Tag Archives: abortion

‘No!” on travel ban

Barry Goldwater, I am supremely confident in asserting, is spinning in his grave out yonder in Arizona.

The late Arizona U.S. senator and father of the conservative movement would no doubt be aghast at what might be transpiring in Amarillo, where the city council is preparing to vote on an ordinance that would ban women from using local roads and highways to obtain an abortion out of state.

Goldwater used to preach that conservatism, as he understood the principle, kept government out of people’s lives. He was particularly leery of religion being used to dictate public policy.

Amarillo is pondering whether to knuckle under to far-right conservatives’ call to ban women from using local rights-of-way to obtain an abortion. Amarillo Mayor Cole Stanley said he doesn’t believe the council will approve the ordinance, which is being brought to the council on the strength of petitions circulated throughout the city.

The city has validated enough signatures to call for a vote, the Texas Tribune has reported.

What now?

If the council rejects the ban the issue, then it can go to voters for a citywide referendum, as I read the Tribune story. That would give the anti-abortion fanatics room to persuade most Amarillo voters to endorse the ban.

Again, Barry Goldwater would come unglued at the notion.

The Tribune reports: The original ordinance supporters want to see passed in the city does not call for pregnant women to be punished for having an abortion out of state. However, anti-abortion legal crusader Jonathan Mitchell has filed legal petitions seeking to depose women he claims traveled out of state for abortions. Mitchell is working with anti-abortion activists pushing the travel ban on a municipal level.

Amarillo City Council must vote on abortion travel ban | The Texas Tribune

Limited government conservatism has given way to all-hands-on-deck conservatism … as long as the issue reflects a certain religious principle. Come to think of it, the nation’s founders would be appalled as well.

So many issues …

So many issues from which to choose that will define this upcoming presidential election … so little time to decide which one matters the most.

If you were to ask me the one issue that resonates the most clearly with voters, I would go with “reproductive rights.”

Call it “abortion rights” as well. Whichever term you prefer, I believe this single issue could help decide who wins the presidential election. At least as importantly, may be more so, it could decide which party controls Congress. Democrats at this moment hold a slim majority of Senate seats; Republicans, meanwhile, hold an equally slim majority in the House of Representatives.

You know my preference, but I’ll repeat it here: I want Democrats to tighten their Senate grip and want Democrats to wrest control of the House from the GOP.

Republicans are hellbent to make abortion illegal nationwide. They would deprive women the right to make this profoundly personal choice on their own. The 45th POTUS managed to get three Supreme Court justices seated in his term in office.

He is taking personal credit for “killing” Roe v. Wade. Let us hope the boast bites him in his overfed backside as he seeks the presidency yet again.

Abortion is far from the only linchpin issue that could swing this election. We also have democracy vs. autocracy, support for Ukraine in its war with Russia and the ongoing crisis on our southern border.

The fight over whether women should control their own bodies, though, resonates with me as the one issue that could propel women to vote en masse to protect those rights against the mostly male governing bodies wanting to dictate to them.

Ex-POTUS now opposes national abortion ban … oh, really?

POTUS No. 45 has just declared his opposition to a national ban on abortion, saying that states should have the final say on what happens within their borders.

What in the world are we to glean from the presumed Republican Party presidential nominee’s latest stance on abortion?

Let’s review for a moment this moron’s path through the abortion pea patch.

He once declared himself to be fully pro-choice on the issue. Then he ran for president in 2016 and promised to appoint judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling that inscribed a woman’s right to choose as a civil liberty. He kept that promise, with three judges named to the high court during his single — and hopefully only — presidential term. Republican senators declared their intention to enact a national ban, the former POTUS was silent. Now he says it’s up to the states.

While making that declaration, the former Idiot in Chief has boasted about “single-handedly overturning Roe v. Wade.”

Where does this clown stand on the issue? Don’t answer that. I think I know. He doesn’t stand anywhere on it.

He has no view. He has no policy.

Pro-life, pro-choice: not mutually exclusive

Shall we now commence a brief discussion on what I believe could become the determining issue of the 2024 election?

It’s called euphemistically “reproductive rights.” Women across this land are angry that their rights have been stripped away by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that effectively ended a 50-year landmark court ruling that granted women the right under the Constitution to end a pregnancy.

Yes, to get an abortion!

Republicans by and large line up in favor of the SCOTUS ruling; Democrats oppose it.

Where am I on this matter? No surprise to know that I favor allowing women the right to determine a matter that is deeply personal. Politicians — most of whom are men — have no business making that determination for them.

Am I pro-choice? Yes! Am I pro-life? Yes!

