It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Texas Lawmakers Pass Controversial Anti-Abortion Bill

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Texas Lawmakers Pass Controversial Anti-Abortion Bill


news.yahoo.com

Fri May 6, 1:40 pm ET
AUSTIN, Texas – Texas lawmakers have passed legislation requiring doctors to perform a sonogram before conducting an abortion.

The legislation requires doctors to conduct a sonogram at least 24 hours before an abortion and to provide the woman with the opportunity to see the results and hear the fetal heartbeat. The doctor is also required to describe what the sonogram shows.

In cases of incest, rape or fetal abnormality, the woman doesn't have to hear a description of the fetus.

Texas Governor Rick Perry, a Republican, stands behind the controversial measur
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.care2.com

www.foxnews.com...
www.theoaklandpress.com...
edit on 7-5-2011 by Rustami because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 7 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   
mods, had not seen this posted in the search on any forums so if this in wrong forum or has already been posted feel free to move

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”

For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.-Ps139

this is promising news and a step in the right direction if for no other reason than a wake up call in order to protect yourself or others beforehand through knowledge of exactly who all this harms like the suckling, the females health and a males also, as well as teens having been able to do so without communication to their parents or to their knowledge

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


The answer to this question is the same at it was two decades ago. In 1971, the editors of California Medicine wrote in support of legalized abortion, but noted that the moral view underlying this change would only slowly be adopted.

Since the old [Judeo-Christian] ethic [of the sanctity of life] has not yet been fully displaced [by the new ethic which places relative rather than absolute value on human lives] it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices. It is suggested that this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary because while a new ethic is being accepted the old one has not yet been rejected. (2) [Italics added]

With an honesty often missing from the current abortion debate, the pro-choice editors of California Medicine affirm that "everyone really knows" that human life begins at conception. Everyone knows it. Every denial is simply "semantic gymnastics" offered by "socially impeccable auspices" to ease our way.

Many of these women still desire their babies even at the time of the abortion, but are aborting only because they feel forced to do so by others or by circumstances. Indeed, of women who experience post-abortion problems, over 80 percent say they would have carried to term under better circumstances or with the support of loved ones, over 60 percent report having felt "forced" to have the abortion by others or circumstances, and approximately 40 percent were still hoping to discover some alternative to abortion when going for counseling at the abortion clinic
www.abortionfacts.com...


another related news article snippet


HOUSTON — In a victory for anti-abortion advocates, Texas will join the ranks of states that require doctors to perform a sonogram before conducting an abortion.

Gov. Rick Perry, a conservative Republican, made the bill, which the Legislature passed on Thursday, a priority and is expected to sign it. The bill requires a doctor to conduct a sonogram at least 24 hours before an abortion and to give the woman the opportunity to see the results and hear the heartbeat of the fetus. Though the woman can choose not to view the images and hear the heartbeat, the doctor must describe what the sonogram shows, including the existence of legs, arms and internal organs.

“This will be one of the strongest pieces of sonogram legislation in the nation,” the bill’s author, Representative Sid Miller, a Republican from Stephenville, told reporters. Mr. Miller predicted the measure would “save numerous unborn lives.”www.nytimes.com...

edit on 7-5-2011 by Rustami because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   
I have a vision of Texas in 20 years time and it is the most crime ridden dangerous state in the whole of the USA.



posted on May, 7 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
So aside from the Judeo-Christian religious views, can anyone give a good reason why this bill is anything other than yet another pointless and obtrusive imposition of nanny-state govenment into our personal lives?

I think this is a horrible bill, based purely on religious morality... The only saving grace is that they at least ammended it so that the woman is not required to see or hear the sonogram or heart beat.



posted on May, 7 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   
My young nephew needs a new kidney to live. These representatives are all murderers if they object to me hooking them up to him so he can use one of their kidneys. I have a lot of very cute photos of him to prove it would be murder.
edit on 7-5-2011 by sepermeru because: edit button likes my hair this way



posted on May, 7 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by lewman
I have a vision of Texas in 20 years time and it is the most crime ridden dangerous state in the whole of the USA.


I recommend focusing more on noble themes and that might disappear, or is it "let us do harm so no-harm happens"?


