Tag Archives: abortion

Roe v. Wade in trouble?

My gut is rumbling, my trick knee is throbbing and I don’t like the feel of any of it as I ponder what might occur down the road with the U.S. Supreme Court’s pending decision on whether to restrict abortion.

Justices have heard from both sides in a Mississippi case involving a law that bans abortion after 15 weeks or pregnancy. It’s not as strict as Texas’s ban after six weeks, but is way more restrictive than the Roe vs. Wade decision that is at the heart of all this talk.

Roe is the case involving a Texas woman who filed suit in 1973 over abortion. The SCOTUS then issued its landmark ruling that legalized abortion, saying it is protected under the U.S. Constitution’s right of privacy provision.

Roe is being challenged directly and the chatter today suggests that the high court, with its 6 to 3 conservative majority is poised to limit abortion — if not make it illegal.

Oh, brother. No matter what the court decides, I am going to proclaim that it won’t end abortion. Women will continue to get them by any means necessary, which makes a potential ban on the practice so dangerous.

I consider myself to be pro-life, which I don’t believe supersedes my equally held belief that government should not dictate how a woman can manage her body. Could I counsel a woman to get an abortion? Absolutely, categorically and unquestionably no! However, nor do I believe that anyone in government has any right to tell a woman she must carry a baby to full term.

The Texas law makes no exception for a woman impregnated by a rapist or during an incestuous encounter. If there is anything more cruel and inhumane than that, I have trouble determining what that would be.

Well, the SCOTUS justices now are going to keep their own counsel on this matter. I want them to uphold Roe vs. Wade. I do not expect them to do so. If they allow Roe to be dismantled, then my fellow Americans, we’d all better prepare ourselves for many stories of utter misery, pain and heartache as women end their pregnancies through means that can do them irreparable harm.


Hoping judge’s ruling holds up

It is easy for me to cheer a ruling by a U.S. district judge in Texas that bans the state’s abortion ban.

I will cheer the ruling by Judge Robert Pittman. I fear the ruling won’t hold up.

Pittman said the state law that bans abortion after a woman has been pregnant for six weeks cannot be upheld. I agree with him. Then again, I am not a lawyer, let alone a judicial scholar.

The state law is cruel in that most women don’t even know they are pregnant until after six weeks. That didn’t stop the Legislature from enacting and Gov. Greg Abbott from signing it into law.

Pittman was selected for the federal bench by President Obama, which I suppose gives you a clue as to his political leaning … not that it should matter when it regards court rulings. Right?

The state is going to appeal Judge Pittman’s ruling. It will work its way through the appellate court system. It might even find its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, with its 6 to 3 conservative majority.

At least for the time being, though, the judicial system has come to the aid of women desperate to maintain control of matters that only they should be allowed to decide.


Government applies medical pressure?

Ron Paul, a former member of Congress from Texas — and one-time Republican presidential candidate — has made an intriguing and likely unintended case against a hideous Texas law that essentially outlaws abortion.

Paul is a physician and is the father of a sitting U.S. senator, Rand Paul of Kentucky. This item showed up on my Facebook news feed.

I’ll venture a presumption that the statement is intended to refer to President Biden’s mandates to require vaccinations against the COVID-19 virus. Think, though, about the overarching message contained in the statement attributed to Dr. Paul.

“Freedom over one’s physical person is the most basic freedom of all and people in a free society should be sovereign over their own bodies.”

Therein lies the most essential argument possible against that Texas law that has become the subject of lawsuits seeking to overturn it. The Legislature passed the law that Gov. Greg Abbott signed that prohibits women from obtaining an abortion after being pregnant for six weeks. Many women — arguably most women — don’t even know they are pregnant six weeks after conception. The law’s intent is to take the teeth out of the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion in January 1973.

Let’s be clear about something. This law will not prevent abortion. Women will continue to terminate pregnancies. Many of them might seek “back-alley” procedures that could do them terrible physical harm. The law is ghastly and it is the product of ham-handed legislative tyrants who seek to exert control over women and the decisions they make regarding their own bodies.

Ultraconservative legislators have seized the moment in Texas with this legislation. They have gotten their way, at least for the time being. The state, however, does not “own our bodies.”


Pro-choice and pro-life? Yep!

The debate over the hideous Texas anti-abortion law has me tied in knots. Sort of.

