Senators also approved a bill to tighten the state’s parental-notification law, which deals with minors seeking abortions. In all, the Republican-controlled Legislature has passed four measures this week aimed at making it less likely that women or girls will get abortions.

The Senate voted 24-15 for the ultrasound bill (HB 1127), which is similar to a measure that former Gov. Charlie Crist vetoed last year. Supporters said mandating ultrasounds will give women more information — and could lead some to forgo abortions.

“This is not telling them what to do with their body,’’ said Sen. Thad Altman, R-Melbourne. “This is just giving them more information to make an informed decision.’’

But Sen. Evelyn Lynn, R-Ormond Beach, criticized the Legislature’s focus on abortion bills when many Floridians are unemployed and losing homes in foreclosure. She said she would not vote to make a decision about “your personal values, your personal religion, your personal body.’’

“This is not the issue that is the most-important issue in this state,’’ Lynn said.

Senate bill sponsor Ronda Storms, however, defended focusing on abortion, saying lawmakers make value decisions on numerous types of issues.

“The great questions of life are why we’re here,’’ the Valrico Republican said.

The measure, which now goes to Gov. Rick Scott, would require ultrasounds before women can have first-trimester abortions, a requirement that already is in place for later-term abortions. Women would have to sign forms if they do not want to see the fetal images or hear descriptions.

Democrats blasted what they described as government interfering in the relationship between doctors and patients. They also said Republican support for the ultrasound bill contradicted the GOP’s stance that last year’s federal health-care overhaul was a government intrusion into personal medical issues.

“I think women can make an informed decision on their own without the government interfering,’’ said Senate Minority Leader Nan Rich, D-Weston.

But Sen. Jack Latvala, R-St. Petersburg, said a recent change in the bill led him to support it. That change eliminated a requirement that women hear descriptions of the ultrasound images.

With Republicans dominating both chambers of the Legislature — and the conservative Scott in the governor’s office — abortion opponents have moved forward with a series of bills during this year’s session.

On Wednesday, lawmakers gave final approval to a proposed constitutional amendment that would make clear public money cannot be used for abortions. Also, they approved a bill that would ban abortion coverage in policies sold through a state health-insurance exchange, which is expected to start operating in 2014 because of the federal health overhaul.

Before passing the ultrasound bill Thursday, Senators voted 26-12 to approve the parental notice measure (HB 1127), which also is ready to go to Scott.

Florida law already requires that parents be notified before minors can have abortions. But the bill seeks to tighten restrictions on what is known as a judicial “bypass” — a process that allows minors to seek court approval for abortions without their parents being told.

As an example, the bill will require minors to go to courts in the judicial circuits where they live. Currently, they are able to go before judges anywhere in their appellate districts — a far-larger number of courts in some regions of the state.

Critics said that could threaten the confidentiality of minors seeking abortions, particularly in rural areas where judges or courthouse workers might know their families. The critics said some teens would be in danger of violence if family members find out they are pregnant or seeking abortions.

Sen. Chris Smith, D-Fort Lauderdale, said the current judicial-bypass system works.

“It seems we’re tinkering with the law for no reason,’’ Smith said.

But bill sponsor Alan Hays, R-Umatilla, said minors now can be driven hundreds of miles across North Florida to seek approval for abortions. He said the bill will maintain confidentiality for the minors, because judicial circuits often include numerous counties.

“It’s not like these young ladies have to go to their hometown courthouse,’’ Hays said.

House members took up five bills Tuesday that target issues such as insurance coverage for abortions, teen abortions, state funding of abortions and clinic ownership. A sixth bill would change how money is used from sales of the “Choose Life” license plate.

Republicans rejected a string of Democratic amendments during a four-hour debate. Democrats — who earlier sent out news releases describing the bills as “anti-women” and “anti-female” — repeatedly questioned the abortion focus when many voters are concerned about issues such as jobs and the economy.

“Would this legislation result in any creation of jobs?” Rep. Charles Chestnut, D-Gainesville, asked at one point.

But Rep. Rachel Burgin, a Riverview Republican who sponsored one of the bills, said “you cannot put an economic study on life.’’

“I believe the health of women and health of families is really important,’’ she said.

With Republicans controlling the governor’s office and both chambers of the Legislature for the past dozen years, debates about abortion bills have been common. But the volume of bills moving forward this year has been unusual.

The Senate could take up two abortion bills on the floor Wednesday, and others appear to have a chance at passing before the legislative session ends May 6.

Here are summaries of the House bills that are poised for votes as early as Wednesday:

— HB 1127: This measure would require ultrasounds before women can have first-trimester abortions, a requirement that already is in place for later-term abortions. It would largely reverse former Gov. Charlie Crist’s veto of a similar bill last year.

Women would have to sign forms stating they do not want to see the fetal images or hear descriptions. Supporters said Tuesday that many clinics already perform ultrasounds before abortions, but critics argued it could be a financial burden for some women.

