Everything is Bigger in Texas, Even Abortion Restrictions

Despite the herculean effort of State Senator Wendy Davis‘ 13-hour filibuster against a severely restrictive abortion bill a couple of weeks ago, Governor Rick Perry called for a special session of the Texas House of Representatives in a last-ditch effort to save the piece of legislation:

Texas State Senator Wendy Davis (via CNN)

As of last night, the bill (which includes further restrictions on abortion clinics, doctors, and pills, as well as banning the procedure after 20 weeks of gestation, will leave only five clinics able to perform abortions in a state that is home to nearly 26,000,000 people) was passed and is now it’s way to the Senate.

In a time where pieces of legislation such as these are being passed more frequently than ever before, often based on misinterpreted science and religious dictates, we need skeptics to fight back more than ever before.

To help protest the bill, consider signing this petition to Texas lawmakers (via Planned Parenthood) and speaking to your own reps in any state where these sorts of actions are limiting women’s choices.

About Lauren Lane

Lauren Lane is the co-founder of Skepticon, the Midwest's largest skeptic student-run conference and remains a lead organizer today. She has not one, but TWO fancy art degrees and is not afraid to use them.

  • Brenda

    Does this abortion law apply to victims of rape and those with life-threatening medical emergencies? Are the new regulations for abortion clinics on par with comparable doctor’s offices? None of the articles I’ve read address these questions.

    • B

      The republicans have refused to allow any amendments that call for exceptions of victims of rape and incest. It does not allow for any abortions after 20 weeks, although it does seem to imply that doctors can use their discretion when treating a woman with life threatening medical emergencies. However, we know what will happen: Doctors will not risk their licenses and their livelihood to do this (nor should they have to).

      Please let me know if you have any other questions about this. I live in Austin and have been in the capital for every step of this horrible process (including being in the capital for 18 hours the day of the filibuster).

      -B

      • Brenda

        Thank you for the information. What a sorry crock of legislation.

      • nardo101

        Regarding Doctors not having to risk their careers on this issue. I agree, of course, that they shouldn’t have to. However, Doctors in the US are a fairly powerful constituency and I’ve often wondered whether national bodies like the AMA could or should exert more pressure on doctors to disobey local laws that are clearly against foundational principles in medical ethics (for example, unnecessary trans-vaginal ultrasounds).

    • B

      Also, no. The regulations for the abortion clinics are not on par with comparable doctors offices. Saying that clinics that perform abortion (which is, early on, clearly an outpatient procedure) should be ambulatory surgical centers is like saying that all orthodontists offices need to be equipped to handle people who come in with bullet wounds. Saying that doctors who perform abortions need to have admitting privileges at hospitals is stupid. If you have to go to an ER, you want to see an ER doctor and staff. It is irrelevant for the staff that performed the procedure to be present (not to mention, many doctors who perform abortions travel to different clinics, and so this would not be possible). The provision of the bill that says that you need to take any medications relating to the abortion procedure within the clinic is also stupid, and tantamount to forcing people who have had other medical procedures and have been released to return to the hospital every time they want to take pain medication.

      The reason for these restrictions have nothing to do with women’s health, and everything to do with closing down the clinics. Turning a women’s clinic into an ambulatory surgical clinic is impossible to some clinics (because of where buildings are located) and prohibitively expensive for others. For the doctors to have admitting privileges at hospitals within 30 miles of the clinics sounds nice, but there are many rural areas that don’t have a hospital within 30 miles, and so because of this technicality they would not be able to perform the procedure. Having to head back to the clinic multiple times just to take a pill in front of a doctor and then leave again ignores the sacrifice that many women have to take (money-wise and time-wise) to even get to the clinic in the first place. The goal of this bill is to close the clinics, and nothing else.

