PDA

View Full Version : Abolition of Abortion in Texas Act (H.B. 896)



Chris
04-11-2019, 06:00 PM
Texas Abortion Bill Could Put Women, Physicians On Death Row



A bill under consideration by Texas lawmakers would ban abortion across the state and charge any woman who has one - and the physician who performed it - with homicide, according to NBC News. The charge can carry the death penalty in the state.

Introduced by Republican Rep. Tony Tinderholt - an Air Force veteran who was placed under state protection over death threats - the "Abolition of Abortion in Texas Act" (H.B. 896) is necessary to make women "more personally responsible," according to Tinderholt.

The Texas lawmaker introduced a similar bill in 2017, however it failed to leave committee.

During Monday and Tuesday committee hearings on the bill, around 500 people testified in favor of it - of which 54 were against the bill, according to the Washington Post.


"A living human child, from the moment of fertilization on fusion of a human spermatozoon with a human ovum, is entitled to the same rights, powers, and privileges as are secured or granted by the laws of this state to any other human child," reads the text of the bill.

Texas Rep. Matt Krause (R) who sits on the Texas Committee on Judiciary and Civil Jurispurdence which heard the bill noted on Facebook that it was "the first legislative hearing since 1973 on this topic."


Democrats on the committee blasted the bill.

"I’m trying to reconcile in my head the arguments that I heard tonight about how essentially one is OK with subjecting a woman to the death penalty ... to do to her the exact same thing that one is alleging she is doing to a child," said Democratic Rep. Victoria Neave during the hearing, according to the Washington Post.

The emotional showdown in Texas came amid a broader effort, in states where Republicans enjoy legislative control, to impose sweeping new restrictions on abortion rights. From Georgia to Ohio, from Florida to West Virginia, about a dozen states have moved on legislation banning abortion once a doctor can detect a fetal heartbeat.

Some states are intent on taking additional steps. Last week, legislation was introduced in Alabama that would criminalize performing an abortion at any stage, with the only exception being a threat to the mother’s life. The effort is aimed squarely at Roe v. Wade. -WaPo

According to the Post, the fact that the Texas bill is "a clear violation of the 1973 landmark decision" is kind of the point - as the bill instructs state authorities to enforce its requirements "regardless of any contrary federal law, executive order, or court decision."

According to Bim Baxa, president of West Texans for Life, "Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional," who added "And the 10th Amendment puts it to you all to stand up to that tyranny and do what’s right."

Baxa said supporting the bill was his organization's "number one priority" as it's the first and only to classify abortion as a capital felony.

"A woman who has committed murder should be charged with murder," said Baxa.

Houston pastor Stephen Bratton echoed Baxa's sentiment, saying "Whoever authorizes or commits murder is guilty."

Faith wasn’t the only justification offered for the bill. “We are literally missing billions of dollars in taxpayer money,” one woman said, suggesting that preventing abortion would increase the state’s population, meaning more people contributing to public coffers. -WaPo

The measure's 54 opponents included legal experts, women's rights activists and business leaders.

"Murdering your citizens for a medical procedure is pretty extreme to me," said tech CEO Caroline Caselli, founder of affordable housing resource Haven Connect. Caselli, a recent transplant from California, says she fears for her female employees.

ACLU Texas strategist Drucilla Tigner noted that the legislation was unconstitutional and would be invalidated, according to the Post, while Jasmine Wong - legislative and legal intern with abortion rights organization NARAL said that the hearing was a "waste of time."

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-11/texas-abortion-bill-could-put-women-physicians-death-row

ChumpDumper
04-11-2019, 06:03 PM
Pretty stupid bill tbh.

Winehole23
04-11-2019, 06:08 PM
Honor killings for women who get abortions. Genius.

vy65
04-11-2019, 06:08 PM
Sounds pretty constitutional to me

spurraider21
04-11-2019, 06:14 PM
terrible bill

Spurminator
04-12-2019, 10:26 AM
I remember being told pro-lifers didn't want to prosecute women who get abortions.

Winehole23
04-12-2019, 10:26 AM
KILL THEM

Ragin Cajun
04-12-2019, 10:47 AM
Terrible bill. This is one of the areas that republicans are completely clueless about.

boutons_deux
04-12-2019, 10:51 AM
who will prosecute the men who got them pregnant?

Winehole23
04-12-2019, 10:57 AM
who will prosecute the men who got them pregnant?the answer is always for women to close their legs, not for men to quit fucking or use BC.

benefactor
04-12-2019, 12:54 PM
Leach will kill it...and :lol the threats of violence.

:cry Imma keel you Leech for stoppin mah bortion bill :cry

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/politics/Police-Again-Step-in-as-Texas-Lawmaker-Halts-Abortion-Bill-508451341.html

Blake
04-12-2019, 01:29 PM
Texas Abortion Bill Could Put Women, Physicians On Death Row

Do you support this bill Christian Chris

CosmicCowboy
04-12-2019, 02:43 PM
As disgusting and abhorrent as I find this guys bill, I have to admit there is some logic to his argument. If a drunk driver wrecks and kills a pregnant woman in her second trimester he gets charged with two murders....the mother and the child. If the same mother aborts the same child in the second trimester it's not murder. The law is inconsistent on the logic.

