Texas Senators passed Bill 16 on a margin of 21-10. This bill, as some may recall, requires doctors to perform a sonogram two hours before allowing a pregnant woman to have an abortion.
During said sonogram, doctors are legally required to describe the physical attributes of the fetus to the woman and give her alternatives to terminating her pregnancy.
It was only a month ago that Gov. Rick Perry proposed this senseless bit of legislation; however, it received much criticism because it required the sonogram to be performed 24 hours before a woman went through with having an abortion.
What’s disconcerting about this is how a piece of legislation so mindless could pass with a majority vote — and with tighter constraints. In the course of a month, the proposed preventative measures for which it was initially criticized for have grown narrower and crueller.
We don’t understand how the Texas Senate could swing the majority vote in the first place — though using the right words and employing biblical references in a pro-life debate to strike the pathos of the rest of the party certainly helps.
“Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. He knows all of us,” Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Texas, said, according to the Houston Chronicle.
The biggest concern we have is that, in the middle of a multi-billion dollar budget crisis, the state Senate has passed a bill that requires even more tax dollars to sustain.
Furthermore, forcing a pregnant woman to be subject to trauma for a decision that is entirely her own is an extreme form of government intervention.
Whether people agree with abortion or not, leaving someone with no option but turning over control of her body and using cruelty to push a conservative agenda is an abomination of human rights.
If lawmakers have been successful in this not-so-noble endeavor, one can only wonder which rights they’ll be able to steal from you next.
The government has far overstepped its boundaries in passing this piece of legislation. In fact, Bill 16 exactly the opposite of what the doctor ordered.
While this has passed the Texas senate, the governor is still seeking approval from the house. So I strongly encourage everyone to contact their state representative and provide their comments on the bill.
Here is the modest proposal I sent to my representative, Mr. Randy Weber. I hope it is presented in terms that he can understand and get behind as a man and a small government Republican.
"I worry that this bill will prove ineffective in preventing women from seeking abortions and completing them because it does not prevent women from ignoring the materials and services provided to them. The bill makes physicians provide literature about non-abortive services available in the area but does not make the pregnant woman read them. Some of these pregnant women may not even know how to read the information in the language it is provided. To be effective the woman must read the pamphlets, otherwise she can continue to make this huge mistake without being informed. I believe that the pregnant woman should be tested on her understanding of the medical information provided so that all can be satisfied she is giving informed consent to the procedure.
I also understand that there is no language in the bill that makes a pregnant woman view the sonogram or actually listen to the child’s heartbeat. Could a pregnant woman go into the sonogram wearing a sleep mask and headphones? Could the physician provide these things in his office to these poor, pregnant women? A pregnant woman may even be able to turn her head away from the monitor and bypass this important preventative measure. There must be some language in the bill to make a woman view the sonogram, otherwise she might proceed with the murder of her unborn child.
It is fine and good that this bill makes doctors provide these services and literature to women considering an abortion. But until the pregnant woman is made to listen to and see what she is about to do this bill will be ineffective.
Moreover, I worry that there may be other issues with the bill. While pregnant woman are provided with literature about adoption services that she may or may not read, the literature also mentions state services that pregnant women may look to in order to provide for their child. Does the state actually want more women and children seeking state services such as WIC, SCHIP, and STAR cards? Does the state really want pregnant women who cannot provide for their children themselves to be raising them through the waste of Texas tax dollars?
It would appear the literature may encourage some pregnant women to raise their children through the use of state resources. 69% of pregnant women who seek an abortion are economically disadvantaged. Do Texans really want to be paying for these women’s mistakes? Further measures are clearly necessary to prevent these irresponsible, pregnant women and their offspring from being a burden on our state.
Clearly, a pregnant woman who even considers the murder of her unborn child is unfit to be raising a child, but there are no measures that actually prevent the woman from doing so. I worry that any woman so easily inconvenienced by the hurdles raised by this legislation to getting an abortion is unprepared to go through the adoption process. Should the pregnant woman raise the child herself it is likely she will be doing so through the use of state funds. Therefore I strongly encourage you to vote against this piece of legislation for the sake of the great state of Texas."