      • SJH

        You use the example of an orthodontics clinic. Is that really the same as an abortion clinic. It seems that the two are very different and that abortions are much more dangerous. Is that true?
        Regarding the location requirements, it may be impossible for some clinics but they can sell their clinic and purchase something closer to a hospital can’t they? And as far as I can tell most abortion doctors have a lot of money so why can’t they spend a little more on a better location.
        Also, you say taking medication in front of a doctor is stupid, can you provide some medical information on that? Why is that not a good idea other than that it is inconvenience? Is an abortion procedure not significant enough for such a requirement?

        • Brian Westley

          “you say taking medication in front of a doctor is stupid”

          Wow, what a thoroughly dishonest question.

        • Carmelita Spats

          Ah, yes, Texas slaps up its women-folk again. This state is run by pallid sexless demagogic men who think they know something of God and morality but know only ignominy and the smell of sulfur and death in
          their nightmares. They think we are irresponsible dumb-ass meat, unable to handle our own decisions, our own body, our sex, our health.

          There is no such thing as “an abortion doctor”. They are gynecologists. I would refuse to take medication in front of a doctor if I felt harassed in the same way that I would refuse to have a groping, creepy, hairdresser shampoo my head. I can take MY business elsewhere and I can escort other women to terminate pregnancies outside of the U.S. Fortunately, I can cross the border into Mexico and access abortion through the Mexican “Seguro Social”. You ask for a “legrado” and it is cheaper than in Texas. If you have the money up front and U.S. tags on your car, no questions are asked. Plus, there is NO waiting period, NO mandatory “counseling” and NO BIG FUCKING JESUS-ADDLED NANNY GOVERNMENT to force you to listen to a phone message from the Texas legislature about “fetal gestation” or to stick a wand up your vagina for no MEDICAL reason which means that you are being sexually assaulted and this is part of the violently voyeuristic game Christians play with women’s bodies. When Jesus comes back, I will personally volunteer to crucify him again but not before strapping the fucker’s little legs to the stirrups on the gynecologist’s examination table and then sticking a greasy wand up his loincloth. Glory!

          Nine-year-old impregnated rape victim in Brazil:

          http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1883598,00.html

          11-year-old impregnated rape victim in Chile: She says having a baby is like having a doll:

          http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-23253296

        • UWIR

          “Regarding the location requirements, it may be impossible for some clinics but they can sell their clinic and purchase something closer to a hospital can’t they?”

          So, if five clinics have found places where they can legally operate, all the other clinics can just relocate next to those five clinics? Do you truly not understand how incredibly stupid this is?

          “And as far as I can tell most abortion doctors have a lot of money so why can’t they spend a little more on a better location.”

          Whatever willingness I had to give you the benefit of the doubt went out the window with that comment. You clearly are operating from a position of prejudice rather than good faith.

          “Also, you say taking medication in front of a doctor is stupid, can you provide some medical information on that?”

          Why is the burden of proof not on you to show that it’s necessary?

        • talkingsnake

          Are you being intentionally obtuse or are you lying for jeebus?

          The asshats themselves have even said their goal is to shut down clinics (see lt. gov. Dewhurst’s comments).

          So which is it?

          • RobertoTheChi

            I would say SJH is lying for jeebus.

        • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

          It is not true. Abortions are one of the safest medical procedures that can done- early abortions are done medically for crying out loud! Later ones are vacuum/suction, and only the really late ones (20+ weeks) require surgical abortion. Most abortion clinics can’t do them that late and refer you to someone who can at a clinic that is a surgical center.

          Do we require a doctor to watch you take your Tylenol pills? How about inserting a suppository? We do not. It’s really hard to screw up taking pills, and there is absolutely no reason to require a doctor to watch. An abortion is not significant enough for such a requirement.

          • rwlawoffice

            In an abortion there is a death every time. I would hardly call that the safest medical procedure that can be done.

            • Spuddie

              When born people are killed by negligence or intentional acts, it violates criminal laws. When a fetus is killed by its mother in a voluntary medical procedure it is PERFECTLY LEGAL.It may make your little baby Jesus cry, but nobody has to care about that.

              I thought you were a lawyer?

