Posted on 05/05/2011 5:07:15 PM PDT by erkyl
AUSTIN - This afternoon, the Texas House concurred with the Senate-passed version of the Sonogram Bill HB 15 by a vote of 94-41. The legislation now heads to the desk of Governor Rick Perry for his signature! The Republican Party of Texas applauds both chambers for passing this important bill, one of the RPT's priority pieces of legislation this session.
Said RPT Chairman Steve Munisteri, "This is a tremendous accomplishment by our Republican majority in the Legislature and I am very pleased to see this strong, pro-life bill on its way to Governor Perry's desk.
(Excerpt) Read more at texasgop.org ...
off topic a bit.. Too bad California doesn’t sonogram voters heads before they can vote.
“And then they can kill the baby...”
Hogwash. It's pathetic. The people of Texas gave you a veto-proof majority. If you wanted the child-killing to stop you would have banned it.
“If you wanted the child-killing to stop you would have banned it.”
***
Unless Texas secedes and becomes a sovereign nation once again, not going to happen. Ever heard of Roe v. Wade and the U.S. Supreme Court?
In the written opinion, Judge Blackmun said this:
"The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment." -- Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Roe vs. Wade, 1973
Assert the obvious fact that the fetus is OF COURSE a person, and ban it. It's simple. If the judges don't like it, tell them to go to hell and impeach them.
"Pro-life" Republicans are doing the exact opposite, of course. They are increasingly codifying the supreme injustice that has cost more than fifty million little persons their lives.
"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."
This bill only goes an infinitesimal measure toward curbing abortions, and should only be seen as an inception, but the leftist are going absolutely stark raving mad about it. In my hometown Ft. Worth Star-Telegram related article, the comments are absolutely filthy. The Leftists truly worship the death of infants.
They worship Molech by encouraging the death of infants.
“They are increasingly codifying the supreme injustice that has cost more than fifty million little persons their lives.”
***
When law and justice overlap, it is by accident rather than design. Never mistake one for the other.
Law is used by those wielding it to confiscate money and power from those who don’t.
“which has more weight, one unconstitutional court decision in one particular case, or the explicit, imperative requirement of our Constitution?”
****
In the real world, the former.
In an ideal world, the latter.
I agree with you in principle, but because those who could have been politically awake in the 70’s when Roe v. Wade passed were asleep and let this horrific ‘cat out of the bag’ it’s awfully difficult to get back in. We can’t just ban abortions, that’s not practical.
Curbing abortions and making the mother view what she is doing is a step in the right direction. Education is key. Abortions are down primarily due to the advancement of science and the view into the womb.
We cannot have constitutional protection of the unborn until they receive personhood status. That is coming, but we are a nation of laws. When the law changes to reflect that a fetus is a ‘person’, then they will have constitutional protection. It is happening, albeit slowly—but it is happening. Until then, it’s baby steps.
DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF ABORTIONS
Why is this a good thing? Forcing people to have a sonogram to me sounds nanny stateish. Constantly there are threads complaing of things liberals want to impose on everyone. I ask what is the difference here?
DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF ABORTIONS
I agree with you in principle, but
1) Doesn't matter one whit what you say your principles are, if those principles are not matched with corresponding actions.
because those who could have been politically awake in the 70’s
2) The 70s are gone. No amount of hand wringing will bring them back.
when Roe v. Wade passed
3) Roe wasn't "passed." That's a legislative word and courts don't make law.
...let this horrific ‘cat out of the bag’ it’s awfully difficult to get back in. We can’t just ban abortions, that’s not practical.
4) The only reason we can't ban abortions is because of the obstructions caused by folks like yourself.
Curbing abortions
"Abortions" are brutal child-killings. If there were thousands of 20 year-olds being brutally dismembered and murdered in "clinics" in this country every day would you call for that practice to be "curbed"? Would you suggest that "curbing" or regulating concentration camps in Europe in the thirties and forties would have been a morally or legally defensible position to take? Have you even read our Constitution, with its explicit imperative language which forbids the killing of innocent persons anywhere in America?
making the mother view what she is doing is a step in the right direction.
Not in a country whose first principles are equality, equal protection, and the God-given, unalienable right to life.
Education is key.
Education is fine. If the content of the educational materials is good. What are you teaching? We can’t just ban abortions, that’s not practical.
Abortions are down primarily due to the advancement of science and the view into the womb.
Right. Because people realize that's a person in there. Our Constitution forbids the taking of the life of ANY innocent person. Or don't you care about the explicit, imperative provisions of the Constitution?
We cannot have constitutional protection of the unborn until they receive personhood status.
You have it backwards. They are persons no matter what you say about it. That's just a natural fact. They are endowed by their Creator with the right to life. So, in fact, the reality is "we cannot have constitutional protection of the unborn" until you, and our representatives, follow the Constitution.
That is coming, but we are a nation of laws.
Wouldn't know it from your post. This is what the supreme law of the land has to say about the matter. It's quite unequivocal:
"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"No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law." -- The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
When the law changes to reflect that a fetus is a ‘person’, then they will have constitutional protection.
