Posted on 07/20/2021 5:40:30 PM PDT by bitt
Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed another pro-life bill in Texas on Tuesday, one that would completely ban abortions as soon as the U.S. Supreme Court allows states to do so.
Abbott signed the Human Life Protection Act (House Bill 1280). Sometimes referred to as a “trigger bill,” the legislation would protect unborn babies by banning abortions completely or as much as the U.S. Supreme Court allows when it overturns Roe v. Wade. The ban would go into effect 30 days after the Supreme Court rules. Exceptions would be allowed for risks to the mother’s life or a “substantial impairment of major bodily function.” Abortionists who violate the measure could face fines or prison time.
“I’m signing a law today that will save babies from the ravages of abortion,” Abbott said during a signing ceremony.“Under this law, the moment Roe v. Wade is overturned abortions will be outlawed in the state of Texas.”
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott:
“I’m signing a law today that will save babies from the ravages of abortion.”
“Under this law, the moment Roe v. Wade is overturned abortions will be outlawed in the state of Texas.”https://t.co/f7wqCueGJd pic.twitter.com/WUlcKQW6MZ
— LifeNews.com (@LifeNewsHQ) July 20, 2021
The Dallas Morning News reports state Sen. Angela Paxton, R-McKinney, who wrote the bill, said Texas ought to protect the rights of all human beings.
P
...one that would completely ban abortions as soon as the U.S. Supreme Court allows states to do so...
When will ^ that ^ happen?
Good for Abbott, but just wondering what kind of teeth this bill has.
Thanks for posting and for the ping.
I thought Texas was going to secede, why are they worried about the US Supreme Court?
“I thought Texas was going to secede, why are they worried about the US Supreme Court?”
.
More of a nullification than secession.
.
Ahh roe vs. wade. I urge anyone who wishes to discuss this to do a lot of research begore debating. The whole case is convoluted, leading to the question of “ is it sacered what goes on between a woman and her dr “? . It is a case tried on the grounds of what transpires between a woman and her ddoctor is to remain between a woman and her doctor, no matter what she went to the doctor For. This should have never went to the supreme court. The supreme court said you and your doctor have confidentiality.. Aborntion wasnt even the issue!!!!!!! P.s. when the jabbers come to your door, remind them of roe vs. wade, what goes on between you and your doctor is none of their business..
Should take the gestapo cue from the vax pushers
No you still can choose to abort
We will just fine and jail you and your doctor if you choose to do it
I think that Gov Abbott thinks that a case will be reaching SCOTUS in the not far off future. Trump mentioned something about this a couple or so years ago.
Doctors do not have the legal right, or should not, to kill people. Born, unborn, whatever.
Abortion isn’t between two people, there’s a third party - the baby.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott: SAY NO!! to federal aid and START THE REVOLUTION!!! against unconstitutional federal government!!!
Future Bump
AMEN
Patriots are reminded that, in stark contrast to the rights that the early states famously expressly protected in the Bill of Rights, it remains that the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect the so-called “right” to murder unborn children.
In other words, activist justices scandalously legislated from the bench the politically correct “constitutional right” to have an abortion imo.
What’s even worse is that the corrupt, post-17th Amendment Congress not only wrongly let the Supremes get away with stealing legislative powers to make abortion a politically correct right, but Congress let the Supremes breach the constitutional division of federal and state powers by stealing state powers to establish that phony right.
In fact, and with all due respect to Gov. Abbott, I hope that he’s aware that, historically, several constitutional amendments were initiated by Congress after the Supremes decided a case in a way that Congress didn’t like.
But by the time that Roe v. Wade was decided, Congress, the states asleep at the wheel too, had evidently forgotten that the Constitution was amendable, the chiseled in granite syndrome, when the Supremes decided that case against Texas, and effectively the rest of the states. Congress and the states consequently “overlooked” amending the Constitution as a way to reverse an unpopular Supreme Court decision like Roe v. Wade.
Insights welcome.
It sounds great but I wonder if SCOTUS will ever revisit Roe v. Wade.
In 1970, "Jane Roe" sued District Attorney General of Dallas County, Henry Wade, stating that state laws denied her rights given by the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
The court ruled that abortion should be legal under the Fourteenth Amendment and that abortion falls under the Ninth Amendment right to privacy. The Fourteenth Amendment gave citizenship to all people, born and naturalized in the United States, and it guaranteed all citizens "equal protections under the law". Abortion is a heart problem. Involving the government in anything is a sure way to have it eventually used against you.
I hate abortion, but letting a securlar government decide whats right and whats wrong is not freedom.
On the contrary, a government not founded on moral principles quickly devolves into hell.
Abortion is killing a human being. That is called “murder”. A civilization that legalizes murder is one that is doomed to devolve into the worst barbarity imaginable.
What wise men have said:
John Adams in a speech to the military in 1798:
“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
Benjamin Franklin,:
“[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”
“Whereas true religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness . . . it is hereby earnestly recommended to the several States to take the most effectual measures for the encouragement thereof.”
In his Farewell Address in 1796, President George Washington wrote:
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness-these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man ought to respect and to cherish them.
A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.
Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. “
SCOTUS is the real butcher of unborn babies.
It will not happen. Anyone that thinks the current court is going to overturn R v W is going to have their shocked faces on when they rule.
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.