Texas Repubs pass abortion bill

[uke2se]

But their needs should be balanced against those of their unborn children. If getting pregnant is such a horrible outcome (which is implied because you think reduced access to abortion is horrible), then perhaps they should avail themselves of the many ways to prevent pregnancy.

The unborn children have no rights. They aren't born yet.

Further, you're basically telling women with unwanted pregnancies that they're SOL because your morality outweighs their rights to their own bodies.

Nobody "needs" to use an abortion clinic. Many choose to. And women who choose abortions will not have their access restricted anymore than it is now.

Many need to use abortion clinics. You don't, because you can't get pregnant. Other people (we call them "women") can get pregnant, and many of those need abortion clinics.

You have no evidence that "all but five" will close down.

Yes I have. The Republican legislators you are so chummy with are bragging about it on Twitter.

If you look at States that have passed similar laws, there have been no mass closings. See this article:

Did you already forget what was demonstrated earlier in this thread?

And, again, if people in Texas want greater abortion access, there's no reason that current abortion clinics can't get funding from all those liberal supporters who want abortion to be more accessible in order meet the new demands. Unless liberals don't actually put their money where there mouths are . . .

You want liberals to pay special taxes to fund abortion clinics? Ok, how about you pay special taxes to fund everything you want then.

They can lobby hospitals and other surgical centers to provide abortions. There are a myriad of solutions other than, "The government has to pay for it!"

:facepalm:

 

[Alt+F4]

Who audits Hezbollah?

I have no idea but I would guess the Lebanon version of the IRS.

I'm sure they are also very opposed to abortion.....

 

[thaiboxerken]

As pointed out before, there is more at stake than just abortions. There is the fact that many poorer women will now lose health care because of this. But they're poor, and the GOP doesn't really care about poor people anyway.

 

[A'isha]

You have no evidence that "all but five" will close down. If you look at States that have passed similar laws, there have been no mass closings. See this article:

The article says that such closings were avoided through the outlay of massive amounts of money (in Pennsylvania) and by suing in court to get some of the onerous restrictions loosened (in Missouri).

How is this evidence that the clinics in Texas will be mostly unaffected by the new law there?

 

[A'isha]

You're lucky, xjx388. Because, as a man, this will never, ever happen to you:

"This is a Catholic country," was what Irish doctors told Savita Halappanavar after she learned she was miscarrying her pregnancy and asked for an abortion to avoid further complications. She spent three days in agonising pain, eventually shaking, vomiting and passing out. She again asked for an abortion and was refused, because the foetus still had a heartbeat.

Then she died.

She died of septicaemia and E Coli. She died after three and a half days of excruciating pain. She died after repeatedly begging for an end to the pregnancy that was poisoning her. Her death would have been avoided if she had been given an abortion when she asked for it – when it was clear she was miscarrying, and that non-intervention would put her at risk. But the foetus, which had no chance of survival, still had a heartbeat. Its right to life quite literally trumped hers.

 

[A'isha]

My point is that its a pretty unconvincing argument. There is no evidence that further restrictions are pending. It's like arguing that gay marriage is a slippery slope to other objectionable types of marriage (incestual, with animals, etc.).

Republicans file ‘fetal heartbeat’ abortion ban, as early as 6 weeks

Hours after Texas Republican lawmakers finalized some of the toughest abortion restrictions in the country Thursday, a bill to ban abortions as early as six weeks, when a fetal heartbeat can be detected, was filed.

State Rep. Phil King, R-Weatherford, filed House Bill 59, which would ban abortions “if it has been determined… that the unborn child has a detectable heartbeat.”

Slippery. Slope.

 

[12AX7]

Are you one of the people who would be prevented from having an abortion by this law? In other words, a woman? If not, of course you "see no issue with that." In the final analysis, pregnancy is not an "issue" for you at all. Sorry, you don't get to say.



I wish you could spend at least a year doing what I did for three years - being a problem pregnancy counselor. Women don't use contraception for a whole library of reasons.

One is that, in Texas, appropriations to support Planned Parenthood have been slashed past the bone. Planned Parenthood clinics were where many poor women went, not just for contraception, but for Pap smears and mammograms and all kinds of health information. Those locations that haven't had to close due to lack of funding have had to cut back clinic operations. Thanks to the Texas Republicans you seem to admire so much, now the last-ditch solution has also been taken from women. If you want to know why, please see this post.