Some of my more conservative friends and family members — yes, I have many of them on the other side of the great political divide — might be wondering why I would be so adamantly opposed to the law signed by Gov. Greg Abbott.

I am both pro-choice and pro-life on abortion.

No. I do not see any contradiction. I will explain.

I could never provide advice for a woman to get an abortion. I am not wired that way. The issue, for starters, is none of my damn business. The decision rests solely with the woman, her partner, her religious counselor and with God Almighty.

To that extent, I consider myself pro-life.

However, the bigger issue for me is the meddlesome nature of legislation that seeks to dictate to a woman how she can manage affairs of her body. Texas legislators have crossed far into territory where they should not tread.

The law in Texas prohibits a woman from obtaining an abortion any earlier than six weeks into her pregnancy. It doesn’t make any exceptions for rape or incest.

The ghastliest part of the law is that it allows total strangers to rat out a woman if he or she learns she is going to get an abortion. We have created a vigilante corps in Texas. It allows these strangers to meddle where they damn sure don’t belong.

A friend of mine in Amarillo once said he believed in the Biblical theory of Earth’s creation and in the theory of evolution.

What’s more, I once saw a sticker that asked: “Aren’t you glad that the Virgin Mary was pro-life?” Hmm. Well, she also was pro-choice because she “chose” to give birth to the baby who gave Christianity its name.


Roe v. Wade far from ‘settled’

If you thought the landmark Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in the United States had become “settled law,” you had better think again.

The 1973 Roe v. Wade decision is now under a full frontal assault by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and the Republican-controlled Texas Legislature. Texas now has a law on the books that prohibits a woman from obtaining an abortion as early as six weeks into her pregnancy.

President Biden calls the law “unconstitutional.” The current Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 to let the law take effect even though it is being contested by multiple lawsuits.

One of the four dissenting justices, Stephen Breyer, calls the SCOTUS decision “very, very, very wrong.”

The Texas Tribune reports: The Texas law is novel for incentivizing private citizens to police abortions. It empowers anyone living in the state of Texas to sue an abortion provider or anyone else they suspect is “aiding and abetting” abortions after the six-week mark. Those opposing the law say this may be far-ranging and could include the abortion provider or anyone who provided transportation to a woman, or counseled or referred a woman for an abortion.

Stephen Breyer calls Supreme Court decision on Texas abortion law ‘wrong’ | The Texas Tribune

There’s a fascinating bit of irony at play here. Conservatives proclaim proudly that they oppose what they call “judicial activism.” They say they dislike court decisions that go beyond the Constitution’s strict adherence to original intent.

From my perch in North Texas, it appears that most of the court’s conservatives — except for Chief Justice John Roberts, who sided with the liberal wing — are engaging in a raw form of judicial activism by dismissing the lawsuits and declaring that a law that is being challenged should take effect.

Wouldn’t a “conservative” court just let the litigation play out and stay out of the way?

Settled law? Not when you have a group of judicial activists on the nation’s highest court.


Abbott won’t end abortion, either

Now that Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has declared his intention to “eliminate rape” from Texas, I have this overwhelming need to remind him of something else.

He won’t be able to eliminate abortion, either.

Indeed, what the governor and the Republican-dominated Texas Legislature have done is spur desperate women to take desperate measures to terminate a pregnancy. Their measures could kill them.

Abbott signed a law that disallows abortion later than six weeks into a pregnancy. Most women, from what I understand, don’t even know they are pregnant that early.

What is the most egregious element of this law is that it does not allow for any exceptions for rape and incest victims. A woman gets raped or is entangled in an incestuous encounter and become pregnant by her attacker? Tough sh**, lady! You have to give birth to that child.

What, though, might she do? She could go to a medical quack who could perform what they call a “back-alley abortion.” What happens then? Only God Almighty knows.

This is the kind of world that awaits women who might seek to end a pregnancy. It is cruel. It is inhumane. It also speaks to the profound hypocrisy of our state’s political leadership, which proclaims itself to be “pro-life” as it regards the unborn but ignores the needs of sentient human beings who are being told they must carry a pregnancy to full term while enduring enormous heartbreak along the way.

