserve that constitutionally protected right. And it's all based upon the right of privacy. The right of privacy. And now we seek to encroach upon that zone of privacy, that constitutionally protected right from the Supreme Court, to even say why are you obtaining this abortion if that's a choice that the person makes. It may be a difficult choice, a challenging choice, but to say are you doing this because the gender of the child, that's intrusive. That is personal. And it is wrong. We may not agree that that's the right reason for people who make these important, personal decisions, but it is a protected right. And here in North Carolina, we should be deeply concerned about moving this state in the wrong direction. We can do better. We can protect the rights of women. We can protect their choices. We can stand up and be pioneers throughout the South and throughout this nation. But we don't need to basically take giant steps backwards in allowing people those rights to choose what they might like to do with their bodies. It's the wrong thing for North Carolina. And I'm ashamed that we're bringing this bill forward at the eleventh hour without any significant public debate and forcing this issue to be voted on tonight. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Graham, for what purpose do you rise. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak to the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Graham has the floor to speak to the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. Before I left Charlotte this week, my administrative assistant at the university wanted to know if I was watching what was happening in Texas and the debate that they were having over there about a similar piece of legislation. And I told her that I was and following it on TV and predicted to her that before we end session that we will be discussing this bill, similar, in North Carolina. That was Monday. Yesterday. I'm not a fortune teller, but I clearly understand national politics. And I understand how it impacts people right here in Raleigh and Charlotte and Wilson and Fayetteville and Greensboro. That it had nothing to do with...and I respect the bill's sponsors and their presentation of the bill...but what I do have some heartburn about as someone who has been in elective politics, first as a member of the Clean City Campaign and doing volunteer work in the city council and now in the state Senate, is process. Is process. The people of North Carolina deserve better than this. People are watching what we're doing. [AUDIO ENDS]

People are listening at what we're saying and they deserve better than this. Whether you're pro-choice or pro-life or whatever, you know, I can debate the, you know, it's what we do and how we do things. It's not, it's, it's what he folks that are coming here every might, every Monday night are saying. They don't expect people to change their political philosophy over night. They don't expect you to all of a sudden have a, a moral wakening about right and wrong. Many believe you are right. What they want is respect. What they want is moderation. What they want is opportunity to put their voices to be heard by their law makers, both democrat and republican, a right to debate honest and openly. That right was taken away tonight, even from the members. I warranted into the judiciary one committee cause, you know, this is the last two weeks of session, so I've been here long enough to know that anything could happen. And we're debating a major piece of legislation. Many of you believe it's the right thing to do. I disagree. But, even if you do, you should stand by your conviction and talk about this bill in the day of the light. Tell people why you support it. Look them in the eye and tell them why you think they are wrong. But to do it in this type of matter is just another example of blatant disrespect for the public. Disrespect for honest debate. Another example of over reaching. The bill in itself, and again, you know, I, I just saw it myself less than maybe an hour and ten minutes ago. Far reaching implications. Women's centers across this state may not be able to meet the standards that we are going to vote on tonight. Cities and counties now have to talk about whether or not the benefits that I believe they give to their workers will be superseded by what the state thinks. Yet another example of this majority who believes in smaller government telling local governments what they should do. Telling, giving authorization to workers who aren't physicians to right to choose to make a conscious decision. That's worthy of debate. No debate to be had. And so, here we are, seven thirty five. Less than twenty-five, thirty minutes in the judiciary one. Bills on the floor. Gettin' ready to vote on it. No public input. Major piece of legislation. Fourth of July weekend. Members of both side are absent for various reasons. No public input. Let's do it. No one's watching. Let's just do it. Just because you can, doesn't mean that you should. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak for the discussion of debate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Blue, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Will Senator Daniel yield for a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Daniel, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Senator. I was reflecting on the last portion of your presentation where you indicated that the doctor, I believe, has to be present in any procedure, even chemical procedures. Does that mean that if a doctor prescribes, and I don't know what the procedure is, of course I... [End]

