GOP Texas lawmaker introduces bill to allow death penalty for women who have abortions
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
© Getty Images GOP Texas lawmaker introduces bill to allow death penalty for women who have abortions
A Republican lawmaker in Texas has introduced a bill that would allow the death penalty for women who have abortions.
"Today, I filed HB 3326 to Abolish Abortion in Texas," Texas State Rep. Bryan Slaton (R) said on Twitter.
"The bill will end the discriminatory practice of terminating the life of innocent children, and will guarantee the equal protection of the laws to all Texans, no matter how small," he said.
Today, I filed HB 3326 to Abolish Abortion in Texas. The bill will end the discriminatory practice of terminating the life of innocent children, and will guarantee the equal protection of the laws to all Texans, no matter how small. #txlegepic.twitter.com/W1lpG4q6G1 - Bryan Slaton (@BryanforHD2) March 9, 2021
Under HB 3326, a person who has an abortion or performs an abortion could be charged with assault or homicide, which is punishable by death, the Texas Tribune reported.
Slaton's legislation also says that certain parties may have to testify in cases of death or "bodily injury to an unborn child," and offers immunity to those that do.
The legislation also directs the state's attorney general to "direct a state agency to enforce those laws, regardless of any contrary federal statute, regulation, treaty, order, or court decision," the newspaper reported.
The bill would also ban abortions at fertilization, whereas most abortions in Texas are prohibited after 20 weeks.
Slaton's proposal is not the first time a Texas lawmaker has proposed the death penalty for abortion. Texas state Rep. Tony Tinderholt (R) introduced a similar measure in 2019 classifying abortion as a homicide.
The legislation comes as GOP states seek to aggressively restrict or ban abortions in an effort to get the Supreme Court to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.
Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) signed a bill into law on Tuesday banning abortions unless it is to save the life of the mother.
Tags
Who is online
135 visitors
Any questions about republican/conservative war on women?
If so...... try this next.
Arkansas passes ban on all abortions except in medical emergencies (msn.com)
The better question is, who in their right mind would actually support such a measure?
I read that. Basically a total ban.
I heard some talking that they actually want it to go through the courts. They think that now with a conservative majority, it is time to take their shot.
They'll be shooting blanks again.
I think that's the idea behind the Arkansas law.
I'm just waiting for someone to say it's silly, that republicans/'conservatives' do not have a war on women.
I'm just waiting for someone to say it's silly, that democrats/progressives aren't about murdering babies.
I am just waiting for people to mind their own business and stop trying to stick their noses into others medical decisions.
If you know anyone murdering babies, you should contact the authorities immediately.
Boy! That went right over your heads, didn't it?
Oh...we got your meaning.
No it didn't.
Why is it that only democrats/progressives are accused of 'murdering babies'? Your alleged 'conservatives' and so-called 'christians' are the ones who go and get an abortion and say theirs is justified. Then go back outside the PP clinics and protest others rights to control of their own bodies.
Oh come on - you know only liberals get abortions (do I need the s tag?)
LOL! I can name 2 very "Christian" girls who had abortions. And yes, I knew them personally
I had two Catholic parents that coerced, threatened and forced me into an abortion at the age of 15....BTW - neither of them are/were liberal.
That experience has made me staunchly pro-choice. Only the women & the man if she so chooses to involve should make that decision.
Your Catholic parents made you get an abortion? Did you have to go to confession? Did they? I'm all for choice, but I have a hard time with parents forcing their daughter to have one.
Really? What was it, then?
I confessed, not sure about them. Lucky for me we had a visiting priest right before Easter & I went to him for confession. He was a younger priest & we talked for quite a while. I guess the most amazing thing is that I am still with the same guy and we have been married for 36 years. And my parents said it wouldn't last.
So democrats/progressives ARE about murdering babies?
Very glad to hear of the long lasting marriage. I hope the priest was helpful.
He was more helpful than my parish priest would have been <shudder>...
I am so glad I have moved beyond all the Catholic shame. It is nice to live by the rules I follow now..."Do as ye will - Harm none.
Tell me, do you think the following was a ludicrous statement? Does it sound ludicrous?
It is ludicrous, but we do have more than a few conservatives here who claim there is no war on women.