Other reasons women don't get contraception include embarrassment, lack of information, and the fact that the men in their lives won't let them (yes, that happens, and then when the women get pregnant they are abused.) I counseled women who sneaked out of their homes to get abortions because of abusive relationships, ones that would not have been safe for their babies either. I counseled teenagers who got pregnant out of ignorance, or because they were "good girls," and "good girls" don't plan to have sex, so they don't - can't - use contraception. I counseled women who fed their families with money they might have used on contraception, but it was either buy food or pay for pills (and, no, not having sex was not an option for them.) I counseled migrant workers who had no hope of keeping up with a contraceptive regimen. I counseled drug-addicted women who probably spent money they might have used on contraception to buy their drugs, but who at least had the sense not to bring a drug-addicted child into the world. I counseled women whose husbands left them when they got pregnant. And, of course, even the best contraception fails every now and then.

It's very easy for you to sit wherever you are, not facing any of the myriad of problems that exist for women, especially poor women, and issue your moral judgments. You have no idea of the world that exists outside whatever sterile, privileged place you live in.

Go and get educated about the world of women who live in poverty or isolation or abuse, then come back and lecture us on being "held responsible for the outcome" of not taking those "easy steps" to prevent pregnancy.

This excellent post should really end this thread.

 

[xjx388]

I'm glad you're taking your lumps and not bashing on fellow posters. The practical problems, if any, of the Texas law will become evident, or not. But the lunacy behind the legislators' thinking is way scary. These are not reality-based people. The "rape kit" cleans women out? With a D&C? Could this woman really believe that? Does she care? No, she doesn't care what the facts are.

I tend to overlook stuff like that. People are people -which is to say they can say some stupid stuff. And politicians have to say stupid things to appeal to potential voters. So usually, I don't care to speculate about their intentions. I care about the actual bills that they put out. And, while it's far from the bill I would put out, it's not as bad as some make it out to be.

I understand your basic point perfectly. On its face it makes sense to me that at some point the fetus becomes a human being. On the other hand ArmillarySphere has made some arguments that are beginning to click for me. Owning her body means she has no obligation to incubate a parasite. (I apologize if I'm getting this argument wrong). I think that poster is saying that if the state has a compelling interest, it can take this theoretically viable fetus and incubate it artificially.

Well, I find the term, "parasite," to devalue what it actually is -a potential human life. A potential human life that got in the womb by the woman engaging in a consensual act (I'm obviously not addressing the rape issue here; in those cases, I 'm a bit conflicted between protecting the baby's life and ensuring the woman doesn't have to raise the baby of her rapist). So, "parasite," is term that someone would use to dehumanize the baby so that they feel comfortable talking about killing it. Before the 20th-24th week, if the woman feels like the fetus is a parasite and wants nothing to do with it, then she can legally get an abortion if she wants to in every State in the Union. After that, then the State has a legitimate interest in protecting the "parasite" for what it actually is -a human life.

In another abortion-related thread I got criticized by people who (IMO) were missing my point, and I think it's unfair for anyone to assume that your position boils down to your gender (To wit: It isn't a horrible thing for you. That's what you mean, isn't it? I mean, you're male, aren't you?). I'm following your argument fine, and I'm female. My reasoning is a lot like yours.

I am totally against separating issues by male and female. We are all citizens and we all have an equal say. It would be like me saying, "Easy for you to say! You don't pay a dime in taxes so it's no skin off your nose!" That's a dumb argument.

Going to Planned Parenthood for "Plan B" didn't seem that onerous to me, and IIRC a pharmacist told me in confidence that she'd provide it again without a prescription. Since then it has been made OTC.

And I support RU486 being made available from your regular doctor. That's a part of the bill I have a big problem with and I will make sure the Texas Congress hears that. And I suspect many doctor's unions will too along with ACLU and other organizations that disagree with many aspects of the bill.

The fungibility argument - governments have their own language for this stuff. I can see both sides. In practice there seem to be agreed-upon parameters about keeping federal funds separate.

I'm willing to concede that Title X does allow funding for clinics who provide abortions as long as the abortion program is kept separate. But States are allowed to be more restrictive. I'd like to see Texas increase funding. I actually donate regularly to PP and I wish more people who feel strongly about this issue would too.

What I hate about this legislation (besides the appalling ignorance and/or dishonesty of the "rape kit" lady) is that it is taking an ordinary right - the straightforward availability of, say, first-trimester abortions - and putting up as many hurdles as it can, chiefly to the detriment of low-income women who may also not be very well-informed. Plan B wasn't hard for me but I had a car, research skills, Internet access, etc. Everyone should know about it, but I'm not sure they do. RU-486 is more complicated, and should IMO be administered in a clinic by doctors or nurse practitioners. But it's not surgery, and to impose surgery-like oversight on it is pure harassment.