Because it wouldn’t effect me. If a doctor prescribes the morning after pill, however that is acquired, then the prescription can’t be filled because he wont be there when the woman takes the pill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Blue, there is a distinction, the morning after pill is different from RU486. So I think the answer to your question is no, that’s a different procedure. This is for RU-486 which is the chemically induced abortion that is done at abortion clinics. Not for the over the counter pill that can be obtained at your pharmacist. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Daniel, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That’s what the language of that the bill as it stands, basically prohibit the dispensing of a morning after pill, that the arguments that I’ve heard is that that pill has an abortive effect. [SPEAKER CHANGES] My understanding of the language is that this only affects RU-486 procedures. [SPEAKER CHANGES] One last follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Daniel, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Again, we parse words that's what or profession does, but is there anywhere in the bill that says that it just applies to the RU-4 procedure? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don’t think, Senator Blue, that the language specifically says that. That’s just how it’s been communicated to me from bill drafting. I would be glad to try to get further clarification. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Newton for what purpose do you raise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak to the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Newton has the floor to speak to the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. President. I begin by saying that I don’t know anybody yet that has told me that they think that applying sharia law in a courtroom here in the United States is a good idea. I’m waiting to hear that. Maybe when I look at the board I’ll see some people that I know disagree with me. I don’t know anybody who disagrees with the idea that a healthcare provider should not be forced to participate in giving abortion if that violates its conscience. We’ve already got legislation on the books for that effect. I suspect when I look at the board I’ll see that there’s some people who disagree with me about that, but I don’t know any body yet that disagrees with that. Most of the people I know don’t think that tax payer money should be used to fund for abortions. I’ve heard the talking points about procedure and all that. I don’t know anybody who thinks that’s a good idea. I’m looking forward to looking at the board and see if I meet some people who disagree with that. There probably are a few, but I haven’t had that conversation with them. Most people I know don’t think tax payer money should be used to fund abortions. I really don’t know anybody who thinks it’s a bad idea to say, “the doctor’s got to be there when the abortion is going on.” Now I suspect I’ll meet some people shortly when I look at the board to see, that say that,“That’s a bad idea,” that, “the doctor shouldn’t have to be there. We don’t have to worry about women’s safety.” Most important, I really don’t know anybody, and I’m looking forward to hearing it from somebody who can explain to me why it’s a good idea that this state should allow abortion for sex selection. I don’t know anybody who agrees with that. Maybe when I look at the board I’ll see some folks who do. That’s what this bill does. For those of you who want to make a talking point about procedures, the House has debated every one of those portions and debated it in full with televisions cameras present, like they are here out in the open, and Senator Graham, I’m looking through the skylights and its still light outside. We had a full debate in J1, didn’t cut anybody off. All the hands that wanted to be raised, were raised. Senator Stein, Senator Nesbitt had lots of questions. I think we exhausted their questions. All the debate that wanted to be had, was had in J1 in a full committee meeting. Guess what? Everybody in this room is going to have a full opportunity to debate it until we have that vote. This is a good bill, this is good common sense legislation, and I commend it to you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Bryant, for what purpose do you raise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’ll defer to Senator Stein. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Stein, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Stein has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Newton, it’s ironic that you made the point that you just made because I did have the opportunities to ask questions, and I had another question, and you did cut me off. You said, “I had no more questions.”, so to have said I had the opportunity to exhaust my questions is a little bit ironic. This is terrible process. Process does matter. The rules require when there's a proposed committee substitute it be given to us the night before. Why? So we can look at it and we can talk to people.

