Jump to content


Texas House Tentatively Passes Abortion Restriction Bill


63 replies to this topic

#1 Practical Girl

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8182 posts
  • LocationAustin TX

Posted 10 July 2013 - 08:22 AM

UPDATE:

Ignoring all the public outcry, the Texas House rejects all changes to the bill and tentatively passes it.

For anybody who's been wondering why it's so certain that Texas will end up with only 5 facilities that offer abortions, a nice encapsulation. This article stems from an audio piece on an Austin public radio station, but no audio link. Too bad, since it was a fantastic report. But the meat:

Quote

“Abortion is a procedure. It’s not really a surgery. There’s not any incisions, there’s not any stitches. The procedure itself takes maybe five or 10 minutes. So it’s not like an operation that has multiple physicians where the patients knee is open or her belly is open for a sort of more invasive that this sort of ambulatory surgical center was really devised for," Miller said.

And then there’s the cost. Miller said it would have cost her one and a half million dollars to build the center she leases in San Antonio. And it took her six years to find an ASC that was about to close its doors so she could come in and lease it.
The facility costs her $40,000 more a month to operate than her other abortion clinics. She said if the abortion bill becomes law, the cost of upgrading abortion facilities will be too big and the number of clinics in Texas will drop from 42 to 5.

What's still unclear to me is whether or not these clinics will close completely. The State made a big show of "taking over women's health" back in January when they lost Federal funding because of their defunding of Planned Parenthood. But when you read closely, TX has only obligated itself to caring for about 100,000 low-income women. But if abortions are gone from these clinics, then women could take advantage of them.

Quote

The big change is where women can go for those services. Women using the plan may not receive any health care from Planned Parenthood or any medical provider "affiliated with abortion providers.

And bubbling under the surface? The Houston Chronicle stirred it up initially, but here's CNN's open source. Could Rick Perry's sister profit from the dead baby market in its new, more restrictive form? She is, after all, the Vice President Of Government Relations for United Surgical Partners International (Dallas based) and on the board of Texas Ambulatory Surgical Center Society.

Her company could choose to perform abortions now that her brother's made sure the competition for low-cost facilities will be squashed. More likely path to money? Consultation fees as they instruct/"help" others convert their facilities. I'm betting Milla quits. If her brother really wants to be President, this sort of conflict of interest can't stand the sniff test on the national stage.
Every woman needs a blowtorch.
---Julia Child


--- On September 17, 1787, as Benjamin Franklin was leaving the deliberations of the Constitutional Convention, at Independence Hall, in Philadelphia, a woman called out to him, saying, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”
“A republic,” Franklin said, “if you can keep it.”


--- LFC, on Gorsuch ruling: "Awesome. A Christianist who swore an oath to uphold the laws of the nation and bore false witness when he did it"

--- "Write hard and clear about what hurts"
Ernest Hemingway

#2 indy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9376 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 08:28 AM

It's likely this bill will be stopped by the federal court system, just like a similar one was in wisconson.

#3 Practical Girl

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8182 posts
  • LocationAustin TX

Posted 10 July 2013 - 08:41 AM

Thanks, indy. had forgotten that the Wisconsin case is bubbling. A 10 day delay of enforcement after Walker signed the bill into law. Will be one to watch.
Every woman needs a blowtorch.
---Julia Child


--- On September 17, 1787, as Benjamin Franklin was leaving the deliberations of the Constitutional Convention, at Independence Hall, in Philadelphia, a woman called out to him, saying, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”
“A republic,” Franklin said, “if you can keep it.”


--- LFC, on Gorsuch ruling: "Awesome. A Christianist who swore an oath to uphold the laws of the nation and bore false witness when he did it"

--- "Write hard and clear about what hurts"
Ernest Hemingway

#4 D. R. Tucker

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1131 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 10:27 AM

PG, do you ever wonder where all the pro-choice Republicans went in these states? It's like trying to find pro-science Republicans!