              As usual anti-choicers are completely unconcerned with the lives of born people.

              • rwlawoffice

                Who said anything about whether this killing is legal or not. I agree that it is legal killing of another human life.

                As for pro life advocates being unconcerned about born people, this is a ridiculous argument with no basis in fact.

                • Spuddie

                  Right, you are equating abortion with death from medical malpractice. An even worse effort at false equivalency on your part.

                  You DON’T care about born people. Least of all women. You would rather see them subjected to back-alley hacks than touch an inch of an “innocent life”. Its also telling that pro-life advocates to a person also oppose measures which provide essential services to those lacking means. Once they are born (and no longer innocent) their alleged concern is non-existent.

                  Pro-life is better described as fetus worshippers.

                • rwlawoffice

                  Wrong again. I am equating it with legalized murder. The doctors don’t commit malpractice by killing the unborn life, that is what they intend to do.

                  As for pro life advocates not caring about born people, that is nonsense and there is no factual basis for it. We just want to do that without killing the unborn.

                  But where is your proof that pro life advocates have no concern for babies or their mothers after they are born?

                • Spuddie

                  So I was right the first time and you are a liar. You were equating it with murder. There is no such thing as legalized murder.

                  And no you don’t care about the born which is why you ignore the mother’s existence in talking about saving “innocent” life. If they are not innocent, who cares?

                  Your claims of concern for the born are without any basis in fact. Pro-life advocates are also staunch opponents to adequate funding of social services for the needy, indifferent to rampant gun violence, and pro-death penalty. Stances which show an indifference if not a hostility to the lives of others.

                  You want to attack the rights of the born to “protect the unborn”. Your view only comes with indifference to the lives of the born. Somehow their concerns concerning their bodies are of no concern. Pregnant women who want an abortion are subjected to insults, demeaning language, shaming tactics, and completely ignoring them, in the discussion by people like yourself.

                • rwlawoffice

                  Wrong once again. I never said it was a crime. But murder is the intentional killing of another human. That is what it is, only the law allows it to take place. So it is legalized murder in my view.

                  Not true for pro life advocates not caring about the living. Just look around your neighborhood. There are countless nonprofits established by Christians and pro life advocates that are designed to help the poor. The fact that those same folks do not support this help coming from the government does not mean they don’t care or that they don’t put their money where their beliefs are.

                  The death penalty is a false equivalence but it is telling for those that are pro abortion. You would rather protect the life of a convicted criminal such as a murderer or rapist that you would of an innocent victim of someone else’s actions.

                • Spuddie

                  Murder is the illegal intentional killing of another human being. Killing and murder are not the same thing. Just related.

                  Those so-called pro-life advocates are also strong opponents to adequately funding public services for the poor, to access to good healthcare. Christian charities are notorious for their blatant proselytizing as a precondition to providing services and engaging in sectarian discrimination. They are no substitute for the government’s role in providing for its citizenry.

                  Death penalty is a perfect example of the hypocrisy of your POV. Only “innocent” life is worthy of protection. Mercy and grace does not extend to criminals. Some life is more sacred than others. Life which is not innocent is not worthy to people like yourself.

                • Shockna

                  “But where is your proof that pro life advocates have no concern for babies or their mothers after they are born?”

                  Look at the overlap between conservatives who want to slash social programs to help said class, and pro lifers. It’s pretty significant.

            • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

              Abortion is supposed to kill a fetus, and it’s an incredibly safe procedure for the mother. You don’t need a doctor there watching someone do something safe for themselves.

              By the way, I do hope you’re also advocating mandatory organ “donation” for all organs and tissues, including blood and bone marrow. If women are subject to forced whole-body donation for a fetus, surely men can be on the hook for a liver lobe or kidney if it saves someone’s life? After all, life trumps bodily autonomy for all people, right?

              • rwlawoffice

                The famous organ donation argument is a fallacy. In your scenario the person demanding the organ donation was not placed in this position by the other person. That is not the case for the innocent life in the womb. This life was placed in this position by the person that has a responsibility to protect that life.

