The intended audience of this article is those who are already pro-choice and liberal. It is an editorial that serves to explain HB 16 and to reinforce the beliefs of those against it.
Novack states the background of the bill, explaining that it is, "Texas’ version of a national proposal that failed in the U.S. Senate earlier this year." She also states the statistics that render the bill, seemingly, ineffective against abortions. Continuing to explain the bill, Novack quotes Rep. Donna Howard D-Austin who is the only representative that voted "no" against the bill. The main argument of the article is that HB 16 uses inaccurate and misleading language that muddles the facts of abortions, leading to intimidated physicians and misinformed citizens.
I think that it is important to look at this bill, not just at a local level, but at a regional and national level. Bills that are trying to limit abortion options and further stigmatize abortions are cropping up all over the U.S. in conservative states. The effects that these bills will have is indeed to lead to more stigmas by perpetuating false, unscientific ideas and outright lies. Texas' own Lieutenant Governor, the man who holds power in our state, Dan Patrick was quoted saying, "We have watched in horror as lawmakers in other states have put forth monstrous proposals that attack life and expand abortion, even for children that have been born.” Which, as the article also states, is grossly false and an attempt at scaring conservative citizens with misinformation. Abortions aren't legal after birth, and Patrick's quote is only a reiteration of a tweet from President Trump saying, "The Democrat position on abortion is now so extreme that they don’t mind executing babies AFTER birth...." President Trump tweeted this as the US Senate was trying to pass a similar bill. The issue here is that there is already a similar law in place (Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002) which shows that these bills are already useless, and therefore only serving to further stigmatize abortions.
Despite the misinformation and unfounded "science" used in anti-abortion arguments, this bill is beyond unwarranted because it only serves to further stigmatize abortions after 21 weeks. Most abortions after 21 weeks are performed for unviable pregnancies (fetuses that would die during, or shortly after, birth) and pregnancies that endanger the mother's life. Why should these procedures be stigmatized to further an unfounded argument?
Why are lies being made into laws?
In a compelling argument made by Vanessa Hendricks in her blog Laboratories of Democracy, abortion laws in primarily Republican states has gotten out of control.
ReplyDeleteVanessa's blog is well written and informative. I also agree with Vanessa when she says that republican laws about abortion have gotten out of control. Many of these laws, as she states, are just made to perpetuate stigmatisms about abortion and create more scare tactics for people who may be uneducated in the matter. I also appreciate that she suggested looking at these laws not only at a local level but also at a national level. These laws are turning into an epidemic that is plaguing out state and nation alike.
The only thing that I wish Vanessa had added to her blog is how these laws relate to women's rights. For example, these laws don't only scare people but that also limit women's health rights by controlling their bodies. By limiting how, when, and where a woman can have an abortion, lawmakers are choosing for women how they treat their bodies. Like Vanessa says at the end of her post "Most abortions after 21 weeks are performed for unviable pregnancies", lawmakers are not only making a horrible decision harder but that are putting the mother's life in danger.
Overall I think that Vanessa's post was informative, accurate, and well-written.