The text of the bill: http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/billtext…
The Governors statement: http://governor.state.tx.us/news/press-release/15…
How to find your representative: http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/find-your-re…
A modest proposal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_modest_proposal
Some statistics on Texas Abortions: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/texas.html
Using your logic, the best possible outcome would be to force everyone to have abortions since that would be less of a tax burden on the state. Your worst possible outcome would be if nobody had an abortion.
That and your link to the eugenicist's "Modest Proposal" makes it seem like you are either a eugenicist or you have a personal financial interest in the abortion industry. Starting from a conclusion and then working your way backwards is poor argumentation and very disingenuous but if you've had your mind made up for you nobody can convince you otherwise.
I didn't know satirist was a synonym of eugenicist. I don't think the Irishman, Jonathan Swift, really wanted people to kill and eat Irish babies. Although I wonder what it says about you that you took him at his word.
But like Wyndham Lewis said, "In its essence the purpose of satire – whether verse or prose – is aggression … Satire has a great big blaring target. If successful, it blasts a great big hole in the center." If blasting great big holes in absurd 'pro-life/anti-welfare' positions can be classified as eugenics then you can call me a killer.
But I find it odd you think I want all babies aborted. Obviously all tax revenues would stop after the current generation retires if that was my aim. Perhaps you are starting from a conclusion that I have a personal financial interest in the abortion industry and are working your way backwards.
Even if this Bill has passed the senate, there is still time to harass your Texas State Representative.
Here's what I wrote my representative:
I worry that this bill will prove ineffective in preventing women from seeking abortions and completing them because it does not prevent women from ignoring the materials and services provided to them. The bill makes physicians provide literature about non-abortive services available in the area but does not make the pregnant woman read them. Some of these pregnant women may not even know how to read the information in the language it is provided. To be effective the woman must read the pamphlets, otherwise she can continue to make this huge mistake without being informed. I believe that the pregnant woman should be tested on her understanding of the medical information provided so that all can be satisfied she is giving informed consent to the procedure.
I also understand that there is no language in the bill that makes a pregnant woman view the sonogram or actually listen to the child’s heartbeat. Could a pregnant woman go into the sonogram wearing a sleep mask and headphones? Could the physician provide these things in his office to these poor, pregnant women? A pregnant woman may even be able to turn her head away from the monitor and bypass this important preventative measure. There must be some language in the bill to make a woman view the sonogram, otherwise she might proceed with the murder of her unborn child.
It is fine and good that this bill makes doctors provide these services and literature to women considering an abortion. But until the pregnant woman is made to listen to and see what she is about to do this bill will be ineffective.
Moreover, I worry that there may be other issues with the bill. While pregnant woman are provided with literature about adoption services that she may or may not read, the literature also mentions state services that pregnant women may look to in order to provide for their child. Does the state actually want more women and children seeking state services such as WIC, SCHIP, and STAR cards? Does the state really want pregnant women who cannot provide for their children themselves to be raising them through the waste of Texas tax dollars?
It would appear the literature may encourage some pregnant women to raise their children through the use of state resources. 69% of pregnant women who seek an abortion are economically disadvantaged. Do Texans really want to be paying for these women’s mistakes? Further measures are clearly necessary to prevent these irresponsible, pregnant women and their offspring from being a burden on our state.
Clearly, a pregnant woman who even considers the murder of her unborn child is unfit to be raising a child, but there are no measures that actually prevent the woman from doing so. I worry that any woman so easily inconvenienced by the hurdles raised by this legislation to getting an abortion is unprepared to go through the adoption process. Should the pregnant woman raise the child herself it is likely she will be doing so through the use of state funds. Therefore I strongly encourage you to vote against this piece of legislation for the sake of the great state of Texas.
Hrm, ooook. Extra points if you can spot the logical fallcies…
Nothing like good ole fashioned abortion debate to revive the culture wars and distract us from the real issues at hand.
Yep it's all a function of cheap money. Cheap money is like the glass aquarium and we're all flies in it. Rather than give up their status the ruling class (and their minions aka the "useless eaters", and welfare queens such as the defense industry) will try to convince you that we're all competing for the same finite resources. The argument about "choice" is a distraction (perhaps intentional); in fact all of the decisionmaking leading up to that choice has already been made on your behalf, and the only choice left is effectively a false one.