Reply With Quote
Pretty stupid bill tbh.
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 en led 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 uncons utional," 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 uncons utional 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-...ians-death-row
Pretty stupid bill tbh.
Honor killings for women who get abortions. Genius.
Sounds pretty cons utional to me
terrible bill
I remember being told pro-lifers didn't want to prosecute women who get abortions.
KILL THEM
Terrible bill. This is one of the areas that republicans are completely clueless about.
who will prosecute the men who got them pregnant?
the answer is always for women to close their legs, not for men to quit ing or use BC.
Leach will kill it...andthe threats of violence.
Imma keel you Leech for stoppin mah bortion bill
https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/politics...508451341.html
Do you support this bill Christian Chris
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?
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.
Chair: Texas bill that would apply the death penalty to abortions won't make it out of committee
http://www.fox5dc.com/news/local-new...-chairman-says
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.
That bill wouldn't likely pass cons utional scrutiny, tbh... just grandstanding...
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.
absolutely
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.
off, you argumentative little . That was the logical inconsistency. In one case it qualifies as a life destroyed, in the other it doesn't.
calm down Fairy Mason
The answer, to be logically consistent, is to charge the drunk driver with just the murder of the mother.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