I forgot to add 'murdering babies in the ''''womb''''
So what do you think my purpose might have been for phrasing a ludicrous statement as closely to Tessylo's statement as I could get it? Perhaps to show, by contrast, how ludicrous her statement was? Hmmm?
The idea that conservatives oppose abortion because their goal is actually to control women's bodies, and therefore women, is as ludicrous as saying progressives and Democrats intent behind pro-choices is to kill babies, since this apparently needs to be spelled out.
Conservatives believe abortion in most cases today is wrong. That's the whole shooting match. That it might limit choice a woman may prefer to have is a side effect, not a goal.
Progressives believe women have the right to choose for themselves whether to carry a pregnancy to term. The goal isn't to have the opportunity to wantonly kill children. That is a side effect of what they believe because the choice necessarily means some babies will not live, but killing the unborn is not the goal.
Concerning abortion, there isn't a war on women. The war actually concerns beliefs. Does taking the life of the unborn matter or not? It's just termed a war on women by the left because that's an easier thing to defend than addressing that question.
You're speaking for yourself and maybe a handful of conservatives you know personally. From teh comments I've seen here, you're definitely not speaking for the majority of the conservatives. especially when they make comments that women should keep their legs shut if they don't want to get pregnant
I mean...seriously? You haven't read remarks from a certain few who shall go nameless claim that women are murdering babies in their wombs?
It doesn't matter to me what your beliefs are, but you don't have the right to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies
Isn't it a bit silly to tell me it doesn't matter to you what my beliefs are but then tell me what yours are, as if yours should matter to me? For the record, your beliefs do matter to me.
I agree. What I disagree with is that I don't have the right to tell women that they don't have the right to dispose of the individual which happens to currently reside within them any more than they have the right to drown their children in a bathtub.
It may escape some here, but we live in a society. A civilization. The particular society we live in happens to say we have a say in what that society is bound by, morally, and fight for it. So, tell me. What gives you the right to believe you can fight for a woman's right to her own body, even if it means death for the unborn but somehow you insist others don't have the right to fight for the totally defenseless unborn?
Because. It's none of your business. I really want to know what you think is going to happen to all those unwanted children when you get your way and abortion is no longer legal or safe. I predict a rise in domestic abuse, child abuse, child murder, child abandonment, etc. If you're not willing to help a young woman in a situation that she didn't count on, then how can you sit there and lecture her on what she can't do?
And by help I'm talking government safety nets. Now if you want to talk about readily available low cost/no cost birth control.....
...but I am super tired of men and some women stating that if women don't want unwanted pregnancies they shouldn't be having sex. I guess a lot of men out there are going to be investing in a lot of Jergens hand lotion.
Do you insist on mandatory organ donation? Mandatory blood donation? After all those people will DIE without the donations.
No one - not you or a fetus has the right to have parts of my body if I do not wish for you to have them - just as I do not have the right to tell you MUST give part of your liver to someone to save them from death - GET IT?
According to who?
I'm so glad you asked : )
I can because I believe in responsibility and accountability. Apparently, you think the responsible, accountable thing to do is just making it all go away by sacrificing the life of another. There! All fixed! No problem for them and, more importantly, no problem for society or yourself.
So, let's turn the tables just a bit. Suppose a young woman becomes pregnant unintentionally. Her boyfriend, one night stand or friend with benefits or whoever, gets her pregnant. She didn't want this to happen but it did. The whoever says they'll pay for the abortion but she doesn't feel that would be right. Whoever splits because he doesn't want to be tied down like that, leaving her on her own.
Now, are you going to support her, even though all this could just go away with an abortion she didn't even have to pay for? No burden to her, her whatever or society (you and I). But she chose not to and now it's our responsibility?
As it happens, I do think it's my responsibility to help, and I do. I financially support programs that help exactly these women. What I help with is tiny, insignificant, compared to the help that is out there, available to those who need it. Government programs, non-profits, churches and friends and family.
Quite possible. However, I predict it wouldn't last long. I predict that, such statistics would be noticed in the news and abortion advocates would use them to try and make abortion legal again. In the meantime and until that happened, I also predict people, women especially, would be more responsible about sex, now that sacrificing a life is not an option for getting out of their situation.