Am I a hypocrite for affirming both views? No!

As a red-blooded American male, I am in no position to determine whether a woman should obtain an abortion. I have no standing on that matter. Zero. None.

Neither, in my view, does any other human being.

To be clear, no woman ever has asked me whether she should get an abortion. For that fact I am eternally grateful. I pray to God Almighty I never will have to answer that inquiry. That doesn’t mean for one instant that I would counsel a woman to do something I consider to be an act of immense cruelty.

I live in a state, Texas, that has enacted a strict anti-abortion law; the Legislature acted in the wake of the SCOTUS decision. Texas legislators placed a six-week time limit on women; six weeks after conception, abortion is determined to be illegal. The law makes no exception for the health of the mother, let alone for the health and life of the unborn child. It also subjects women and their physician to criminal penalty if they proceed with an abortion.

Is that what you call a pro-life stance? Hell no! It is a pro-birth stance.

This matter is quickly becoming a major campaign issue in the race for U.S. Senate. Republican U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz favors the idiotic law; his two main Democratic opponents, state Sen. Roland Guiterrez and U.S. Rep. Colin Allred oppose it.

I will venture to suggest that neither of these two Democratic pols would advise an abortion any more than I would. The religious right, though, will sling arrows at the individual nominated on Tuesday to run against Cruz.

This issue is fundamental to women across the state and the nation. I stand with them — and against the fanatics on the right — in this important battle for personal liberty.

I stand with them proudly as a Texas resident who is both pro-choice and pro-life.

Amarillo wants to govern traffic to fight abortion?

Amarillo’s five-member — and all-male — city council has me scratching my noggin over a highly dubious law it is considering for approval.

Let’s see how this works. The city is considering a ban on people using public roadways if they intend to travel through the city to obtain an abortion.

This prompts what — to me, at least — is an obvious question: How in the name of Big Brother does the city enforce such a law?

Amarillo, where I lived for 23 years before my wife and I relocated to the D/FW Metroplex, is the largest Texas city to ponder such a screwball idea. The city is getting plenty of pushback on it and the council so far is unable to make a decision.

This week, the council conducted a special meeting at the civic center to accommodate the crowd attending, but it didn’t allow any public comment.

This notion is being pushed by those on the far right who oppose abortion to the extent that they want to make it illegal for a woman to obtain one. The Amarillo City Council is considering whether to weigh in on it.

I am shaking my head over this goofy notion. I want to stipulate that the council contains not a single woman. These all are men making a decision that involves whether a woman can control her body.

I’ll get back to my point, which is that such a law is unenforceable! How do police track the traffic? How does anyone determine whether an occupant in the vehicle is heading for an out-of-state medical clinic to obtain an abortion?

And aren’t the right-wingers of this world opposed to big government, that they oppose the Big Brother imposing his will on the people? Oh, wait. I almost forgot! Their anti-Big Brother posture applies only to those issues that don’t get ’em all riled up.

This is about the slipperiest slope I have ever seen … ever!

Rewrite this cruel abortion law!

Have we become so wedded in Texas to the notion of following a hidebound ideology that we cannot consider the human impact from policies that come out of our Legislature?

Don’t answer that. I know the answer. I believe it is yes.

Kate Cox is now the official poster woman for a policy that needs a serious revisiting when the next Legislature convenes in January 2025. Cox is the Dallas woman who was pregnant with a child who was doomed to die days if not hours after being born. Cox needed an abortion. Why? Because doctors told her that giving birth could harm her reproductive future, that she might be unable to get pregnant again.

Cox could obtain that abortion in Texas because of a cruel law that makes the procedure illegal, except when a pregnancy endangers the mother’s life. No other exceptions are allowed. Cox got kicked around. A lower court granted her permission; the Texas Supreme Court nixed that ruling. Then it issued a permanent ruling that disallowed Cox’s desire to end her pregnancy.

She went out of state to receive the procedure.

This is an insane law. It needs to be rewritten to allow for the type of exception that Cox faced.

The so-called “pro-life” movement is heralding the SCOTEX decision. This movement has nothing to do with being pro-life. It is instead a “pro-birth” movement that put Kate Cox’s parental future in dire peril.

The Texas law — one of the nation’s most restrictive — makes abortion illegal after six weeks of pregnancy. Hell, many women don’t even know they’re pregnant so soon after conception! That didn’t matter to the numbskulls who forced this bill onto the books.

To worsen matters, they wrote a law that punishes doctors who perform an abortion with criminal penalties. And, of course, they didn’t allow for the type of circumstance that Kate Cox faced were she to give birth to a baby who had zero chance of survival.