Reports have poured in that Mexico’s supreme court has declared abortion to be legal. Will Texas residents flee across our border to seek an abortion in a country that doesn’t criminalize that act? Or will they merely go to neighboring states in this country where they can end a pregnancy without the threat of being arrested and jailed? Yes, those options await some women.

Those who cannot afford to travel or who are unable to make contact with medical professionals are left to take desperate measures.

Our Legislature and our governor have performed an act of cruelty.


Eliminate rape? Umm … how?

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott officially has lost his ever-lovin’ mind.

He has signed a bill that bans abortion in Texas virtually across the board. It says women cannot terminate a pregnancy after the sixth week when most women — as I understand it — don’t even know they’re pregnant.

The new law also does not exempt women who have become pregnant as a result of rape or incest. Abbott’s response to a question from a reporter about that?

He said he is going to “eliminate all rape in Texas.” What? Huh? How in the world does he propose to do that?

No law ever written has deterred a madman from attacking a woman, forcing himself on her and impregnating her. No law can ever prevent rape from occurring. None! What in the world is Gov. Abbott saying here?

Do not misunderstand me on a key point: There are few things in the world I would want more than to see an end to violent sexual assault … such as rape and incest. However, it cannot be legislated. It cannot be mandated just because a governor, or a legislature, or Congress or the president declares his or her intention to “eliminate” it.

Women will continue to be raped. Some of them will conceive children as a result of that dastardly act. Now, under Texas law, they will have to carry that pregnancy to full term and these women will have to give birth to someone who came into their lives as the result of a violent crime.

Someone will have to explain the humanity of that law to me. Anyone? I’m all ears.


Hoping DOJ can reverse abortion ban

You are welcome to count me as one American who hopes that the U.S. Department of Justice can find a way to circumvent the Texas law that all but eliminates abortion in this state.

Why? Because the law signed recently by Gov. Greg Abbott removes a woman’s right to make a determination on what to do about her own body; it places it in the hands of politicians — most of whom are male — who are seeking to appease constituencies with agendas that have nothing to do with women’s rights and freedom.

Attorney General Merrick Garland has declared DOJ’s intent to examine how to force Texas to back away from a law that makes it illegal for a woman to terminate a pregnancy later than six weeks after conception.

I haven’t ever discussed this matter with young women, but my understanding based on what I have learned over many years of life is that a minuscule number of women even know they are pregnant fewer than six weeks after conceiving a child.

This battle sets up a national state-by-state fight as legislatures elsewhere consider ways to do what the Texas Legislature has done.

The Texas Tribune reports:

Texas’ abortion ban faces potential Justice Department challenge | The Texas Tribune

It had been thought over many years that the Roe vs. Wade decision handed by the Supreme Court in 1973 had become “settled law.” I guess not, given the current SCOTUS’s decision not to hear a challenge to the Texas law.

I hope DOJ succeeds in finding a way to restore what should be a woman’s constitutional right to make the most difficult decision anyone should ever have to make.


Yep, it’s still a man’s world

There can be no doubt about it, that it’s still a man’s world out there.

How do I know that?

Consider a new law that took effect in Texas on the First of September. It creates a criminal act for a woman who receives an abortion any time after her sixth week of pregnancy.  Furthermore, the law makes no exceptions for women who are raped or impregnated by someone in an incestuous encounter.

Ah, but what the rapist or the lecherous uncle or brother or father who does the deed that gets the woman in trouble? What happens to him?

There is no apparent connection between the abortion and the source of the pregnancy, meaning that a rapist faces no sterner penalty if he is convicted of the crime.

My only thought at this stage of the discussion is that if the state is going to make it a crime against a doctor and the woman to make a life-changing decision such as terminating a pregnancy, then the state ought to throw the book at the beast who rapes a woman and forces her to make that decision in the first place.


‘My body, my choice’

Think about yet another example of right-wing hypocrisy for just a moment.

The conservative political movement has dismissed for decades progressives’ mantra that “my body, my choice” defined their opposition to government mandates banning abortion. They insisted that government had every right to “protect the rights of the unborn.”

Oh, but wait! Now we hear conservatives saying “my body, my choice” as they resist efforts to allow governmental mandates to get vaccinated against a disease that could kill them deader than dead. Government, in this instance, is seeking to protect the lives and the health of those who walk among us.

So, which is it, right-wingers?

Hypocrisy is just so damn ugly. Don’t you think?