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  Sometimes, but not always. Usually without the consent of the person with the womb. After all, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, and sometimes there isn’t even consent to sex.

                  What does it matter whose “fault” it is that someone is dying and needs an organ? Do we judge the value of life based on how it got there? If life is the paramount value, you should be gung-ho about forced organ donations. After all, a one-day-old infant who needs a liver transplant has no legal right to any part of the mother’s; by being born, it actually lost rights according to you. The only reason you aren’t supporting forced organ donation is that it’s not about life with you, it’s about punishing women who have sex. Your argument is that babies are punishment for sex. That’s a horrible view of babies.

                  I have no responsibility to protect the life of anyone with my own body, no matter how it arrived. I can refuse to throw myself in front of a bullet for my (hypothetical) born children; people might think I was a bad person, but no one would accuse me of murder for choosing my life over theirs or argue that I was legally obligated to do so, since those children only existed thanks to my choices. Why do you think a fetus get more rights to life than a born person?

        • Spuddie

          Are you done lying for Jesus?

          If medical safety was a real concern, then you would not have massive opposition by medical professionals to this bill.

          http://www.acog.org/About_ACOG/News_Room/News_Releases/2013/Ob-Gyns_Denounce_Texas_Abortion_Legislation

          “The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) strongly opposes Senate Bill 1 (formerly Senate Bill 5 in the previous session) and House Bill 2 under consideration in the Texas legislature.

          Both bills are plainly intended to restrict the reproductive rights of women in Texas through a series of requirements that improperly regulate medical practice and interfere with the patient-physician relationship.

          “The Texas bills set a dangerous precedent of a legislature telling doctors how to practice medicine and how to care for individual patients. ACOG opposes legislative interference,and strongly believes that decisions about medical care must be based
          on scientific evidence and made by licensed medical professionals, not the state or federal government,”
          said ACOG Executive Vice President Hal C. Lawrence, III, MD.

          “The Texas bills are a compilation of over-reaching measures to control when, where, and how a woman has an abortion,” said ACOG Texas District Chair Lisa M. Hollier, MD, MPH.

          “The bills are not based on sound science, despite our efforts to provide the legislature with the best available medical knowledge. The bills would erode women’s health by denying the women of Texas the benefits of well-researched, safe, and proven protocols.”

          Please do us all a favor and stop pretending like you either know anything about medical safety or that this bill has anything to do with it.

  • decathelite

    Rick Perry is really counting on this second attempt to get this passed before he leaves office, because if it takes a third time, oops.

  • onamission5

    In further FML news, the NC House Republicans just snuck their own pet anti-choice legislation through on the back of a motorcycle safety bill. Because they are fucking assholes.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/10/1222526/-North-Carolina-House-sneaks-revised-anti-abortion-language-onto-motorcycle-safety-bill#

  • Mick

    I’d love to come back in a hundred years and see where you lot finish up.

    • Drew M.

      Oooh. What planet are you from and do you come in peace?

    • Brian

      At this rate, we should be finishing up pretty much on top in a hundred years or so, and Christians and other organized religions will be taken as serious as Scientology by that point.

  • Rob U

    I’m a Canadian, so I’m not 100% versed on the US Constitution, but isn’t there this little clause in the First Amendment which says the Government can’t pass any laws with respect to the establishment of religion?

    From what I’ve been seeing in all the news talked about here, and at other sites covering these issues, its seems blatantly obvious these lawmakers are fighting hard to pass these laws so their personal religious beliefs can be enforced using the full weight of Government resources – in effect establishing their religion as law in violation of the First Amendment.
    Its not like you don’t see them in the Newspapers, TV, or other forms of media, saying that they’re doing it because their faith commands them to. Sure they might trot out some easily debunked science in an attempt to justify the law, but its plainly obvious to anyone looking that they’re working hard to have their personal religious preferences given the full weight of “The Law”.