Texas actually allows abortions through the 2nd month of the 2nd trimester. I do agree that this may result in less availability of abortion but I don't think it will be as bad as many think it will be. If people who support abortion clinics simply increase their charitable donations to them, they would be able to survive and expand. I have a big problem with people expecting the government to solve problems but do nothing but protest and complain. Stand up and put your dollars to work.

I believe you are defending this law honestly, for reasons that make sense to you. In good faith. But honesty, reason and good faith were excluded from the process of passing it. It's tainted, IMO. People who really want to reduce both abortions and unwanted children - people like you, who support access to birth control - are going to be important if this becomes a campaign issue.

I think it should be important beyond politics. I'm lucky enough to be able to donate a substantial amount a year. But every little bit helps. If every person who supported the right to abortion donated $20 a year, that would be more than enough to help keep it afloat.

 

[xjx388]

The unborn children have no rights. They aren't born yet.

SCOTUS and the Texas govt disagree with you. If the unborn have no rights, then why should they be protected at all? What process magically makes a conglomeration of cells into a person?

Further, you're basically telling women with unwanted pregnancies that they're SOL because your morality outweighs their rights to their own bodies.

If they didn't want the pregnancy they should have:
1)Not had sex.
2)Used contraceptives.
3)Had an abortion within the allowed framework.

My morality is irrelevant. The unborn baby inside them is deserving of protection. If you don't agree, you can take it up with SCOTUS.

Many need to use abortion clinics. You don't, because you can't get pregnant. Other people (we call them "women") can get pregnant, and many of those need abortion clinics.

"Need," is the wrong word. "Want," is what you are going for. There are very very, exceedingly rare circumstances in which an abortion is needed -and those usually happen in a hospital.

Yes I have. The Republican legislators you are so chummy with are bragging about it on Twitter.

They are reacting to the reaction of the people who created that map. They may very well want to close down abortion clinics. I think they are very stupid for doing so.

Nonetheless, it isn't at all clear that most abortion providers will close down. We'll have to see how it all shakes out. Maybe the supporters of abortion will get smart and make donations to them.

Did you already forget what was demonstrated earlier in this thread?

Nothing has been, "demonstrated." Although much as been asserted.

You want liberals to pay special taxes to fund abortion clinics? Ok, how about you pay special taxes to fund everything you want then.

I do pay "special taxes." Except they are called, "charitable contributions." Not everything has to be funded by taxes. Sometimes we can support things we think are important by simply, you know, supporting them. Example: I don't think there is enough being done to fight childhood cancer; therefore, I donate to childhood cancer research and care organizations. I even donate to Planned Parenthood.

:facepalm:

So you think the govt has to pay for everything? Or that once a law is made it's set in stone. Are you not from the US?

 

[xjx388]

The article says that such closings were avoided through the outlay of massive amounts of money (in Pennsylvania) and by suing in court to get some of the onerous restrictions loosened (in Missouri).

How is this evidence that the clinics in Texas will be mostly unaffected by the new law there?

This is EXACTLY what I've advocated for here. Outlay some money, sue the govt. If enough Texans truly care about this issue, then changes will be made.

 

[xjx388]

You're lucky, xjx388. Because, as a man, this will never, ever happen to you:

You are right. Even if I were a woman, such an event wouldn't happen in the US. Miscarriages are different from abortions. There are absolutely no restrictions in the US that would deny a woman proper medical care in the even of a miscarriage.

Republicans file ‘fetal heartbeat’ abortion ban, as early as 6 weeks

Slippery. Slope.

Nope. That's a "trigger" law. It is completely useless and unenforceable unless Roe v Wade is overturned or the Federal gov passes a law that allows states to ban abortion. That is never likely to happen. And there is no doubt that Conservatives would rush to pass laws to ban abortion if that ever actually did happen; they are just getting ahead of the game here.

It's funny . . . other States have passed these "trigger" laws but no one ever made a big deal before.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

But their needs should be balanced against those of their unborn children. If getting pregnant is such a horrible outcome (which is implied because you think reduced access to abortion is horrible), then perhaps they should avail themselves of the many ways to prevent pregnancy.

Which they cannot access because the clinics are closed.

 

[xjx388]

Which they cannot access because the clinics are closed.

No they aren't. There are 2 within 60 miles of my house. The provisions don't go into effect until Sep of 2014 and a lot can happen between then and now.