people who have concerns about that legislation, before we go into committee and debate it. Well, we had this Anti-Sharia bill on the calendar this morning, and it was a one or two page bill. Then that meeting gets cancelled. All right, fine. Then we get notice on the floor immediately before, that there's going to be a bill, that bill is coming back up, the Anti-Sharia Law bill. Well, we've seen that bill before, we're ready to go in there to debate it. Well no, we go in there, and it is, has six, five or six new provisions on abortion. What is the relationship between Sharia Law and abortion? We were in there ready to debate Anti-Sharia Law provision. The irony is, if you look at the Anti-Sharia Law provision, what it says is, 'The General Assembly hereby declares it to be the public policy of this state to protect its citizens from the application of law that would result in the violation of a fundamental constitutional right of a natural person.' That's rich. I would've took out one word, 'foreign.' Why don't we just insert, North Carolina General Assembly? Because you all are trying to pass a law, and I'll tell you why I'm going to vote against this bill, Senator Newton, and it's not the ?? selection provision. I don't have any problem with that. It would be offensive if anybody did that. The reason that I am opposing this legislation is because its intent is to eliminate a woman's constitutional right to have access to healthcare procedures for their pregnancy. To eliminate their choice. That is why I am opposed to this legislation. This provision says, 'Section 7.' 'Section 6', excuse me, 'that any facility, any clinic must have suitable facilities similar to those for licensure of an ambulatory surgical center.' There's one in this entire state that meets that standard. An abortion is less risky than a colonoscopy, is less risky than a dental procedure. Are we going to require dentists to meet surgical ambulatory center standards? Are we going to require family, or gastroenterologists to perform colonoscopies to meet surgical ambulatory standards? There is one reason why that provision's in there. That is to deny women the ability to exercise their fundamental constitutional right, which you all are so concerned about the Sharia faction of North Carolina limiting our constitutional rights. We don't need to be worried about them, we need to be worried about the Republican Senate's limitation of people's fundamental constitutional rights. This bill, this bill and this process are not worthy of this chamber. I urge you to not vote this. Let's debate it tomorrow, let's debate it next week, let's let the public, how many people are in this chamber? There are five, six citizens in this chamber. I can't see above me, you tell me, am I wrong, is there fifteen? Thank you, thank you. There are twenty citizens in this chamber. Do you think twenty citizens care about this piece of legislation? You all, as Senator Graham said, disrespecting the people of North Carolina, and frankly, you should be ashamed of yourselves. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Senator Bryant, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Senator Bryant has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. I just want to comment to colleagues, that I just feel sad about the lack of integrity and honesty in this process. And the fact that you would even try to pretend or claim that it was open, when you know that there are people in this state who disagree with what you're doing, who have concerns about what you're doing, who would have information to provide about the provisions in this bill. There was no public notice of it at any time when people had those positions could attend. Yes, your supporters, who are the ones that you notified that you were going to do this, a selective public notice, they're here in the chamber, but not the people who you knew

we have an invested interest in this, the women of the state. And yes you are taking a move to continue to try to dominate women. Enslave our uterus's to perform functions according to what your values want. Whit out using the body parts that have the gaul to have the courage to stand up to the light of day, and I mean the light of the bussisnes day to put your provision out in the public, and to have them honestly debated. Yes some of this provisions where in bills form the house, but not all of them came out of the house. In house bills. So this has not been an hones and fair processes, and I feel disappointed about that. And wrong, will not prevail. You may have a short term victory in terms of what you are trying to accomplish here, but in the long run you will not prevail, because your processes is flawed thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] senator Parmon for what purpose you rise [SPEAKER CHANGES] speak on the bill [SPEAKER CHANGES] senator Parmon has the floor to speak on the bill [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister president and colleges. while I realise the conversation we are having doesn't matter to most of the members in this camber. Because your minds are made up. however I was reflecting as we talk about women's right and there rights to chose. Particularly on this issue of abortion. and I remember as a young women when abortions weren’t available. How women when about getting those abortions. And I shutter to think that, that's what we are opening the women of this state up again to, back alleys, coat hangers, all mixtures of medications, to abort pregnancies. When this state should allow women to have the medical procedure perform by a doctor. I hear my colleges use