So now, most of the facilities will close. Okay...but I never saw where the Texas Legislators presented facts that in any way prove that there efforts were indeed creating a reduction in health risks for women who seek abortions.
This will simply force women to seek out probably much more unsafe venues to deal with their abortions...just as they did before Roe v. Wade where access to provider who would be, by far, more safe than the alternative.
That's what I hate about the "this is going to happen when we pass this bill" conjecture. It's never correct. It either instills unjustified fears or false hopes.
This bill could create havoc. It could lead to better care. It's really up to the antis and pros to decide which.
What's particular sad to me is that the pros would rather sit back and let women pursue riskier options w/o interference to prove their point then take action and help clinics stay open through fundraising, advocacy, and charity relations, 'cause they can't prove their point and win the debate if they interfere positively.
And it's the same with any legislation that requires changes. When those who oppose it sit back and do nothing, then scream about how the worst case scenario has come true...well, to me they're no better than those who had nefarious intentions in DRAFTING the legislation.
"Be the change you want to see in the world."
I want safer, better run, better regulated abortion clinics for women, because I'm not the only woman who had a bad experience. This is a chance for PPH and others to MAKE THAT HAPPEN with the full backing of the law on their side. And instead they pit themselves against it.
"Hmmm...Can't decide if I want to watch "Four Houses" or give myself an Icy Hot pee hole enema..." - Blake Shelton
Last edited by X Factor; 07-14-13 at 11:27 AM.
If what I've read is true, Texas simply joins 13 other states who have similar 20 week limits on access to abortion, although in a couple of those states, their courts have stopped implementation while the constitutionality of the laws are adjudicated.
I don't know the medical details related to viability and when it becomes possible to determine if a fetus is developing normally and healthily, etc. but I have to agree with others here who have indicated that 20 weeks should be sufficient time for a woman to make a choice about whether she wants a child or not. Surely, it doesn't take more than 20 weeks to make such a choice.
Can anyone who opposes this change in the law indicate what medically happens between 20 weeks and the former 24 weeks that makes a woman who wants a child to suddenly decide not to want the child?
A Canadian conservative is one who believes in limited government and that the government should stay out of our wallets and out of our bedrooms.
And I am glad you understand what I'm trying to do. While the circumstances surrounding the situations are obviously different, perhaps it can provide some insight to why many in the pro-choice crowd do not care for much of the reasoning of the pro-life crowd in this thread.