Posted on 07/13/2013 2:11:12 AM PDT by lbryce
The Texas Senate gave final passage on Friday to one of the strictest anti-abortion measures in the country, legislation championed by Gov. Rick Perry, who rallied the Republican-controlled Legislature late last month after a Democratic filibuster blocked the bill and intensified already passionate resistance by abortion-rights supporters.
The bill would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy and hold abortion clinics to the same standards as hospital-style surgical centers, among other requirements. Its supporters say that the strengthened requirements for the structures and doctors will protect women’s health; opponents argue that the restrictions are actually intended to put financial pressure on the clinics that perform abortions and will force most of them to shut their doors.
Mr. Perry applauded lawmakers for passing the bill, saying “Today the Texas Legislature took its final step in our historic effort to protect life.” Legislators and anti-abortion activists, he said “tirelessly defended our smallest and most vulnerable Texans and future Texans.”
Debate over the bill has ignited fierce exchanges between lawmakers, and tense confrontations between opponents of the bill, who have worn orange, and supporters of the bill wearing blue. Signs and slogans have been everywhere, bearing long, impassioned arguments or the simple scrawl on a young man’s orange shirt, a Twitter-esque “@TXLEGE: U R dumb.”
The bill had come nearly this far before: a version had been brought to the Senate in the previous session of the Legislature, in June, and was killed by State Senator Wendy Davis, a Democrat from Fort Worth, with an 11-hour filibuster that stalled the bill until after the deadline for ending the session. The filibuster became an overnight sensation on Twitter and other forms of social media, with more than 180,000 people viewing the filibuster live online
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
EternalVigilance is eternally vigilant that no abortion restrictions ever get passed, since such laws never ban 100% of abortions, and he thinks that until such a law does (not that it would be upheld by SCOTUS) that pro-lifers should oppose every other anti-abortion law. That’s why EV and NARAL are always on the same side on every abortion restriction.
Had EternalVigilance been a “gay-rights” activist in the 1980s and 1990s, he would have opposed state laws that allowed same-sex couples to adopt, eliminated orohibitios against homosexual sodomy or banned “discrimination” against gays, since “anything short of a right to same-sex marriage is immoral and hurts our cause.” And had he been a British abolitionist in the 1790s, he would have opposed William Wilberforce’s efforts to ban the slave trade, and would have called Wilberforce a slavetrader after Parliament banned tbe slave trade but exempted a few British colonies from the ban. The fact that the gay lobby’s victories in the 1980s and 1990s paved the way to the legislative and judicial victories that same-sex-marriage zealots have had of late (the argument that “same-sex couples already raise children—aren’t those kids entitled to have their parents [sic] married to each other?”, has been used by legislators, voters and Justice Kennedy), and that Wilberforce’s banning of the slave trade eventually led to slavery being banned by Great Britain altogether (soon after Wilberforce’s death), means nothing to EternalVigilance. He is convinced that he is the modern Wilberforce, as if Wilberforce ever would have been stupid enough to accept a bill that would take us from abortion-on-demand until the moment of birth to a system that at least would ban almost all sbortions after 20 weeks and could lead to Roe being overturned.
But it’s a waste of time trying to talk sense into EternalVigilance, since he’s busy preparing his 2016 presidential run, because, keeping with his mindset of making the perfect the enemy of the good and of throwing away diamonds that are only 99% flawless, he would rather run for the presidency and get 0.001% of the vote than to run for an office where he actually could win and make a dufference.
It’s a state law, because they’re legislating on an issue that the federal government does not have authority to legislate on. I don’t see what the problem is.
"No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."
-- The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
"No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
-- The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
How much is Naral paying you? :)
I thought it was about gay marriage. I haven’t had coffee today.
How are you going to "overturn Roe" without the laws of nature and nature's God, the moral principles of the Declaration of Independence, every clause of the stated purposes of the Constitution, the explicit, imperative equal protection requirements of the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments, and the Article Six bound obligation to keep the oath of office?