#5 Practical Girl

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8182 posts
  • LocationAustin TX

Posted 10 July 2013 - 10:33 AM

View PostD. R. Tucker, on 10 July 2013 - 10:27 AM, said:

PG, do you ever wonder where all the pro-choice Republicans went in these states? It's like trying to find pro-science Republicans!

Are you suggesting that there are/were some? My guess is that their thinking has "evolved" due to propaganda and a fear of RINOism.
Every woman needs a blowtorch.
---Julia Child


--- On September 17, 1787, as Benjamin Franklin was leaving the deliberations of the Constitutional Convention, at Independence Hall, in Philadelphia, a woman called out to him, saying, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”
“A republic,” Franklin said, “if you can keep it.”


--- LFC, on Gorsuch ruling: "Awesome. A Christianist who swore an oath to uphold the laws of the nation and bore false witness when he did it"

--- "Write hard and clear about what hurts"
Ernest Hemingway

#6 AnBr

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13973 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 10:58 AM

And RINOism itself. They are now independents and Democrats.
“Trump’s a stupid man’s idea of a smart person, a poor man’s idea of a rich person & a weak man’s idea of a strong man.”

— Fran Lebowitz


“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”

— Carl Sagan


Pray for Trump: Psalm 109:8

"Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time - when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers arc in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.

— Carl Sagan
The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
1995


“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”

— H.L. Mencken
On Politics: A Carnival of Buncombe


“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.”

— Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Second inaugural address January, 1937

#7 D. R. Tucker

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1131 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 11:11 AM

PG and AnBr, great point!

#8 Raskolnik

    Brainwashed Bigot

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1661 posts
  • LocationSukhāvatī

Posted 10 July 2013 - 03:51 PM

20 weeks is well past the halfway point of a normal pregnancy.

#9 HockeyDon

    Mind blown...

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3754 posts
  • LocationNew Britain, CT

Posted 11 July 2013 - 07:51 AM

And your point is...
Well, fuck.

How can I be expected to distinguish BS from reality when so much of my reality is utter BS?!

"There seems to be a lot of people dying of ignorance while living in the information age." my sister-in-law.

#10 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 31668 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 11 July 2013 - 08:30 AM

View PostRaskolnik, on 10 July 2013 - 03:51 PM, said:

20 weeks is well past the halfway point of a normal pregnancy.

Actually 19 weeks is the halfway point of a normal pregnancy. That would make 20 "just past", not "well past" the halfway point. And since we're speaking in increments of weeks, you could say it's "barely past". No need to exaggerate.
" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#11 Traveler

    Rambling Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13398 posts
  • LocationPhilly Area

Posted 11 July 2013 - 11:10 AM

20 weeks for elective abortions is the least objectionable part of the bill. If you cannot make up your mind by then, tough. (Assuming later terminations are still permitted if new info shows that fetus irreparably damaged/health of mother etc.)

It is the requirements that effectively close all clinics that is the most objectionable. I project it will bite the GOP big time. But you never know.
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."-- Winston Churchill
"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices" Voltaire

#12 Rabiner

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3723 posts
  • LocationCulver City, CA

Posted 11 July 2013 - 01:42 PM

View PostTraveler, on 11 July 2013 - 11:10 AM, said:

20 weeks for elective abortions is the least objectionable part of the bill. If you cannot make up your mind by then, tough. (Assuming later terminations are still permitted if new info shows that fetus irreparably damaged/health of mother etc.)

It is the requirements that effectively close all clinics that is the most objectionable. I project it will bite the GOP big time. But you never know.

except doesn't the bill eliminate the ability to get abortions past 20 weeks due to malformations, and other defects that arise later in pregnancy? 20 weeks is the least objectionable if those exceptions are still allowed but I don't think they are. Also I'm still trying to justify the government telling a woman that she has to go through with a pregnancy 4 months more before its to be born. A lot can happen in 4 months not just to the mother but also to her life.
Government in particular has an obligation to dismiss any employee who claims a right to discriminate against citizens. - Garret Epps

#13 Traveler

    Rambling Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13398 posts
  • LocationPhilly Area

Posted 11 July 2013 - 02:32 PM

I was speaking just to the 20 week period. I cannot condone changing your mind at that late stage for the mother's lifestyle. Have the kid and give the child up for adoption. Some of us know about that. Where the bill is an utter catastrophe is how it prohibits real medical issues that emerge later, and very effectively limits access anytime.
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."-- Winston Churchill
"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices" Voltaire

#14 Practical Girl

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8182 posts
  • LocationAustin TX

Posted 11 July 2013 - 05:58 PM

View PostRaskolnik, on 10 July 2013 - 03:51 PM, said:

20 weeks is well past the halfway point of a normal pregnancy.