In other words, you think our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are man-given, not God-given, and that they are therefore alienable, not unalienable. You've destroyed the cornerstone principle of our free republic, upon which our republican form of government and our claim to liberty rest.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..." -- The Declaration of Independence
Frankly, it would seem that you don't even understand why we have government.
It is happening, albeit slowly—but it is happening.
Well, if that's true, it is in spite of folks like yourself, those who are helping to codify child-killing, not because of you.
Until then, it’s baby steps.
Bills like this are giant steps backwards into barbarism. After all, it ends with "and then you can kill the baby."
About eight years ago or so "pro-life" Texas "Republicans" put another similar law in place. It's in the Texas code to this day. It was passed with the promise to naive pro-lifers that somehow it would help incrementally regulate abortion out of business. Which hasn't happened, of course. And what did you end up with instead? A state Code that recognizes explicitly that the fetus is a person, but in the same Code section says you can kill them.
That, sir, is worse than Roe. At least the Roe judges admitted that if the fetus is a person OF COURSE they are protected by our Constitution.
It's insane. The "strategy" of regulation is a complete and utter failure. It's obvious. And it's a sign of the corrupt state of the GOP that they are doubling down on a completely failed public policy and strategy.
People like you are the reason we can’t change the laws because of your hatred and stiff-necked argumentation. People like you are unreasonable zealots (might I even suggest, fascist), because you believe your opinion is the only one every one should have and no one else should be entitled to even have a differing opinion, much less express it. You believe in legislated morality based on your own religious viewpoints. I think that’s a very popular viewpoint in many Middle Eastern countries—perhaps you should move there.
I do not support the killing of babies, just because you say I do. You have no idea what I have done for the cause of life.
You are DEAD WRONG on the constitution because you keep INSISTING the fetus is a PERSON, entitled to constitutional protection. According to the current law of the land, a PERSON is not entitled to any CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS until he/she passes out the mother’s womb and into its own state of independent autonomy. IN OTHER WORDS, a fetus or baby in the womb, whether we like it or not, is NOT LEGALLY A PERSON UNTIL HE/SHE IS BORN! That’s the law. If you don’t like it, change the LAW. THAT’S WHAT PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO DO all over the country, in many states including Montana where PERSONHOOD bills are being debated in the legislature. Also, laws on the books in many states making it a double homicide to kill a pregnant mother are creating legal precedent making it easier to argue in court that the fetus is entitled to legal protection. Until then, we are bound by the laws of the land, as much as we may hate them or disagree with their interpretation. Just because you say the fetus is a person doesn’t make it the law of the land.
This is an example of the “How do you eat an elephant?” metaphor. You can’t swallow an elephant in one bite, you have to eat it one bite at a time, and eventually, it’s gone. In your world, you think we should be able to swallow the elephant whole. It is not practical, and you need to wake up—it’s not going to EVER happen until we grant legal protection to the unborn.
You argue that the last legislative control from the Texas legislature was a failure because it did not regulate abortion out of business, but have you considered the decrease in the number of abortions as result of that regulation? Is it all or nothing for you? Abortions in Texas have dropped from over 100,000 in 1988 to 85,000 in 2009. Don’t those 15,000 babies mean anything to you? I believe wholeheartedly this bill will save some babies’ lives. Asking women to see the baby, then wait 24 hours before proceeding with an abortion will give many women information that was being denied them before. Many women were lied to and deceived about the procedure, the development of the baby and as a result, made horrible decisions. Now, at least the information will be made available to the women so they can make an informed decision. If this bill saves one baby, is it not worth it to you? Are you that blind by your own arrogant righteousness that you can’t see that. It seems that you are. To me, saving one life is worth it. People like you can’t seem to get that. Over time, I am confident this bill will save babies. That’s more than all your ranting and raving will have done.
Courts don't make laws.
And legislation doesn't trump the clear, IMPERATIVE words of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land:
"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."
What part of that is so hard for you to understand?
You sound like a liberal.
Oh, yes, they do. That's why they're included in the 100% of the babies that our Constitution is supposed to protect. Why don't you care that legislation is being pushed that says, in positive "law," that it's okay to kill the 85,000, contrary to the explicit imperative demand of the United States Constitution?
If terrorists were holding guns to the heads of a hundred thousand Americans, and they demanded that the country legally sanction the brutal killing of 85,000 of them, and that we would have to forsake the supreme principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to get this deal, no, I wouldn't cave. It's very sad that your moral compass and your "logic" is so out of whack that you would.
You just don't understand that it is the "exceptions" that opened the Pandora's Box of child-killing in this country, and the denial of the personhood of the child in the womb, and it the continuing to play with that nonsense that keeps abortion on demand going.
If everyone who calls themselves a "conservative" in this country would simply go back to the core principles we're supposed to be conserving, and would stop compromising them, the abortion holocaust would end.
In fact, short of God destroying us first, that's the ONLY way it can possibly end.
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.