No, not really. I don't get how people can be so all about themselves like that and be okay with it. Existence is all about themselves and anyone not with that program can just shove off. No, I don't really get that.
Oh, I also don't get how your analogy compares to abortion.
We don't give a shit whether you 'get it' or not. Doesn't matter what you think.
Easy...prolife you say, then all should be done to prevent the death of others, so mandatory organ and blood donations. We must do everything to keep life going.
Of course I am all about me and mine...you are exactly the same way.
If you have evidence that ANYONE has murdered a baby, please call the police.
[deleted]
Is that all you have? Personal insults?
Since when is anyone's personal/medical decisions your business, or anyone else's? I doubt you would want anyone knowing or intruding in your business.
Getting an abortion is being accountable and taking responsibility.
Exactly. Glad you get it.
Apparently you're ok with that, as long as she doesn't abort.
Good for you. But you take that on yourself. Not everyone does.
Very possible. Romania is a real world example of that.
It's their life/existence. Not yours. You have your own.
Meanwhile, conservatives repeatedly come out with these ludicrous laws!
They can believe whatever they want. Belief does not equal fact. And not everyone shares their beliefs. They are trying to force their beliefs onto others. Limiting or even prohibiting abortion is clearly a goal. Whether you think it's a goal or "side effect" is irrelevant. They'be both the same in this instance.
Not just progressives, but anyone who respects the law and individual freedoms and choices.
There's only an attempt to restrict women's rights. Perhaps that's a prelude to war?
One persons beliefs end where another's begins.
No. Nature does it all the time too.
No, the question is meant to appeal to emotion. Maybe some more weak minded or emotionally driven are swayed by such "questions." But not everyone.
I see plenty, probably more than you. I have plenty of light. You just can't see it.
Aaaaand there it is !
And there what is? That women suffer the irresponsibility of men? That they may see the need to protect themselves from their predations?
Read your own post again. If it's not obvious what my question refers to then I can't help ya.
And that is why the Spector of Lesbianism is on the rise. The irresponsibility, callousness and sheer ludicrousness' of the rise of THE MAGA MAN.
You nailed it and didn't see it coming.
Ah, nice. An obvious choice for a non-answer.
First, there was no question.
Second, your statement most probably refers to a belief that my statement places blame on the woman, leaving men out of it. Of course, that is somewhat a guess on my part, since your statement is rather vague.
Third, assuming my guess is correct, the statement by me to which you referred doesn't cast blame on anyone, although there is blame to be had. Rather, it recognizes that regardless of circumstance, it is the woman who has to pay the bill for choices made and, therefore, make them wiser considering choices made in the realm of sex.
See? This is how you make a point. But I'm game. If this isn't obvious then I can't help ya. ; )
Not all who wander are lost.
This is how you make a point.
No, you're expressing opinions, and giving them numbers.
And not all that glitters is gold, I know. Thanks. I know my Tolkien.
As far as my putting the onus on pregnancy on the woman, that is untrue. I will not contest the historical claim as I think that you are likely correct.
Since I have stated that I am an advocate of responsibility and accountability I have to wonder why you think I would only apply this solely women or that anything I've said clearly puts the onus of pregnancy solely on women? Do you really think what I have said on this subject only applies to women and that men have no responsibility or accountability? Is it because I said women would be more responsible about sex? Do you think that perhaps I said so because women are the ones who have to pay the consequences? That they are the ones who have to suffer the depredations and indignities of abortion and not men? The reason I said women might be more responsible about sex is that, for a man, all he has to do is get hard and stick it in. It is the woman who has to deal with any consequences, once they realize terminating an innocent life is not an option.
[Deleted]
Your words that I copied above sounded very clearly to me that you were putting the onus on women.
For what it's worth I accept your explanation.
[removed]
Okay, but why? I mean, I think I know why you thought so, but I would like to know why you think you thought so. I'm pretty sure the "why" wouldn't be the same, but I can't be sure so that is why I ask.