ETA:
And contraceptives can be accessed from their own doctor with no problem whatsoever.

ETA:
And think about it, PP isn't likely to abandon their mission simply because abortions are more difficult to perform. The contraceptive aspect should remain as widespread as it is now.

 

[A'isha]

If they didn't want the pregnancy they should have:
1)Not had sex.
2)Used contraceptives.
3)Had an abortion within the allowed framework.

Because these women didn't make the choices you think they should have made, you think they should be punished?

"Need," is the wrong word. "Want," is what you are going for. There are very very, exceedingly rare circumstances in which an abortion is needed -and those usually happen in a hospital.

No, "need" is exactly the right word. It's just that you will never need to have an abortion, because you will never, ever, ever be affected by pregnancy. And since you will never have to make that choice, will never even be faced with that choice, you don't get to make that choice for others.

You certainly don't have the right to take that choice away.

Nonetheless, it isn't at all clear that most abortion providers will close down. We'll have to see how it all shakes out. Maybe the supporters of abortion will get smart and make donations to them.

We already do. That's why the Tea Party Republicans are passing laws like these, because they're trying to find other ways to get abortion clinics shut down. And make no mistake, as Dewhurst's tweet shows, that is their explicit goal.

This is EXACTLY what I've advocated for here. Outlay some money, sue the govt. If enough Texans truly care about this issue, then changes will be made.

No, you claimed that the law as it stands would present no problems for clinics. "Spend outrageous amounts of money or win a long expensive court battle, or you will have to close" are most definitely problems.

You are right. Even if I were a woman, such an event wouldn't happen in the US. Miscarriages are different from abortions. There are absolutely no restrictions in the US that would deny a woman proper medical care in the even of a miscarriage.

What happened in Ireland was a direct consequence of the exact same "the life of the fetus is more important than the woman's right to decide to end a pregnancy" morality that you advocate. It also is exactly the sort of thing that will happen under laws like Nebraska's passed and Texas' proposed heartbeat legislation.

Nope. That's a "trigger" law. It is completely useless and unenforceable unless Roe v Wade is overturned or the Federal gov passes a law that allows states to ban abortion. That is never likely to happen. And there is no doubt that Conservatives would rush to pass laws to ban abortion if that ever actually did happen; they are just getting ahead of the game here.

That remains to be seen. Nebraska's law is still being challenged.

But in any case, you claimed that there would be no further abortion restrictions attempted in Texas, and all but laughed off the very notion. This shows that you were wrong.

It's funny . . . other States have passed these "trigger" laws but no one ever made a big deal before.

They most certainly have made a big deal before. Texas isn't an aberration, it's merely the latest in a series.

 

[uke2se]

No they aren't. There are 2 within 60 miles of my house.

As long as all Texans live at your place, all is well then. Well, until:

The provisions don't go into effect until Sep of 2014 and a lot can happen between then and now.

... when women with unwanted pregnancies in large areas of Texas will be SOL. Maybe not if they remain at your place.

ETA:
And contraceptives can be accessed from their own doctor with no problem whatsoever.

I'm sure a rape victim will take great solace in that knowledge.

ETA:
And think about it, PP isn't likely to abandon their mission simply because abortions are more difficult to perform. The contraceptive aspect should remain as widespread as it is now.

Missing the point as usual, I see.

 

[xjx388]

Because these women didn't make the choices you think they should have made, you think they should be punished?

How is the natural consequence of failing to have chosen to prevent the pregnancy a punishment? If I don't use a condom and I get herpes, am I being punished? No, because it is a known consequence of unprotected sex. A woman is not a victim if she willingly engaged in sex without taking the proper precautions.

No, "need" is exactly the right word. It's just that you will never need to have an abortion, because you will never, ever, ever be affected by pregnancy. And since you will never have to make that choice, will never even be faced with that choice, you don't get to make that choice for others.

You certainly don't have the right to take that choice away.

Can you think of a few common scenarios in which a woman would NEED an abortion?

We already do. That's why the Tea Party Republicans are passing laws like these, because they're trying to find other ways to get abortion clinics shut down. And make no mistake, as Dewhurst's tweet shows, that is their explicit goal.

But as long as they pursue their goals within the confines of the law of the land, then they are within their right to do so. If they are not following the law, the legislation will be struck down.

No, you claimed that the law as it stands would present no problems for clinics. "Spend outrageous amounts of money or win a long expensive court battle, or you will have to close" are most definitely problems.

I didn't say that. I said that the probably won't all close down. Their are definitely problems, but problems can be solved.