Where is the maternal death rate lowest? Ireland, where human abortion is a crime against humanity.
The UNICEF website reports:

Ireland: Maternal mortality ratio†, 2005, adjusted – world rank: #1
liveaction.org...



posted on May, 7 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by lewman
 


For when I was created woman I did not expect to be raped and have to carry the fetus to full term. My personal liberty was taken from me, my pursuit of happiness ended, my life was changed, and justice was not done.



posted on May, 7 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by sepermeru
My young nephew needs a new kidney to live. These representatives are all murderers if they object to me hooking them up to him so he can use one of their kidneys. I have a lot of very cute photos of him to prove it would be murder.
edit on 7-5-2011 by sepermeru because: edit button likes my hair this way


assumptions, slander, made up bologne, a real life joker and "wise guy"



55 million, Second World War (20C); 40 million, under Mao Zedong (20C); 40 million, Mongol Conquests(13C); 36 million, An Lushan Revolt(8C); 25 million, Fall of the Ming Dynasty(17C); 20 million, Taiping Rebellion(19C); 20 million, toll of American Indians, (15C-19C), 20 million, under Joseph Stalin(20C); 19 million, Mideast Slave Trade(7C-19C); 18 million, Atlantic Slave Trade(15C-); 17 million, Islamic Conquest of India(14C-15C); 17 million, British India(19C); 15 million, First World War(20C); 9 million, Russian Civil War(20C); 9 million, Hindu Thuggee cult killings(13C-19C); 8 million, Fall of Rome(3C-5C); 8 million, Congo Free State(19C – 20C); 7 million, Thirty Years War(17C); 5 million, Russia's Time of Troubles(16C-17C), 4 million, Napoleonic Wars(19C); 3 million, Chinese Civil War(20C); 3 million, French Wars of Religion(16C).

Taken all together, we have 401 million deaths over nearly 2000 years of war and barbarism. Just for the sake of argument, let’s add another 10%, or 40 million, to cover margins of error, and other wars. This would bring our total to 441 million deaths over the last 20 centuries.

Now, what about abortion? At the low end of the Guttmacher scale, even if we ignore all abortions done prior to 1980 when accurate numbers are a little more difficult to ascertain, abortion accounts for more than twice the number of deaths by war! In just the last 25 years, the ghastly toll for abortion has totaled over 900 million dead babies. Taking the more probable mean average, the toll rises to well over 1 billion babies; or nearly three times the amount of deaths due to war.www.covenantnews.com...




edit on 7-5-2011 by Rustami because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   
How DARE legislators try to stick their noses into my dealings with my doctor! It's none of their business! If I was a young woman going for an abortion, I would refuse to have the ultrasound. I would not stand for this government intrusion!

It's one thing to offer it, but quite another to require it!



posted on May, 7 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by aero56
reply to post by lewman
 


For when I was created woman I did not expect to be raped and have to carry the fetus to full term. My personal liberty was taken from me, my pursuit of happiness ended, my life was changed, and justice was not done.


yes if do a little reading one will find the rape question is involved


Abortion is not the “safe procedure” its advocates claim it to be. More mothers die from the complications of legal abortions each year than died from illegal abortions in all previous years.

98% of abortions are for reasons other than rape, incest, or the mother’s life.911babies.com...



A conspiracy of silence seems to surround the well-documented excess of suicide deaths among women with a history of abortion.. Meaning that 55.8% of respondents (over half) reported feeling suicidal after an abortion. www.clinicquotes.com...



Surveys of women who have had abortions, (see, for example, David Reardon's book, Aborted Women, Silent No More), show that abortion is not a question of giving a woman a "choice." It is, tragically, a situation of women feeling they have NO CHOICE, feeling that nobody cares enough about them and their child to give them any alternative besides going to the abortionist. The woman feels rejected, confused, afraid, alone, unable to handle the pregnancy- - and behold, in the midst of all this, she is told by society, "We will eliminate your problem by eliminating your child. Go get an abortion. It's a safe, easy, and legal solution."

The fact is that though abortion is legal, it is NOT safe and easy, nor respectful of the woman.

Carol Everett used to run an abortion clinic. She is now pro-life, and she tells how women are not given the full truth about the abortion procedure. When they ask "Will it be painful?" they are told "No", even though serious pain is involved. When they ask, "Is it a baby?" they are told "No". Many women have found out only AFTER their abortion that their baby already had arms, legs, and sucked its thumb, before they aborted it. The clinic workers are told not to volunteer any other information if they are not asked. Why can't we respect women enough to tell them the whole truth?www.priestsforlife.org...


edit on 7-5-2011 by Rustami because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Rustami
 


So again, I ask, is there any context around this besides numbers from Judeo-Christian sites? I am not Christian, Jewish, or Muslim. I am just trying to see why I, or my elected representatives, should care about what someone else does with their body...