Ras, others have pointed out that 20 weeks isn't "well past" the half way point, so I'll ignore it. But 20 weeks does fall short of the viability-outside-the-womb. Statistically, babies delivered at this fetal development stage have a 0% chance of survival. Other facts

Quote


This bill demands that we consider a fetus as an individual apart from the mother. 20 weeks? Nope. Unfortunately, it cannot survive without the mother, and yet this bill creates a law where the compelling state interest is concerned only that of the fetus. That's wrong, and I'm with indy that this will never pass the Constitutional threshold.

And like so many, you're missing the real intent of this bill which is to severely limit all access to any abortion for Texas women. Because of the great expense of building an ASC, most facilities will no longer be able to perform a legal procedure. Waits will be much, much longer...Again, the real intent. It is very possible that a woman in Texas, under the Draconian measures of this bill, will make the decision to terminate her pregnancy only to have her legal options expire while she waits.
Every woman needs a blowtorch.
---Julia Child


--- On September 17, 1787, as Benjamin Franklin was leaving the deliberations of the Constitutional Convention, at Independence Hall, in Philadelphia, a woman called out to him, saying, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”
“A republic,” Franklin said, “if you can keep it.”


--- LFC, on Gorsuch ruling: "Awesome. A Christianist who swore an oath to uphold the laws of the nation and bore false witness when he did it"

--- "Write hard and clear about what hurts"
Ernest Hemingway

#15 Rabiner

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3723 posts
  • LocationCulver City, CA

Posted 11 July 2013 - 06:18 PM

I'd also be fine with a 20 week limit if women weren't subject to 24 hour waiting limits, easy access, it being covered by Medicaid, not having doctors be gagged to tell you the real risks involved (no breast cancer bull shit), and no ultrasounds just to do an equipment check to see that they work. Seems a compromise that conservatives wouldn't be willing to make.
Government in particular has an obligation to dismiss any employee who claims a right to discriminate against citizens. - Garret Epps

#16 Practical Girl

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8182 posts
  • LocationAustin TX

Posted 11 July 2013 - 08:23 PM

View PostRabiner, on 11 July 2013 - 06:18 PM, said:

I'd also be fine with a 20 week limit if women weren't subject to 24 hour waiting limits, easy access, it being covered by Medicaid, not having doctors be gagged to tell you the real risks involved (no breast cancer bull shit), and no ultrasounds just to do an equipment check to see that they work. Seems a compromise that conservatives wouldn't be willing to make.

The interesting thing about the ultrasound requirements in TX? The Fetal Pain Bill likely to severely undermine them. The whole point of ultrasound was to force a woman to "reconsider" as well as to have a 24 hour waiting period. But there's a little provision in this law that states that if a woman lives more than 100 miles from a facility, the waiting period doesn't apply. A decent portion of Texas women seeking abortions will still be forced to have an ultrasound, but can then obtain their abortions the same day if the Fetal Pain bill becomes law.

I still object to the 20 weeks. While I certainly think that 5 months of pregnancy is enough time to make a decision, this bill seeks to tip all considerations to a life form that has no chance of surviving outside of the carrier and completely ignores the decisions of the only viable life in the equation- the mother's. We can set some limits, but there's far too much real science about viability to set it at a gestational period where there's 0% chance (statistical) of survival outside of the womb. It's not until 24 weeks gestational birth that there's even a 50/50 chance of survival. If there must be a stay, set it around there. And still...The average cost of hospitalization of a baby born that early is several hundred thousand dollars. Who pays, if the state mandates the choice?
Every woman needs a blowtorch.
---Julia Child


--- On September 17, 1787, as Benjamin Franklin was leaving the deliberations of the Constitutional Convention, at Independence Hall, in Philadelphia, a woman called out to him, saying, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”
“A republic,” Franklin said, “if you can keep it.”