What happened in Ireland was a direct consequence of the exact same "the life of the fetus is more important than the woman's right to decide to end a pregnancy" morality that you advocate.

There is no concern for the life of the fetus in a miscarriage; the fetus is likely already dead or not viable. And in a miscarriage, the woman likely very much wants the baby alive. Furthermore, the new Texas law exempts abortions in the case of danger to the mother.

It also is exactly the sort of thing that will happen under laws like Nebraska's passed and Texas' proposed heartbeat legislation.

The heartbeat legislation has no legal force because they are "trigger" laws. They will likely never be in force. And, again, a miscarriage is not an abortion.

That remains to be seen. Nebraska's law is still being challenged.

But in any case, you claimed that there would be no further abortion restrictions attempted in Texas, and all but laughed off the very notion. This shows that you were wrong.

If it had been a law that was to go into effect upon passage, maybe. This is a meaningless gesture.

They most certainly have made a big deal before. Texas isn't an aberration, it's merely the latest in a series.

I must have missed the outcry on this forum and the national media.

 

[xjx388]

As long as all Texans live at your place, all is well then. Well, until:



... when women with unwanted pregnancies in large areas of Texas will be SOL. Maybe not if they remain at your place.

Women in large areas of Texas are already SOL. This law doesn't change anything. States don't have a responsibility to make sure every woman has access to abortion; they just can't ban it.

I'm sure a rape victim will take great solace in that knowledge.

Sigh.

Missing the point as usual, I see.

I haven't missed the point. The fact is that contraceptives are still widely available and free to the poor. This new law does not affect that one iota.

And if there is a different point that I missed, it might be helpful for you to spell it out. I try very hard to communicate clearly and civilly and I appreciate the same from others.

 

[A'isha]

How is the natural consequence of failing to have chosen to prevent the pregnancy a punishment? If I don't use a condom and I get herpes, am I being punished?

You're certainly being punished if someone decides that if you don't seek treatment for your herpes within a very narrow window, then you can never receive treatment and will have to live with untreated herpes for the rest of your life.

Can you think of a few common scenarios in which a woman would NEED an abortion?

If she feels she is unable to care for a child, either mentally, emotionally, or financially. If she does not want to go through the very real risks to her life and body that pregnancy and childbirth entail. If

I didn't say that. I said that the probably won't all close down. Their are definitely problems, but problems can be solved.

The problems being artificial, politically imposed problems are, well, the problem.

You'll note that cosmetic surgery clinics and vasectomy clinics are entirely exempt from the "ambulatory surgery" requirements, so this has nothing to do with ensuring that outpatient clinics "adhere to the same standards of cleanliness and safety as that of surgical centers".

It's all about putting as many roadblocks and burdens on abortion as they can get away with.

There is no concern for the life of the fetus in a miscarriage; the fetus is likely already dead or not viable.

Not in the case in Ireland. The entire reason Savita Halappanavar was refused an abortion was because the fetus wasn't dead yet. She ended up dying before the fetus fully miscarried.

And in a miscarriage, the woman likely very much wants the baby alive.

Savita Halappanavar didn't. That's why she wanted an abortion.

Furthermore, the new Texas law exempts abortions in the case of danger to the mother.

It also requires that the doctors make every effort to save the life of the fetus. Just like the doctors in Ireland were doing, in fact.

At the expense of Savita Halappanavar's life.

I must have missed the outcry on this forum and the national media.

Which says more about your concerns and those of the national media than it does about pro-choice activists, who have been making as much noise as we can about things like this in multiple states (as well as starting threads here at the JREF Forum).

 

[thaiboxerken]

I find it hilarious that xjx argues against the negative consequences of these laws by showing places where similar laws are being delayed due to lawsuits and "the laws do go into effect until 2014 and a lot can happen before then."

It begs the question. Is he for or against these laws?

 

[uke2se]

Women in large areas of Texas are already SOL. This law doesn't change anything. States don't have a responsibility to make sure every woman has access to abortion; they just can't ban it.

Does effectively reducing the number of abortion clinics make it easier or harder to get an abortion. Answer honestly and don't try to play stupid.

Sigh.

I haven't missed the point.

Yes you have. Completely.

The fact is that contraceptives are still widely available and free to the poor. This new law does not affect that one iota.

And if there is a different point that I missed, it might be helpful for you to spell it out. I try very hard to communicate clearly and civilly and I appreciate the same from others.

Fine. You missed the point that an unwanted pregnancy isn't aided by contraceptives.