the word equality and bad ideas. I think is just the hypocrisy of how we do thing in this chamber and we are referred to as the honourables. And I think we are less than honourable, when we, are stupe to the measures we have tonight to bring this bill when we had no knowledge, and could not contact our constituents to even look at them, know the bill was gonna be heard. So I just think that, we are not doing the right thing, is over reaching as been said. And the people of North Carolina are simply fed up and as a senator I am embarrassed and ashamed to be forced to have to vote NO on this bill, in this manner, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] senator Daniel for what purpose you rise [SPEAKER CHANGES] speak a second time [SPEAKER CHANGES] senator Daniesl's has the floor to speak a second time [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm a little surprise at some of the remarks I'm hearing form the other side of the isle. for the last month, two months, tree months. After the press decided that they were willing to actually show what when on the Gosnell clinic, and to show the Gosnell trial. We learn that, back alley abortion aren’t occurring in the back alley, they are occurring in abortion clinics. This bill is about safety. this is about, you know lass session we had The Women’s Right To Know Act, and the other side said, you are getting in between the women’s relationship with her doctor. Now they are opposed to the women doctor being in the room when they are having an abortion. I just don't see the logic. This is about patient safety. 85% of abortions in this state are done on women that are 18 to 24. And you to think they deserve the right to walk in to a clinic that's clean and safe, or you don't. We shouldn't have two standards for surgical centers in the state of Caroline we should have one. If we require regulation that are burdensome on orthopaedics, and they can compete in the marketplace. then private abortions providers can two. To correct one statement that was made. we are not voting on standards for clinics tonight any way. Other than the doctors presence. We are voting to allow DHHS to create rules that they will bring back to the legislature, and will approve them or disapprove them. So I would certainly encourage my colleges on the other side of the isle.

vote for a bill that promotes safety, promotes healthcare conscious. If you’re really concerned about the fundamental right then let’s have a safe fundamental right for the women of North Carolina. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Bryant, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Bryant has the floor to speak a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Again I feel like we’re being disingenuous here. This bill is not about safety, it’s not about women’s healthcare, it’s not about anything in Pennsylvania, it’s about limiting the access of women in North Carolina to a health procedure that is their constitutional right. We already have provisions about the health consciousness of the healthcare providers. The doctor already has to be present to provide an abortion otherwise you couldn’t get one. The abortion clinics are some of the most heavily regulated health procedures in this state. All of that is sufficient and women are getting a fine healthcare experience in this situation in North Carolina. There have not been any reported problems in that regard. And so, this is not about the issues that are purported to be the case, it’s disingenuous and that this is really about limiting women’s rights and it’s important to stand up and make that point. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any further discussion or debate? Senator Woodard for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Woodard has the floor to speak to the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. Ladies and gentleman of the Senate, you can dress this up however you want, you can come up with every euphuism in the book, you can give this bill every patriotic title you want, but that doesn’t change the simple fact that this bill is an end run around our committees our procedures and most importantly our public, to place severe restrictions in the way of women’s access to safe and legal reproductive health. In last fall’s ?? debate, Governor McCrory committed that he wouldn’t sign any further restrictions on abortion. Governor, the women of North Carolina are counting on you to keep your commitment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any further discussion or debate? Senator Nesbitt, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Nesbitt has the floor to speak to the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of the Senate you’ve heard this in several speeches tonight, but I feel like we’ve got to repeat it and we’ve got to understand it in here. We’re treating this place as if it’s ours to do with as we please, the fifty of us. Actually, the 33 of you. And that all that matters is whether you prevail in here. Those rules were put in place not so you could suspend them and beat us, you can beat us every day all day, we don’t have enough votes. They were put on there’s a process out here where the public gets to see what we’re doing. You put a committee substitute online the night before so the public can get it. They can get it, we can get it, everybody has a chance to look at it. Now we’re in here debating a bill that’s going to effect better than half of our population directly and the rest of them indirectly. They haven’t had a chance to look at any of this, and I heard in the committee and I’ve heard on this floor, well I was told, it’s my thinking of the bill was intended. This bill’s not had any scrutiny and we don’t know what it does. We’ve kinda got an idea, yall got an idea and I’ve got an idea. I’ma give ya a couple of my ideas here in a minute. But the most important thing is, we got a state full of people out there that don’t even know we’re down here doing this. And let me tell you what I think you’re doing to them. I think the provision having to do with ambulatory care centers is going to do away with healthcare as a