“Will the patient be forced to pay for an ultrasound that she does not wish to be performed?’’ asked House Minority Leader Ron Saunders, D-Key West.

But Rep. Paige Kreegel, a Punta Gorda Republican who is a physician, said good doctors already are performing ultrasounds.

“All we’re doing with this bill is mandating the good practice of medicine,’’ Kreegel said.

— HB 97: This proposal is designed to prevent abortion coverage in policies that will be sold through a state health-insurance exchange, which is required in 2014 as part of last year’s federal health overhaul.

Such exchanges will create new marketplaces for individuals and small businesses to buy health insurance, with low-income people able to get federal subsidies.

Tax dollars could not be used to pay for abortions, but the federal law will allow people to pay separately for abortion coverage. The House bill would block such coverage from being available in the Florida exchange.

— House Joint Resolution 1179: This proposed constitutional amendment would go on the 2012 ballot and, in part, make clear that public funds could not be used to pay for abortions — including through health-insurance coverage.

Federal law, known as the “Hyde Amendment,’’ already bars public funding of abortions through programs such as Medicaid. But resolution sponsor Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, said that law is not part of the Florida Constitution.

The proposed resolution, however, would go further because it also would prevent the Florida Constitution from being interpreted more broadly than the U.S. Constitution when it comes to abortion issues. That is important because a privacy clause in the Florida Constitution has been successfully used in the past to challenge abortion restrictions.

— HB 1247: This measure would change a law that requires parents to be notified before minors can get abortions. It would tighten restrictions on minors who seek judicial approval to have abortions without their parents being notified.

As an example, the bill would require minors to go before judges in the same judicial circuits where they live. That would be more restrictive than the current requirement, which allows minors to go before judges in the appellate-districts where they live — a far-larger number of courts in some regions of the state.

Abortion-rights advocates have long argued that some teens need the judicial-waiver process because they could be endangered if parents find out they are pregnant or seeking abortions. Rep. Jim Waldman, D-Coconut Creek, questioned Tuesday whether minors’ anonymity could be threatened if they have to go to courthouses in the circuit where they live.

But bill sponsor Kelli Stargel, R-Lakeland, said the current process allows minors to be driven up to six hours from their homes to go before judges.

— HB 1397: This measure includes a series of changes to abortion laws, including trying to prevent abortions after fetuses have reached “viability.’’

But perhaps the most-controversial part of the bill would require that doctors or groups of doctors own and operate any new clinics after Oct. 1, 2011. The requirement would not apply to currently operating clinics.

Rep. Luis Garcia, D-Miami Beach, said that could be a problem because physicians often need investors to finance clinics. But Burgin, the bill sponsor, said “this is not a job for entrepreneurs.’’

— HB 501: This proposal would funnel money collected through sales of the “Choose Life” license plate to a non-profit group called Choose Life, Inc.

The money is supposed to go to programs that help pregnant women who are willing to put babies up for adoption. Under current law, the money goes to counties, which then distribute it to adoption-related programs.

Baxley, the bill sponsor, said the state needs a more “uniform” process for distributing the money, which Choose Life, Inc., would provide. But opponents questioned whether the bill includes enough safeguards to make sure the non-profit uses the money appropriately.

The bill’s sponsor, state Sen. Alan Hays, R-Umatilla, said the change was made because he wants to avoid a situation in which young women would be “judge-shopping” when seeking a judicial bypass. He compared the process by which a minor would choose a judge for a bypass to Florida’s “pill mill” problem.

“I think doctor shopping in the pill mill world is wrong,” Hays said. “I think judge-shopping is wrong.”

Senate Bill 1770’s original language said that “a minor may petition any circuit court in a judicial circuit within the jurisdiction of the District Court of Appeal.” The new version restricts access to the “circuit court in which the minor resides for a waiver of the notice.”

Maria Kayanan of the ACLU of Florida said during public testimony that the bill’s language provides one of the “most restrictive bypass statutes” in the country. Only North Dakota has a similar restriction.

Continue reading here.

The House and Senate are moving forward with bills banning abortion coverage from policies that will be sold through health-insurance exchanges — marketplaces that will start operating in 2014 as a key part of the federal health law.

The House Health & Human Services Committee on Wednesday voted 11-5 to approve HB 97, sending the proposal to the full House. The Senate version, SB 1414, also has been approved by three committees and is ready to go to the full Senate.

Wednesday’s vote came after a sometimes-emotional debate that included Rep. Janet Cruz, D-Tampa, talking about becoming pregnant and having a daughter while she was in high school. She opposed the bill and said lawmakers need to respect women’s decisions.

“Everyone’s circumstances and health-care needs are different,’’ Cruz said.