SpursforSix
04-12-2019, 02:51 PM
As disgusting and abhorrent as I find this guys bill, I have to admit there is some logic to his argument. If a drunk driver wrecks and kills a pregnant woman in her second trimester he gets charged with two murders....the mother and the child. If the same mother aborts the same child in the second trimester it's not murder. The law is inconsistent on the logic.

you're equating a drunk driver with the mom that's having the child?

ElNono
04-12-2019, 02:53 PM
As disgusting and abhorrent as I find this guys bill, I have to admit there is some logic to his argument. If a drunk driver wrecks and kills a pregnant woman in her second trimester he gets charged with two murders....the mother and the child. If the same mother aborts the same child in the second trimester it's not murder. The law is inconsistent on the logic.

It isn't illogical at all. The mother and fetus have a parasitical connection (that is, the fetus can't live without the host). The issue at play with abortion law has to do with the rights of the mother in so far as to her health and the risks she wants to undertake with the pregnancy vis a vis the the potential future child. This is why fathers have much less rights, and the same applies to third parties.

People get hung up on questions like when does life start?, and it's completely immaterial to the legal argument. The real question is when does the fetus can be extracted and live on it's own.

Isitjustme?
04-12-2019, 02:57 PM
Chair: Texas bill that would apply the death penalty to abortions won't make it out of committee

http://www.fox5dc.com/news/local-news/texas-abortion-bill-will-not-make-it-out-of-committee-chairman-says

ElNono
04-12-2019, 02:58 PM
IOW, when you force a woman to carry a pregnancy, you're invading on the privacy of her person, as far as what she wants to do with her body. Then there's the whole child's life counterargument. That's why they're competing rights, and, at least in Roe vs Wade, the solution was somewhat Solomonic. Women gets to choose as long as the kid can't live on it's own (viability), then kid takes precedence.

ElNono
04-12-2019, 02:59 PM
That bill wouldn't likely pass constitutional scrutiny, tbh... just grandstanding...

spurraider21
04-12-2019, 03:01 PM
IOW, when you force a woman to carry a pregnancy, you're invading on the privacy of her person, as far as what she wants to do with her body. Then there's the whole child's life counterargument. That's why they're competing rights, and, at least in Roe vs Wade, the solution was somewhat Solomonic. Women gets to choose as long as the kid can't live on it's own (viability), then kid takes precedence.
well roe v wade divided it up into trimesters. in planned parenthood v casey they scrapped that and just went with viability, as you discussed.

spurraider21
04-12-2019, 03:01 PM
That bill wouldn't likely pass constitutional scrutiny, tbh... just grandstanding...
absolutely

CosmicCowboy
04-12-2019, 03:04 PM
It isn't illogical at all. The mother and fetus have a parasitical connection (that is, the fetus can't live without the host). The issue at play with abortion law has to do with the rights of the mother in so far as to her health and the risks she wants to undertake with the pregnancy vis a vis the the potential future child. This is why fathers have much less rights, and the same applies to third parties.

People get hung up on questions like when does life start?, and it's completely immaterial to the legal argument. The real question is when does the fetus can be extracted and live on it's own.

I am for abortion, at least through the second trimester. I just still see the logical fallacy in the drunk driver scenario where he gets charged with two murders when the fetus dies with the mother..

SpursforSix
04-12-2019, 03:07 PM
I am for abortion, at least through the second trimester. I just still see the logical fallacy in the drunk driver scenario where he gets charged with two murders when the fetus dies with the mother..

That's not how you framed your original argument. You said the fallacy was that the driver gets charged for the murder of the fetus and the mother (in the case of abortion) does not.

CosmicCowboy
04-12-2019, 03:12 PM
That's not how you framed your original argument. You said the fallacy was that the driver gets charged for the murder of the fetus and the mother (in the case of abortion) does not.

Fuck off, you argumentative little bitch. That was the logical inconsistency. In one case it qualifies as a life destroyed, in the other it doesn't.

SpursforSix
04-12-2019, 03:14 PM
Fuck off, you argumentative little bitch. That was the logical inconsistency. In one case it qualifies as a life, in the other it doesn't.

calm down Fairy Mason

CosmicCowboy
04-12-2019, 03:14 PM
The answer, to be logically consistent, is to charge the drunk driver with just the murder of the mother.

ElNono
04-12-2019, 10:46 PM
I am for abortion, at least through the second trimester. I just still see the logical fallacy in the drunk driver scenario where he gets charged with two murders when the fetus dies with the mother..

The only way it's illogical is if we're deeming one right 'better' or 'more important' than another. The women's right to privacy is just as an important right as the state interest of protecting the life of the fetus. While there are certain exceptions (ie: national security, public safety), generally rights are deemed equals in the eye of the law. As such, when there are competing interests, the solution generally encompasses some sort of compromise. In the abortion case, the compromise is that as long as the fetus needs the mother to survive, the mother has authority to exercise her privacy right. That doesn't invalidate the fact that the state has a compelling interest in the fetus potential life. They can just be overruled by the mother (and only the mother, seeing it's her right that applies in that context), for the allowed duration. Past that time, and considering the mother no longer is technically necessary to bring that fetus to birth, the state interest takes over (and the mother's privacy interest doesn't stop either, it just no longer necessarily applies as the fetus can be technically separated from her).

The day science manages to extract fetuses at any stage of pregnancy without damaging them, this whole thing will be moot. In the meantime, we have to deal with the competing interests.