Bill by Texas Rep. Parker bans abortion except when medically necessary
- Tweet
- 7 Comments
On the cusp of a major House bill filing deadline, Texas representatives proposed several pieces of abortion-related legislation, on topics ranging from the outright banning of the procedure except when medically necessary, to a penalty for coercing someone to have an abortion.
House Bill 2988 by state Rep. Tan Parker (R-Flower Mound) would prohibit abortions from being performed unless a physician determines there is a substantial risk to the woman’s life or a major body function. Parker’s bill comes on the heels of a bill by state Rep. George Lavender (R-Texarkana) banning abortions except in cases of medical necessity, rape or incest. Lavender’s bill sparked immediate criticism from the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, as the Texas Independent previously reported.
Meanwhile, state Rep. Jim Landtroop (R-Plainview) filed House Joint Resolution 132, which proposes a state constitutional protection of human embryos’ right to life. According to the resolution, protections “regarding the right to life apply from the point of fertilization, when genetic information is gathered inside a cell, until death. The protections of this article regarding the life of an unborn child apply to the unborn child of any woman physically present in this state.”
HB 3112 by state Rep. Jodie Laubenberg (R-Parker) would prohibit ‘health benefit exchanges’ set up by federal healthcare reform from offering health insurance plans that cover abortions. Laubenberg’s bill has exceptions for medical necessity, rape and incest.
State Rep. Bill Callegari (R-Katy) filed HB 2828, which would create a new offense for a person who uses “coercion to induce a pregnant woman to have or seek an abortion.” The offense of “coercion of abortion” would be a Class B Misdemeanor, punishable by a max $2,000 fine and/or six months in jail.
Callegari’s bill instructs physicians to ask each patient if she is being coerced to have the abortion, prohibits the doctor from performing the abortion if the patient says she is being coerced, and calls for a “coerced abortion form” that the woman would have to sign before having the abortion, attesting that she understands the law against coerced abortions.
If a woman indicates she is being abused or coerced to have the abortion, the physician would have to refer her to a domestic violence shelter or assistance program that does not provide abortions or make abortion referrals, according to the bill. Also peace officers would be compelled to file a police report as necessary, if learning of the commission or anticipated commission of a coerced abortion.
(Image: Matt Mahurin)
It’s time to restore some measure of legal protection for these tiny defenseless children at such high risk of being aborted so routinely and on such an appalling scale.
We should never trivialize violence, not even against these smallest human beings.
Every abortion is an act of violence, albeit in a medical setting.
In every abortion, the innocent unborn child is at risk of lethal violence ‘legally’ perpetrated by the abortionist who penetrates the mother’s womb to exterminate the tiny human person therein.
From first knowledge of pregnancy, we know that a child has been conceived, is already alive and growing, not just ‘potentially’ alive. Medical science confirms the real presence of a small genetically unique human life, growing and being protected and nurtured in his/her mother’s womb. We can identify the child’s father, and whether the child is a son or a daughter.
Violence against children is never ‘necessary’. All violence against children is preventable.
Before as well as after birth, children should never receive less protection than adults.
Their mothers’ personal and social needs can and should be met by non-violent means.
Genuine medicine does no deliberate harm to either patient, the mother or her unborn child.
God this is scary. Since when did ‘Less Government’ turn into ‘The government gets to decide what can and can’t be done to your body’ ? Heck, why stop with abortion? Let’s add on corrective eye surgery! And braces! We don’t need braces to survive, after all. Ain’t that right GOP? Who gives a dang about the future consequences of this bill, so long as you get to stroke your ego at night.
[...] it’s not “aborshun”) because MOAR TEABILLY BABIEZ is what the people want: House Bill 2988 by state Rep. Tan Parker (R-Flower Mound) would prohibit abortions from being perfor… Parker’s bill comes on the heels of a bill by state Rep. George Lavender (R-Texarkana) [...]
I’m pro-choice to the bone, 100%.
And I actually want this sort of legislation to pass.
Why?
Because overly restrictive laws like this always always ALWAYS get thrown out in Federal court, and only strengthen Roe v. Wade further!
Keep it up, so-called “pro-lifers”! You’re only digging your own graves in the long run!
If this law passes, once again abortions will be available only to those women who have the means to travel outside of Texas to procure one. Or…just like the good ol’ days, find a doctor willing to break the law or depend on someone UNqualified to perform this.
These self-righteous politicians are all about banning abortions. However, they are against funding prenatal care and post birth medical care for the newborns. If a baby of a mother of low or moderate income lives through pregnancy without adequate medical care and actually becomes a census eligible human, these same self-righteous politicians will despise it for being born poor. And I don’t mean to imply that abortions are chosen solely because of lack of income. I just know that this current crop of politicians seems to despise poor and middle class folks from newborns to old people.
Rick Perry promises to sign this totally invasive law placing more restrictions on a woman’s right to make decisions about her own body–after he has already refused $100 million in federal funds to give medical help to poor women. He wants the control over women without the responsibility for the consequences of the bill.