At one point, American Civil Liberties Union lobbyist Larry Spalding chastised male lawmakers for making abortion decisions for women. That drew a sharp retort from bill sponsor Matt Gaetz, R-Fort Walton Beach.

“I hope as a man I can at least be qualified to be pro-life,’’ Gaetz said.

The federal health law, which President Obama and congressional Democrats approved in March 2010, will require almost all Americans to have health insurance starting in 2014.

The insurance exchanges are an important part of carrying out that requirement, as they will provide new markets where individuals and small businesses can buy coverage. Federal subsidies would be available to help low-income people afford insurance.

Florida is challenging the constitutionality of the federal law in a high-profile legal battle. But if it is not successful, it will have to create an insurance exchange — or else the federal government will create an exchange for the state.

Abortion coverage touched off a huge fight in Washington and almost derailed the health law. In the end, a compromise was reached that bars the use of federal funds for abortions but would allow health plans to offer abortion coverage in the exchanges.

In such cases, customers would have to make separate payments — one for abortion coverage and one for the other services covered by a health plan. But the law also allows states to ban abortion coverage in policies sold through the exchanges.

That led Florida lawmakers to pass such a ban during last year’s legislative session. But then-Gov. Charlie Crist vetoed the ban, which was part of a broader bill that included requiring women to undergo ultrasounds before they can have abortions.

The proposal dealing with insurance exchanges was one of three major abortion bills approved Wednesday by the Health & Human Services Committee in identical 11-5 votes. All of the votes were along party lines, with Republicans in favor and Democrats dissenting.

One of the bills (HB 1127) would reverse Crist’s veto and require ultrasounds before all abortions. An earlier version of the bill would have required women to hear descriptions of the ultrasound images, but bill sponsor Elizabeth Porter, R-Lake City, removed that requirement Wednesday.

Supporters say the bill is about making sure women receive as much information as possible before having abortions. But opponents say it interferes with the relationship between doctors and patients.

The other bill that passed Wednesday (HB 1397) includes a number of changes, such as banning any abortions after fetuses reach viability and requiring that new abortion clinics be owned and operated by physicians.

That went unnoticed until word got out that the House leadership admonished Randolph for using the U word. Impressionable young House pages are in the chamber, he was told. Laughter echoed around the social media, blogs and cable TV shows, and a blurb even made Time magazine online.

How the pages might be harmed by mention of an organ is unclear. There’s certainly womb for doubt.

But legislators worry about decorum. To set a good example for kids in the galleries, members are attentive in debate, speak politely and don’t read newspapers, scroll through texts, take long phone calls or fleece lobbyists on the House or Senate floor. Continue reading Bill Cotterell’s column here.

No one much noticed, or cared, until word leaked that Republicans told Democrats they couldn’t say the word.

Now people can’t stop saying it.

Angry with cuts to education? Democrats say uterus.

Don’t like giving Gov. Rick Scott more power? Uterus.

Upset with the way the Legislature is treating unions? Uterus!

The story caught the attention of national media and the legislator, Scott Randolph, made it on Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC cable show.

“Uterus?” It has a Facebook page, Twitter hashtags, and— because it’s politics — pink buttons.

But most importantly, Democrats looking for a unifying theme amid dour legislative prospects have found it in a single, unlikely word.

Randolph, 37, got the idea from his wife.

If she would incorporate her uterus, she said one night over dinner, maybe Republicans would drop 18 anti-abortion measures they are considering during the legislative session.

Republicans, after all, are against regulations for businesses.

Continue reading this story from the Miami Herald here.

Last week, state Rep. Scott Randolph, D-Orlando, suggested that his wife “incorporate her uterus” in the hopes that it may receive the same kind of privacy and protection businesses in Florida receive. Well, some of Randolph’s colleagues were not so thrilled with Randolph’s suggestion. To be clear, it was not the sentiment behind the suggestion that riled them — it was merely the use of the word “uterus.”

After conservative members of the house reprimanded Randolph, women and pro-uterus advocates are having a lot of fun with their Internet response.

Among this band of uterus-loving folks: the ACLU of Florida. The ACLU has just launched a website at which women can incorporate their uteri online, thus sending a message to Florida legislators that “less regulation and government intrusion begins with a woman’s uterus.” The website calls on women to literally make their uterus their own business.

Continue reading this story from the Florida Independent here.

But when lawmakers convened in Tallahassee for the 2011 legislative session, all that changed. The first five weeks have been dominated by discussion of bills to regulate and restrict abortions — there are at least 10 in all — and broaden the rights of individuals to keep guns and wear them openly.

Meanwhile, the one social issue that was debated widely during the campaign season — illegal immigration and the need for an “Arizona-style” law to control it — has lost steam and has been severely watered down, largely because of business opposition.

However, jobs bills — a variety of tax cuts and deregulation measures — have been slow-moving.

Continue reading this story from the Orlando Sentinel here.