Wednesday, July 10, 2013

Texas House Passes HB2

This is breaking news. Testimony was taken well into the evening Tuesday, so the vote came fairly late.  The unofficial total is 94 yeas, 51 nays, 1 present not voting. Good for Texas!
This is the bill that got Wendy Davis and her pink tennis shoes notoriety at the close of the first special session, when she filibustered to prevent the vote. (Bill text here.) 
The bill will still face a Senate vote before becoming law; the Senate has a companion bill, SB1, with hearings scheduled for July 11. I think it is very likely to pass. This bill is the main reason for holding this second special session.
The bill’s main purpose is to ban late-term abortions beyond 20 weeks gestation—the point at which evidence shows the fetus feels pain. Exceptions are made in critical health situations. The 20-month point is already well beyond limitations for abortions in most European countries. It is difficult to envision a situation in which a woman, knowing she is pregnant and not wanting to be, cannot act before five months gestation. So the bill is seen as not causing an undue burden.
Another purpose of the bill is an effort to avoid the lack of regulation that allowed for the filth and horror seen in the Gosnell case. Pro-abortionists claimed that case should not represent their purposes, because lack of regulation was the problem. So this bill requires that abortion clinics abide by the same standards as other ambulatory surgery centers, such as those that do Lasik eye surgery or colonoscopies. Opponents of the bill claimed this was an unfair burden, because it would require 37 of 42 abortion clinics in Texas to upgrade or close. Let me repeat that another way: currently 88% of Texas abortion clinics cannot meet the minimum standards of safety and health required of all other types of clinics—yet the opposition wants to keep the standard lower “for the sake of women’s health.” Right.
People who clamor for the “right” to behave in uncivilized ways will show their savagery in the process.
That was true at the end of the first legislative session, when their “free speech” was actually a raucous mob preventing civil society from functioning. Rallies have shown them hollering “hail Satan,” and hurling profanities at churches in particular and anyone who disagrees with them. They offer up death threats to the Lieutenant Governor and threats against family members of pro-life legislators.   
Their visual aid during Tuesday hearings was to carry coat hangers and claim the law would force women into using such devices on themselves—but of course without any logical connection between the actual law and the “need” to use a coat hanger on oneself. Choosing to stab an unborn infant with a coat hanger isn’t what horrifies them; it is that infanticide isn’t made more convenient for the woman choosing to kill the infant. That is savagery.
Their best argument about the “unborn pain” part of the law is, “not all science agrees.” They are not concerned with the infant’s pain. Nor can they give a decent reason for a woman—without medical need but only personal life choice of whether to be pregnant after engaging in behavior that led to pregnancy—to require the option of offing the child at will a full five months into the child's growth. She suddenly gets concerned about stretch marks? I’m not sure.
For reasons they don’t comprehend, uncivilized demands don’t persuade well in Texas.


  1. "She suddenly gets concerned about stretch marks." Wow. Wow. How little you think of women. How incredibly small you are.

    1. ClinicEscort, you clearly miss the point. Seeing as how exceptions exist for critical health situations, what possible reason comes up between weeks 20 and 24 that makes the mother suddenly feel the need to abort her child that did not exist before. Mrs. Spherical Model could only think that stretch marks start appearing around this time. If you can think of other reasons, please explain, so that perhaps we can understand. Personally, I think of women so highly that I think they can intelligently make a choice far before the 20th week of gestation. Apparently, you seem to think so little of women that you think they are retarded and could not possibly make a choice any earlier. Just like you think so little of women that you pick up on this one statement and ignore the fact that out of all the abortion centers in Texas, only 5 meet the standards for an outpatient surgical center. You think so little of women that we should keep open abortion centers that cannot or will not meet the health and safety standards of more simple surgeries. You think so little of women that you believe they have no control over the actions that result in their pregnancy and it is unfair to make them live with the consequences of their actions. I doubt this will persuade you, but I believe that people should live with the consequences of their choices, whether the consequences be good or bad. There is no need to punish the unborn because the mother refuses to live with the consequences of her actions. But please, if you have a good reason, other than critical health situations, for why the choice of abortion is necessary between weeks 20 and 24, which could not have been used to make a decision before, tell those of us who do not seem to understand, instead of simply name calling. Otherwise, along with those displaying savagery at the capital, it is you who truly think so little of women, it is you who is so incredibly small.