Texas Republican Says Women Should 'Absolutely' Be Jailed For Having An Abortion
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
U.S.
Texas Republican Says Women Should 'Absolutely' Be Jailed For Having An Abortion
Jenavieve Hatch, HuffPost 16 hours ago A Texas Republican said last week that he believes women who have abortions should “absolutely” be punished.
In a video released by abortion access advocacy group Reproaction on May 30, Rep. Ron Wright (R-Texas), who was elected in 2018, responds to questions about whether or not women who induce their own abortions should be punished with jail.
“Of course, because they just killed a baby,” he says.
When the interviewer asks if he’s concerned that women could be sent to prison for having abortions, he says, “As far as I’m concerned, they committed murder.”
Wright’s comments, according to NARAL Pro Choice Texas Executive Director Aimee Arrambide, are “not hypothetical.”
Just six months ago, in the most recent legislative session, Texas state Rep. Tony Tinderholt (R) introduced a bill that would have “banned abortion and subjected women and their doctors to the death penalty” regardless of rape, incest or fetal abnormalities.
The bill is currently pending in committee.
“North Texans deserve better than anti-abortion extremists who want to punish women for having abortions,” Arrambide said.
Though Wright was only recently elected to Congress, his long political career in the state of Texas has given him a platform to air his anti-abortion sentiments.
In 2015, as tax assessor collector for Texas’ Tarrant County, he encouraged county employees in a bizarre speech not to make donations to United Way, a fundraising nonprofit organization, for its supposed ties to Planned Parenthood.
“Hitler made the trains run on time … The good that’s being done doesn’t compensate for the evil that’s being done by Planned Parenthood.”
HuffPost reached out to Wright for comment and did not hear back in time for publication.
Just another example of fascism in America.
How do you define fascism?
It would appear to be "anything that makes liberals unhappy".
Thanks, Jack, that is a very deep and thoughtful reply. It really gets the heart of our discourse and furthers the discussion. Keep up with the good work! I'm hoping to apply for Special Abortion Investigator to help put these evil, evil women in prison (where I have heavily invested a lot of money) where they belong.
It gets exactly to the heart of the discourse.
If you're talking about "fascism in America", you have identified your statement as a rant, and indicated clearly you have zero interest in intelligent or rational exploration of the topic.
I just identified the situation quicky. Sorry if that disappoints you.
How about the book definition?
Fascism ( / ˈ f æ ʃ ɪ z əm / ) is a form of radical right-wing, authoritarian ultranationalism [1] [2] [3] [4] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy [5] which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. [6] The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I, before it spread to other European countries. [6] Opposed to liberalism, Marxism and anarchism, fascism is placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum. [ 6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]
Fascists saw World War I as a revolution that brought massive changes to the nature of war, society, the state and technology. The advent of total war and the total mass mobilization of society had broken down the distinction between civilians and combatants. A "military citizenship" arose in which all citizens were involved with the military in some manner during the war. [12] [13] The war had resulted in the rise of a powerful state capable of mobilizing millions of people to serve on the front lines and providing economic production and logistics to support them, as well as having unprecedented authority to intervene in the lives of citizens. [12] [13]
Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete and regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties. [14] Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society. [14] Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature and views political violence, war and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation. [15] [16] [17] [18] Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky (national economic self-sufficiency) through protectionist and interventionist economic policies. [19]
Since the end of World War II in 1945, few parties have openly described themselves as fascist, and the term is instead now usually used pejoratively by political opponents. The descriptions neo-fascist or post-fascist are sometimes applied more formally to describe parties of the far-right with ideologies similar to, or rooted in, 20th-century fascist movements. [6] [20]
And the war on women marches on in red states.
“Hitler made the trains run on time …"
The German trains ran on time before Hitler. the trains on time thing is about Mussolini in Italy
Weather the trains are on time or late, abortion is a right
Weather the trains are on time or late, abortion is a right.
It's only a right that was wrongly interpreted by the Court.
It's long overdue for another look, with some common sense restrictions needing to be put in place.
By any stretch of the imagination, very late term abortion is unnecessary and wrong.
The pro-abortion crowd has foolishly put themselves in this position.
Please define this term? Is it anyone who is pro-choice, or a specific subset?
From the article:
Do you feel that this is reasonable?
Very few pro-choice people approve of late term abortions except when necessary for the health of the woman. But the anti-choice crowd keeps pretending that isn't the case.
man do I hate that phrase. First off common sense is not all the common, usually because most people can't get their political or religious ideals out of the way. Secondly what seems to be common sense to one person can be unrealistic to another.
I really don't like government involved in this fight. While I am not a fan of abortion I feel the arguments around it revolve around feelings vs religion. When the two sides are so deeply involved in absolutism it's almost impossible to find common ground or compromise. As such, IMO, I would rather government get out of the discussion completely and stop these laws. If it is truly against God's will then the mother and doctor will need to answer for it when they die. The sixth commandment is you shall not murder, so they will have to answer to God. But free will should allow for them to choose their path, shouldn't it?
Merely your opinion.
It's already been looked at and reviewed multiple times over the years.
There already are restrictions in place.
They are only done for medical necessity, not electively. I don't understand how you do not seem to get that, despite all the times it has been explained to you. Unless you are being intentionally disingenuous about it!
Only because anti-choicers want to removes women's constitutional rights!
As has been pointed out to you SEVERAL times, (no less than 5 times by me alone), this simply doesn't exist.
You will not get an answer to this question. That's why making hyperbolic statements paints people into a corner...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME.
They equate pro-choice with "pro-abortion." They either don't really understand the difference or they are being obtuse and/or dishonest about it. Possibly both!
You can always tell a Texas Republican. You just can't tell a Texas Republican much.