Because lawless legislation like this utterly sacrifices all of that.
You remind me of a soldier who has thrown away all his weapons and ammo and stripped buck naked telling us that he's going to walk into Afghanistan and defeat the Taliban single-handed.
It's brave talk, but it obviously ain't gonna happen.
Everyone seems to forget that it was crappy Texas legislation that failed to provide equal protection for the unborn that the Roe court predicated its opinion on.
Their reasoning being that if the legislature didn’t treat them equally, why should they?
Feminine hygiene products among items confiscated at Texas Capitol
“Officers told CNN they had also confiscated used feminine products, as well as bottles of urine and feces”
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/12/feminine-hygiene-products-among-items-confiscated-at-texas-capitol/
Leftists love the turd amendment and their right to bear feces.
So, in short, this bill provides even more fodder for the pro-aborts on the court.
And you all don’t have a leg to stand on, because you’ve cut the legs off the Constitution.
After forty years, this is all so very predictable.
Some of the words that come to mind are “circumspection” ... “sound judgment”
“Piety in place of duty is no piety at all”
There are some who are greatly uncomfortable in dealing with these muddled political questions and they find comfort in running to their pious philosophy. The result, however, is that they “wash their hands of it”, the CURRENT circumstances, to philosophise about what could be. (It’s the sin of Pilate.)
Your local volunteer fire department has a screening process to weed out these personality types because they are seen as wreckless when facing serious circumstances. They look for people who have the ability to govern and discipline oneself by the use of reason in PRACTICAL matters. They see these philospher types as suffering from a form of self-absorption.
It's not "reasonable" to violate the oath to provide equal protection for the right of the innocent to live. It's not practical either. We have forty years of bloody evidence that has piled up to the heavens.
Passing open carry would not be bad, either.
the “too pure crowd” is waiting for a sea-change of opinion among the judicial/legal ruling class in the federal courts.
It would behoove them, then, to become obsessed with the confirmation process in the US Senate. Yet, the ones I run into who share their philosphy with me are almost always oblivous to judicial nominations.
“the CT Supreme Court has how many members?”
“Can you name one of them?”
“How many of the SCOTUS judges can you name?”
They cannot answer because, in the end, they are indifferent.
I have been insistent for years that the state of Texas define personhood to include everyone from conception through natural death.
Even language by he evil court in Roe said that it holding would fail should the personhood of the unborn be established.
Under Planned Parenthood V. Casey I’m not so sure, although that decision at least allowed for some restrictions and regulation of abortion.
Why we haven’t gone straight to the heart of the issue which is “personhood” is beyond me.
So you would rather the Texas Leg pass a bill that will be suspended by a lib judge the instant it passes, be overturned by the USSC instantly upon being heard (since there are at least 5 baby-killer supporters on that court), and the number of babies murdered stay the same (or increase) during this whole time? Instead of a law that will reduce the number of babies killed? And this you call "PRINCIPLED"?
Talk about swallowing a camel, yet choking on a gnat...
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." -- Ronald Wilson Reagan.
They just did that, so I have no idea what you're talking about.
We're never going to get anywhere until conservatives start giving due regard to the first obligations of the oath to support the Constitution.
As this thread illustrates once again, there are far too many who couldn't care less about such things.
If you think keeping the oath is such a burden, perhaps you should offer an amendment to the Constitution rescinding its binding nature.
Oh, so you agree with Obama on the courts? He consistently ignores the courts rulings on issues and goes ahead and does what he wants anyway? Do you consider that to be unconstitutional, immoral, unconscionable, insidious, nefarious, ridiculous, ludicrous, outrageous, and a travesty against the American people there Jackie Chiles?
We ignore the courts, they ignore the courts. Real smart plan there on your little road to dictatorship. The courts may suck, but a constitutional crisis sucks worse.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.