Besides, based on your numbers, if abortion was illegal and (by some strange miracle) people didn't get illegal abortions, it would seem to me that we would be dealing with a worldwide population > 10 billion now.. Not sure how that is a good thing.


edit on 5-7-2011 by rogerstigers because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   
How is this an anti-abortion bill? From what I read it's to show and tell the pregnant women, I wouldn't classify them as mothers seeing as they are actively seeking to kill their child, as to what their body is holding to better inform them. Nothing in that article says this bill is banning abortions.



posted on May, 7 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Rustami
 


Umm, saying that Ireland has the lowest maternal death rate, and then also pointing out that abortion is illegal, does not make the two connected. It's like saying that the French are well known for having diets with high fat content, and that they are also the 4th "skinniest" country in Europe, therefore eating fatty foods will make you skinny. Um. NO. Correlation does not equal causation. Have you bothered to look into any of the other countries that prohibit abortion? Have you seen what some women in Ireland have to go through or deal with? Banning something and having a big intrusive governmental nanny state does not mean that the things which which you personally object to will go away. Planned Parenthood has done more to prevent abortion in this country than any Republican state governor, but of course anti-abortion activists fail to even acknowledge the role that contraceptives and family planning play in preventing abortion, of course they prefer a giant Nanny state to tell people what they can and cannot do. Well just because you want the state to enforce your vision of a society, by telling people what they can and cannot do, does not mean that these things will just "poof" magically go away because it's illegal, just look at the drug war.


Figures released in May by the UK Department of Health show that in 2009, a total of 4,422 women providing Irish addresses had terminations in England and Wales. This represents a drop of 178 on the previous year. IFPA Chief Executive Niall Behan said: “While this trend is a step in the right direction the harsh reality behind these statistics is that every day 12 women must embark on a journey to Britain to access safe and legal abortion services.

These figures are compelling evidence of the need for domestic-based abortion services in
Ireland. The Government’s failure to face reality means that women’s and girls’ rights are being denied on a daily basis. The criminalisation of abortion has little impact on abortion rates; it merely adds to the burden and stress suffered by women experiencing crisis pregnancies.

Since 1980 we know that at least 142,060 women travelled to Britain for abortion services. This figure highlights the hypocrisy of Ireland’s laws on abortion, which are among the
most restrictive in the world.”
Source

How long have you been on ATS? And you still believe making something illegal, or difficult to obtain (either through taxes and other legal requirements) will actually make that thing "poof, go away"? Maybe you want to check out some Libertarian philosophy on things like the drug war, abortion, marriage, etc. Specifically:


We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.
Source


Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
Source

That's all I ask, is that the government stay out the doctor's office and not interfere into my doctor-patient relationship.



posted on May, 7 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Yep, and even victims of rape and incest must view the sonogram.



posted on May, 7 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
 


Yes, it is obvious that it is not an anti-abortion bill. It is a bill designed to force women into unnecessary medical procedures under the hope that seeing a something on the screen or hearing a heartbeat will make them guilty enough to run out of the abortion clinic in tears and "aborting" the abortion. It's social engineering and meddling where the government does not belong.

Texas would do better to spend their attention on fixing their school system and their budget, not passing inane laws.



posted on May, 7 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
 


Tell that to a rape victim or victim of incest. It is insane that these victims will have to view the result of a criminal event.



posted on May, 7 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by aero56
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Yep, and even victims of rape and incest must view the sonogram.



Originally posted by aero56
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
 


Tell that to a rape victim or victim of incest. It is insane that these victims will have to view the result of a criminal event.



Though the woman can choose not to view the images and hear the heartbeat, the doctor must describe what the sonogram shows, including the existence of legs, arms and internal organs.

Source.


In cases of incest, rape or fetal abnormality, the woman doesn't have to hear a description of the fetus.

From article in OP.
edit on 5/7/11 by Ferris.Bueller.II because: Add additional quote.



posted on May, 7 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogerstigers
Yes, it is obvious that it is not an anti-abortion bill. It is a bill designed to force women into unnecessary medical procedures under the hope that seeing a something on the screen or hearing a heartbeat will make them guilty enough to run out of the abortion clinic in tears and "aborting" the abortion. It's social engineering and meddling where the government does not belong.


Heartbeat? How can there be a heartbeat from a "something"? One would have to assume there is a living entity to have a heartbeat.
edit on 7-5-2011 by bozzchem because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by bozzchem
Heartbeat? How can there be a heartbeat from a "something"? One would have to assume there is a living entity to have a heartbeat.


The liberal definition of a 'living entity' is one that can and will vote Democratic in the next election. Beyond that, a heartbeat doesn't mean anything to them. Which to me seems a little strange. Because a considerable percentage of babies aborted would more than probably, by their demographics, vote Democratic.



posted on May, 7 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogerstigers
So aside from the Judeo-Christian religious views, can anyone give a good reason why this bill is anything other than yet another pointless and obtrusive imposition of nanny-state govenment into our personal lives?

I think this is a horrible bill, based purely on religious morality... The only saving grace is that they at least ammended it so that the woman is not required to see or hear the sonogram or heart beat.



One slight but important note. This is not the nanny-state govt but the daddy-state govt intrusion, the authoritarian daddy-state that rules over its citizens with fear and the knowledge that it alone knows what's good for you and you must obey or be punished.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join