    So, as an outsider, I guess the big question I have is why isn’t anyone getting injunctions to prevent them for even bringing these laws up for vote? Since they’re so obviously against the Constitution, a document that they’ve sworn an oath to protect, isn’t it illegal for them to even bring it up in the legislature? Isn’t dereliction of duty like this an impeachable offence?

    • Olive Markus

      This is exactly why those of us who aren’t conservative Christians are so unbelievably angry. The fact that our entire (almost) governing body is Christian means that things have simply gone their way far too often. It’s been this way for long enough that now they’ve rewritten history and insist that the US was meant to be a Christian theocracy all along.

      It’s a million times more complicated than that, but I’m pretty ignorant on the specifics. Either way, it’s hideous.

    • Brian

      Because they are callous, not stupid. They craft these laws with very specific wording, which omits any mention of religion, or reasoning for the laws. Basically, they dress it up as a “health” issue, and sell it as that. They have become masters of walking that very fine line between religion and the Constitution (especially the Roe v Wade ruling), making it legal to pass these laws.

      For example, they are not allowed to outright ban abortions because of Roe v Wade (any law would be challenged on that ground, and found Unconstitutional). So, they make laws that limit the places that can perform them to as few as possible, so they drastically reduce the number of legal abortions.

      Instead of citing religious grounds to oppose abortions, they bring up womens health, or they push back the allowable fetus age to declare them a “life” at the earliest point possible.

  • SJH

    Even if it only leaves five clinics open, why wouldn’t the clinics change their procedures in order to be compliant with the new legislation and then open up again? Why is it so bad to make these clinics safer for women?

    • Jasper

      Because they’ve come up with requirements that cannot be met in any practical sense… some of which would cost so much money to meet that they can’t afford to stay open. That’s their trick to bypassing constitutional law.

      Do you have any data that shows that they weren’t safe for women in the first place?

      • Jasper

        I’d also point out, that because they can’t meet the requirements, and close down, Texas is going to see an influx of illegal abortions, which are drastically more unsafe for women. Having these clinics available (which also help significantly reduce the need for abortions in the first place, unlike any conservative policy ever), was a massive improvement.

      • SJH

        Do you have data that shows that the requirements cannot be met in any practical sense? Please elaborate.

        • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

          They require abortion clinics to meet the standards for surgical centers, which have specific requirements for hall width, room size, closet size, etc. The buildings would have to be gutted and renovated, an extremely expensive undertaking. Those requirements cannot be met in any practical sense.

        • Spuddie

          Its in the bill you are supporting. You didn’t read the bill, yet you are supporting it?

          When have you stopped lying?

    • Brian Westley

      Here’s what Gov. Perry said: “Now is not the time to waver, however, as the Senate continues its important work in support of women’s health and protecting the lives of our most vulnerable Texans.”

      He ain’t talking about making them safer for women, because that’s not the goal.

      • SJH

        What does it matter what his intentions are? If the bill is safer for women then who cares what Gov. Perry thinks? Would we rather have less safe conditions just so that we can say at least they didn’t get to pass a bill because of their bad intentions. Is preventing the intentions of Republicans more important than women’s safety?

        • Brian Westley

          How does this bill make it safer for women? Be specific.

        • Miss_Beara

          If all but 5 clinics stay open in a state whose population is over 26 million, then no, it is not about the “safety of women.” There will be more Gosnell like establishments because low income women have no other choice.

          It has never been about the safety of women it has also never have been about “protecting the lives of [their] most vulnerable Texans.” If that was true, they wouldn’t be cutting programs that would help low income families. If that was true, Perry wouldn’t have vetoed an equal pay law for women so they can continue raise their child[ren] without being “leeches to the system”.

        • Spuddie

          Because we should not let our government officials abuse their position and lie about the intent and effect of the laws they support. Gov Perry is trying to ban abortion bit by bit.

          There is no intent on clinic safety here. You can stop lying about that. Nobody is buying it.