Think for a moment about the heartbreak that awaited Cox and her husband and their family.

The next Texas Legislature has the power to improve a bad law by broadening the exceptions allowed for ending a pregnancy. If our legislators have a beating heart, they will act to lessen the chance of other women being trapped in the vise that could have delivered permanent reproductive damage to Kate Cox.

They’re ignoring the ‘bosses’

To whom or what are our Texas legislators listening when it comes to abortion?

They do not heed the views of the bosses who elect them to public office. That’s for damn sure!

They have enacted an anti-abortion law that makes the practice of ending a pregnancy an illegal act. Meanwhile, a Dallas woman who faces possible permanent fertility damage if she is forced to give birth to a girl who is doomed to die is being kicked around like the political football she has become.

What is so damn troubling is that our lawmakers are ignoring the will of the people who put them into office. Texans, by a significant majority, favor women retaining the right to control their bodies and they oppose (mostly male) legislators making decisions they have no business making.

This is a representative democracy, last time I checked. Therefore, the people who represent the masses need to heed the will of their employers. That would be people such as the women in this state who are trapped by a law that bans abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, with damn near zero exceptions.

Kate Cox, the Dallas woman I mentioned, faces the heartache of giving birth to a baby who will die and, moreover, she well might be unable to give birth to another child in the future.

This is utter insanity.

‘Pro-birth’ policy must go

Kate Cox well might be forced to do something no sane human being should insist she do: give birth to a baby who is doomed to die.

The Dallas resident is trying to end a pregnancy she knows will end tragically. Her unborn daughter cannot live outside her mother’s womb for more than a few days. However, the abomination of a Texas law is requiring her to give birth because the law doesn’t cover the health of the infant as an exemption to its restrictions on abortion.

One court ruled in Cox’s favor. The Texas Supreme Court overruled the lower court and issued a temporary hold on the ruling.

The so-called “pro-life” movement has shown itself to be a “pro-birth” movement intent on making women who know their child will not survive go through the agony of giving birth only to watch their child die.

Here’s an idea for Gov. Greg Abbott to consider: Call a special session but instead of seeking to force private school vouchers on us, he should call legislators back to amend the law that well could force Kate Cox and other women to endure a needless heartache.

Woman deserves better treatment

Kate Cox deserves better treatment than what she is getting from the Texas legal system.

The Dallas resident is being caught in a whipsaw over the issue of abortion. A court ruled that because the baby she is carrying is doomed to die shortly after birth that Cox is entitled to end the pregnancy contrary to the heartless Texas law that requires her to give birth.

Then the Texas Supreme Court stepped in and overruled the lower court, telling Cox that the baby’s well-being isn’t covered under the limited exceptions carried in the Texas abortion law.

The case is now being appealed again and Cox is waiting to learn whether she will be forced to give birth only to watch her baby daughter die.

This is cruelty that defies description.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton weighed in, too, vowing to sue Cox and her physician if she is allowed to end the pregnancy. What’s more, Cox’s doctor faces criminal penalty if he assists her in this effort.

This is utter madness! Cox faces the possibility of being unable to conceive another child if she is forced to give birth.

What on Earth have we unleashed in Texas if this woman is denied the opportunity to determine her own child-bearing future?

Do they want to lose?

Republicans running for president can stand behind their sanctimoniousness all they want, but the voters they seek aren’t buying into their rhetoric on at least one critical issue: abortion.

We heard most of the candidates standing on the Miami stage last night proclaim their “pro-life” principles. They oppose abortion and most of the debate participants want to place a national limit on when women can terminate a pregnancy. One notable exception was former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who stands behind states’ ability to make those decisions.

That’s all fine. Except for this fact. The voters in GOP primary states aren’t buying it. They keep rejecting ballot measures and referenda calling for national limits Indeed, the voters take an entirely different view on abortion than these individuals who want to take office in January 2025.

Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina proclaimed loudly that he is a proud Christian and wants the nation to return to laws based on “Judeo-Christian principles,” but he forgot to mention something I believe is important: The founders created a secular government that adheres to a secular document, the Constitution. Voters seem to understand that fact more than the individuals who want to be elected POTUS.

Oh … and Donald Trump, who skipped the debate? He is unprincipled, untethered to any moral standard. His views on this stuff don’t matter one damn bit.

I am beginning to believe the notion put forward by a USA Today columnist, Ingrid Jacques, herself a conservative who doesn’t want President Biden and Vice President Harris re-elected.

She writes: “It kind of seems like they want to lose.”