Know it for women who need help. And there are going to be more of them, not less of them. When you force these things in the ambulatory surgical centers, Planned Parenthood has four centers in the state, none of them compliant. Out of business. Nobody told us that in committee. I scurried around and got the information myself. That crowd who’s going to descend on you when you get back down here is going know it. It’s a frontal attack on these facilities that offer women’s healthcare to women. Things that they need: mammograms, etcetera. You are eliminating abortion coverage for people who may be antiabortion, but may need one later in life. Now the way I understand the exchanges were set up: no you can’t use government money for that procedure. But they were going to provide something that women could purchase separately with their own money. You’re trying to cut that off, to where no woman will have abortion coverage. What happens if her life is in danger? What happens if she’s a victim of rape and incest? What happens if it’s your daughter or your granddaughter and they need help, and your policy that you have doesn’t cover abortion? Everybody in here can pay for it; it ain’t no problem. Well everybody out there can’t pay for it. And you have health insurance for a reason, and it’s to cover all of these contingencies. Not only are we saying that to people who might be in our health exchange, we said that to people in our…. We’re saying the local governments, and you can’t do it either. Now you all watch the news just like I do — I don’t know how much you watch about Texas. We’re sitting in here tonight and you’re going to win this debate and feel really good about yourself, because you, all you big grown up gray haired men, have beat three women. I want to see what you do with about 10,000 of them. Because they’re coming. They’re coming. They’re not going to put up with you doing this to them, in the dark of the night, in the middle of a holiday week… [Speaker Changes] Mr. President. [Speaker Changes] Senator ?? [Speaker Changes] Can you please tell me what time it is, and is the sun still out? [Speaker Changes] It’s eight o’clock at night on Tuesday night. We’re back in session on a bill that wasn’t even on the calendar at six o’clock. [Speaker Changes] Mr. President, I want to object the third reading right now so we can talk tomorrow more when the sun’s out. [Speaker Changes] I think that would be a wonderful idea when the time comes. And then by tomorrow some people in the public will know about this bill and they’ll be able to tell us what it does. —this. You cannot keep doing this to the general public of this state. You’ve got people already marching on this place, and that’s over how we’ve been behaving. And you start dragging up a committee meeting, no notice to the public, go down there and do a bill that disenfranchises women to this extent, and they're not included in the debate. There's nobody there from their side to even speak for them. And bring the bill up here, and I'm sorry if I've hurt your feelings. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. I meant to tell the truth on this stuff. Because this is bad, bad business. And this is not our place to abuse. This place deserves more respect than to do this kind of thing to the people. [Speaker Changes] Any further discussion or debate?  Hearing none. Question for the senate: is the passage for the senate committee substitute the house bill 695 on a second reading?All in favor, vote aye, opposed vote no. Five seconds will be left for the voting and the clerk will record the vote. Ford? Ford? Senator Ford? [Speaker Changes] No. [Speaker Changes] Twenty-seven having voted in the affirmative and fourteen in the negative. Senate committee..

House Bill 695 passes its second reading. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Objection. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Bryant objects, Senator- [SPEAKER CHANGES] I had already objected, let the record show. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Apodaca objects to third reading and it will remain on the calendar. That concludes our calendar for this evening. Do we have any notices or announcements? Is there any further business to come before the Senate? If not, the Chair recognizes Senator Berger. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Nesbitt, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Democrats will caucus immediately after session. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Chair recognizes Senator Berger for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the Senate do now adjourn subject to the receipt of committee reports, the receipt of messages from the Governor, and the re-referral of bills and resolutions to reconvene on Wednesday, July 3rd, 2013 at 9:00 AM. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The motion is the Senate do now adjourn, subject to the stipulations stated by Senator Berger, to reconvene Wednesday, July 3rd at 9:00 AM., seconded by Senator Barefoot. All in favor say aye. Opposed no. The aye's have it. The Senate stands adjourned.