          The bill was opposed by medical professional organizations.The people who determine clinic safety procedures and medical necessity of doctor actions.

    • Anon

      Because there are five of them. And the reduced number, while they may be safer, means that overall the safety goes down and the cost goes up.

      And here’s why.
      If you are underage or on low income or unable to travel for some other reason and you don’t happen to live near one of these clinics you have three options. Have a baby you don’t want, take matters into your own hands or find an illegal abortion clinic.
      The first one is horrific and the other two are dangerous to women.
      So yeah, the clinics might be safer. But the women who can’t afford them, who can’t get to them, they’re the ones who are going to get hurt. They’re the ones who are going to die because they couldn’t get a safe, legal abortion.
      It’s not about women’s health. It’s about Governor Perry’s religious sensibilities and wanting to control women’s bodies.

      • Anon

        Motherfucking cockface. Why does Disqus hate my spacing?

        • Spuddie

          Don’t worry. We got the point. =)

    • wombat

      They don’t need to be ‘safer for women’ because they are not unsafe in the first place!

    • Spuddie

      The new legislation is meant to be virtually impossible to follow. It has zero to do with medical safety and necessity and everything to do with a “backdoor” ban.

      The drafters and its supporters are lying scum, unconcerned with actual clinic safety. They are going to produce conditions like Dr. Gosnell in PA. Where there are shady clinics butchering women under State radar.
      Rick Perry is bringing back the wirehanger abortionist.

    • Shockna

      These laws -don’t- make it safer for women. The only reason to require that all abortion clinics have the facilities of an ambulatory surgical center (especially when most of them only do medical, no surgical, abortions) is to force such clinics to close. It’s like forcing all dentists offices to have the facilities and equipment for a triple gastric bypass, or shut down; it does nothing for health, and everything to do with limiting access.

      The bill should more honestly be named the “Kermit Gosnell clinic 100% employment act”; the rate of abortion is not statistically linked to access, and now you’ve made those barbaric places the only ones available.

  • Ryan Hite

    Perry did this for his sister to make a ton of money and restricts womens rights at the same time. This has nothing to do with religion, it’s all about the $$$$$ for his family and he is getting the emotion behind it.

    • Spuddie

      Generally behind every Tea Party action is a way to divert funds for the given state towards the pockets of cronies. Every TP Governor has found new and interesting ways to make a profit off of corruption.

      • mike

        Every politician of every party does this. Okay, well, every party has members that do this.

        But the tea party….”We’re of the people! No to big government except for the big government that regulates abortion! And the big military government! And…actually just the big government we like and actually we like big government!”

        • Spuddie

          What makes it that much worse is that the TP governors are profiting off of plans and legislation which deliberately attacks the working class and poor.

  • Raising_Rlyeh

    What is truly hypocritical is that the main sponsor of the bill last year opposed giving prenatal healthcare to women before 20 weeks. She said that while they were americans they were unborn and didn’t have the same rights.

    • JA

      Republican logic for you.

  • UWIR

    If this were truly about protecting women, if Republicans really thought that a doctor not having admitting privileges is such a huge danger that it should not be allowed, they would not be punishing the clinics for not having admitting privileges. The clinics aren’t the ones who decide who has admitting privileges, the hospitals are. So if they were really concerned about admitting privileges, they would require hospitals to have cause for every request for admitting privileges that they deny.

    • Yoav

      In Ohio they now try to go even further and make it illegal for public hospitals to grant admitting privileges to abortion providers and I’m sure assholes throughout the country are now looking at them in envy and plan to imitate them ASAP.

      from the linked article

      Ohio Right to Life’s leaders claim they are working with a state
      representative to introduce a bill that would ban transfer agreements
      between a “tax-funded public hospital” and an abortion clinic. Should
      that sort of law become copy-cat legislation—and in today’s political
      climate, there is little doubt it would—it would essentially shut off
      all options for transfer agreements or admitting privileges for any
      abortion providers. Once you eliminate public hospitals and religious
      hospitals, you are left only with a small handful of private, for-profit
      hospitals that would qualify, none of which would be likely to take on a
      medical agreement that not only would offer little profit, but that
      could come with harassment, potentially driving profitable patients
      away.

  • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

    It’s a good thing that Texas is going to have more children born into unwanted situation. I mean the state is only second in over all numbers of kids living below the poverty line, and only has just the third highest rate of childhood poverty. Texas should be number 1 at everything.

    • Stev84

      And when they end up as criminals, they can be executed. Texas is #1 at that too.

    • godlessveteran

      The only positive is that most of them will be minorities and likely to vote the troglodytes out when they become of age.

  • rwlawoffice

    Pro abortion advocates are showing their true colors in this debate. The bill will pass this week in the Senate despite the pro abortion advocates yelling “Hail Satan” to supporters of the bill.

    • Spuddie

      An easy conclusion to make. The anti-abortion people don’t really seem to have much concern for fellow people. They have a very unchristlike political position. Its easy to confuse them for Satan’s minions =)

      Of course there is no comment on the general hostility and bile directed at women seeking abortion or the doctors who perform that. We are only supposed to take notice of silly sniping at people who agree with.

      • rwlawoffice

        Explain how protecting innocent life is an antichrist like position.

        • Spuddie

          Obviously to you, life is only worth protecting if it is “innocent”. Which lasts from conception until birth.

          Pregnant women seeking abortion can just take their chances with wire-hangers. Born children to the poor are unworthy of consideration for their survival as well.

          • rwlawoffice

            Not at all. Pro life advocates engage in all sorts of activities to protect women and children. They just want to do it without killing the unborn life. Maybe you have forgotten about all of the Christian adoption agencies, homes for teenage mothers, free clinics, homeless shelters, food banks, etc..

            • JA

              Do they also support food stamp programs, easily accessible and GOOD healthcare, easy access to GOOD education, all these and other support programs for single mothers and poor mothers/families? If not, then they are not pro-life, they are pro-fetus.

              • Spuddie

                They care much about creating conditions where women are killed in unsafe conditions by “back alley abortionists” either

                Pro-life is primarily concerned with “protecting” a woman from themselves. From making a choice concerning their bodies and the life which only she can keep alive.

                Its nice that rwlawoffice is not even pretending this bill has anything to do with clinic safety. He readily admits this is a sub rosa ban. It is about the only honest thing about his spiel.

              • rwlawoffice

                Yes they do believe that all people should have access to good quality food, good education and healthcare. They do alot of these things with their own money. They do not look to the government to provide them. Just look around your neighborhood and look at all of the Christian based nonprofit organizations that are created to help the poor.

                • Shockna

                  “They do not look to the government to provide them.”

                  Ahhhh, ok. So, they’ll do just enough to care for a small fraction, but out right decline to mobilize the only institution capable of, to some degree, universalizing those good things?

                  Christian non-profits have been around for centuries, but it wasn’t until government got into the welfare business that things actually began to improve on the macro scale for poverty.

            • Spuddie

              N/t

        • mike

          I’m curious about a couple of things in your view.

          First, I would assert you think life begins at conception. Am I correct? Are you certain if I am correct? I am not.

          I’m not pro-abortion, I’m pro-choice. I think abortions are terrible things and no one should have to make the choice. But I believe that there are times when an abortion is necessary and people should have the choice to have an abortion. Do you think there are any situations where an abortion is acceptable? For example, a baby which will kill the mother? What about a baby which is guaranteed to die within 48 hours of its birth and will suffer in those 48 hours?

          Third, you do realize that bills like this just make it harder for women to get legal, safe abortions performed by medical professionals. What do you think will happen for those women who don’t have the resources to have children or an abortion? How do you think those kids are going to grow up? Do you think that children born to impoverished families have a higher chance of growing up to become functioning members of society than those born into wealthier homes? Do you think the children and their families are going to be more prone to requiring other social services such as food stamps? Do we, as a society, have a responsibility to help impoverished children born to poor mothers who weren’t able to get an abortion?