--- LFC, on Gorsuch ruling: "Awesome. A Christianist who swore an oath to uphold the laws of the nation and bore false witness when he did it"

--- "Write hard and clear about what hurts"
Ernest Hemingway

#17 Practical Girl

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8182 posts
  • LocationAustin TX

Posted 12 July 2013 - 01:11 AM

Some interesting language in the bill:

Quote

(b)AAExcept as otherwise provided by Section 171.045(a)(3),
a physician performing an abortion under Subsection (a) shall terminate the pregnancy in the manner that, in the physician’s reasonable medical judgment, provides the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive.

W.T.F???? According to this bill, a Texas physician now must perform a legal abortion in a manner that would be the best chance at life for the fetus, unless an excuse is provided? I must be reading this wrong...
Every woman needs a blowtorch.
---Julia Child


--- On September 17, 1787, as Benjamin Franklin was leaving the deliberations of the Constitutional Convention, at Independence Hall, in Philadelphia, a woman called out to him, saying, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”
“A republic,” Franklin said, “if you can keep it.”


--- LFC, on Gorsuch ruling: "Awesome. A Christianist who swore an oath to uphold the laws of the nation and bore false witness when he did it"

--- "Write hard and clear about what hurts"
Ernest Hemingway

#18 AnBr

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13973 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 09:38 AM

And if it is just a blastocyst?
“Trump’s a stupid man’s idea of a smart person, a poor man’s idea of a rich person & a weak man’s idea of a strong man.”

— Fran Lebowitz


“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”

— Carl Sagan


Pray for Trump: Psalm 109:8

"Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time - when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers arc in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.

— Carl Sagan
The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
1995


“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”

— H.L. Mencken
On Politics: A Carnival of Buncombe


“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.”

— Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Second inaugural address January, 1937

#19 Practical Girl

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8182 posts
  • LocationAustin TX

Posted 13 July 2013 - 08:54 AM

And the Senate passes it, too. 19-11

I think indy's legal challenge caution-before-freak-out holds, and somebody will challenge this. Heard a good radio report this morning, though, that pointed out that the circuit court that this will hit (is it the 10th?) has a history of upholding Texas' abortion restrictions. This may be one for SCOTUS.

As an aside, the proceedings were interesting to watch. In order to get through all the required readings/days required for bill passage, the Senate took a very short recess to let the clock turn over to 12AM. During the recess, a prayer was read for reconciliation between the very divided factions of the Senate. Then, with the "new day" came the third reading of the bill and the passage.

I kept thinking about the irony. A woman in Texas is currently required to have a 24 hour waiting period after ultrasound to mull over the implications and finality of what is a personal legal choice that she has already debated, cried over and considered for weeks. And yet the Texas Senate gave themselves 4 minutes to make a legal decision restricting choice for all women in Texas. Amazing.
Every woman needs a blowtorch.
---Julia Child


--- On September 17, 1787, as Benjamin Franklin was leaving the deliberations of the Constitutional Convention, at Independence Hall, in Philadelphia, a woman called out to him, saying, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”
“A republic,” Franklin said, “if you can keep it.”


--- LFC, on Gorsuch ruling: "Awesome. A Christianist who swore an oath to uphold the laws of the nation and bore false witness when he did it"

--- "Write hard and clear about what hurts"
Ernest Hemingway

#20 indy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9376 posts

Posted 13 July 2013 - 09:15 AM

Monday morning the lawsuits will fly. Since they will seek an injunction, you'll know pretty quick what the court is thinking.

The 20 weeks thing might make it to the supreme court, but those aspects of the laws that seek to close clinics based on bogus medical requirements I think will get struck down quickly and SCOTUS won't look at those aspects of it.

At least in the north. In the south, who knows?





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users