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.