          Do you think its realistic to tell someone not to have sex? Because I don’t think it is and, honestly, a society that says “You can’t have sex” is a really terrible society. Do you want to spend extra money on safe-sex education for high school students? What about free condoms for people so we don’t have to have abortions?

          Do you realize that planned parenthood (which is also being gutted in Texas) does quite a lot more than abortions? Like, have a bunch of reproductive health resources for women? Doctors visits, etc.

          What would you do if you were 19, didn’t have an education or a career (maybe you work at walmart?) and your parents aren’t wealthy and you got pregnant. Not your girlfriend, you? What if you had an 18+ year responsibility hanging over your head at 19 years old with no real opportunity to earn a livable wage for you and your child? And no one else to turn to? Your boyfriend bailed. How desperate would you be? What if you got fired from your job because you could no longer lift objects heavier than 20 pounds if you were more than 3 months pregnant?

          If the answer to this person is: “you must live the rest of your life on earth in struggle and misery and danger to protect an innocent life”, I think you’re doing it wrong.

          • rwlawoffice

            I believe that life does begin at conception. I also believe that unless there is a rape, that both the woman and the man engage in activity that they understand could lead to a pregnancy and both of them should take the responsibility for the life they create, even if by accident. The innocent life created by their behavior should not bear the ultimate price.

            Yes I believe that contraception should be readily available and there are plenty of ways to get it for free from organizations that handing out free condoms is a worthwhile goal.

            As for abortions when the mother may die without one, that is a rare instance and a red herring in the debate on whether abortion on demand should be allowed. Those are medical decisions, not convenience decisions and I would hope the doctors would do all they could to save lives.

            I understand that Planned Parenthood engages in services other than abortions. They can still do those under this Texas bill. But their cash cow is the abortion mill they run. I think that they are a vile organization that preys on poor women. Do you realize that over 60% of the abortions in Texas are from minorities? That is a tragedy. Instead of PP helping these women keep their babies by providing prenatal care, they encourage abortions. Talk about not caring for the poor.

            I am of course not an 18 year old girl who is pregnant so I can only tell you what I would counsel a girl in that situation. I would direct her to the many organizations that can help her through her pregnancy and arrange an adoption. Contrary to what the pro abortion folks want to tell you, pregnancy is not a life long event. It is nine months. Adoption is a choice that they never want to acknowledge.

            • tsara

              Butting in, because I have feelings on this issue:
              “But their cash cow is the abortion mill they run.”
              [citation needed]

              “I would direct her to the many organizations that can help her through her pregnancy and arrange an adoption.”
              Crisis pregnancy centres are well-known among the medical and reproductive freedom communities for propagating misinformation and for coercive practices.

              “should take the responsibility for the life they create,”
              Abortion is taking responsibility.

              “pregnancy is not a life long event.”
              Given that I would kill myself if I couldn’t get an abortion (which, incidentally, is what illegal abortions basically are — end the pregnancy or die trying), it would be.

              “Adoption is a choice that they never want to acknowledge.”
              Adoption is discussed fairly frequently. It just isn’t a good option for everybody. (And furthermore, nobody’s trying to take away the ability of people to put babies up for adoption. When we’re talking about options, adoption does come up. When we’re talking about the importance of abortion remaining legal and accessible, we don’t, because it isn’t germane.)

            • Shockna

              “Instead of PP helping these women keep their babies by providing
              prenatal care, they encourage abortions. Talk about not caring for the
              poor.”

              Raising a child you can’t afford is a great way of guaranteeing generational poverty.

              PP, in this instance, certainly is “not caring for poverty”, but they absolutely are “caring for the poor”. Because without those unwanted children, they’re more likely to lift themselves out of poverty (without the health risks imposed by pregnancy, which are far greater than those posed by abortion).

    • godlessveteran

      If it isn’t your vagina, you have no g0ddam business saying what it must do.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X