Thanks, sort of. I say that because I'm not sure how to unpack the ambiguity your apparent semi-apology. Further, I'm not sure you entirely understand my "explanation." The woman who becomes unintentionally pregnant (meaning a woman outside of marriage) is responsible for her condition, excluding situations of rape. That is, a woman who willingly chooses to have sex and becomes pregnant because of it is responsible for her pregnancy. Her condition is entirely her fault. Just as responsible, in every sense of the word "responsible," is the male who got her pregnant. The "onus" of the pregnancy is as much his as it is hers. It is entirely his fault.
How can both be entirely at fault? Because each is entirely responsible for their own actions.
To me, this is self evidently true. I said "I also predict people, women especially, would be more responsible about sex," not because I think women are more culpable for unwanted pregnancy but because I think they would realize they bear the greater burden of bad decisions. Since men do not get pregnant they don't think in those terms. If they do, they only think in terms of child support. In other words, men's concern are self-centered. That is, the men who do not commit to a woman.
You don't think a woman can become unintentionally pregnant when married?
History has shown that to not be the case.
You're the one that doesn't want her to have an abortion so she will have to have it. I personally think she should give it up to a family that can support it. But since you don't want her to have an abortion and should keep it, then we're on the hook as taxpayers. That's really it.
Yup. Women must not have sex unless they are willing to raise a kid for the next 18 years
That's cause it wasn't an apology. I was saying that I understand better where you were coming from now.
As to the rest, let's give it a rest and not belabor the issue.
May as well. Based on Gordy's and TG's responses, I may as well present my argument to my dog for all the good it will do. At least my dog tries to understand and won't intentionally distort what I say.
TiG has not posted in this discussion yet.
Considering you ignore some posts, you might as well be doing just that.
And what are you trying to say exactly? Precisely what is your argument? And how is it being distorted?
Relevance?
Why would I recognize posts that have no relevance?
I've made that as plain as I can. That you feel you can comment on what I've said and then ask these questions tells me you have no business being in this discussion.
Hello?
Interesting. My comment of 1.3.2 has been eliminated and replaced with Ender's. Do you have an explanation, Perrie? Or should I just assume this is another example of cancel culture?
Hi there
I don't see where anything has changed. You made a comment then me and Gordy both made one.
Hello, back.
Hmmm. You don't? What I see as 1.3.2 is your response to my post, which should be 1.3.1 but doesn't appear. I do not see my post to Tessylo at all. Do you see it? 1.3.1 doesn't appear on my screen. Does it yours?
Hello?
It sounds like the thread has been collapsed to aid loading speed. Try clicking on the arrow with the number just to the right of tessy's avatar to expand hidden comments.
Sorry, you didn't respond to me so I didn't see it.
The comment you speak of is yours.
Sometimes when a thread is long it will collapse long threads. If some are missing, see if the thread is open or closed.
Usually it is a minus and click it to a plus or verses.
The 30, not the 60.
The comment is still there as is the rest of the thread, regrettably.
It is not collapsed. There is no arrow. There are no hidden comments. I do not see my own comment but I see all others.
It is not collapsed on my screen. I can see all comments except 1.3.1
Odd
This long thread had half of its oldest comments suppressed for me and there was a disclose button (arrow pointing to right) on the first comment of the thread. When I clicked that button, the oldest 30 comments (which were suppressed) were disclosed and the first one that reappeared is your comment @1.3.1
Nice. I still don't see my own comment. All comments are visible to me except 1.3.1
I guess it doesn't matter, as long as all of you can see it. I know what I said. Just seems odd to me, is all.
More than odd, I could not begin to explain how that can occur.
Looks like an 'ignore-self' option would not be popular.
Yeah, but that'd be about my speed.
For the record, I think that life begins at conception. This life does not become fully independent of the mother until it is born. At some point in between conception and birth the fetus is capable of sustaining life in the event that it is removed from the womb.
We allow the use of contraception to avoid pregnancy in the first place. We allow parents to direct a child's upbringing, including whether they are immunized, whether they are treated for disease and other potentially life dependent questions. I see no difference between making a life and death decision for an unborn fetus and a born and freely living child. (I disagree with both negative decisions, by the way.) Both have to be rending, heart wrenching decisions.
In the event that the fetus is not yet capable of supporting itself, it is the will of the mother that gets to say whether the fetal child within her is kept or not. Though I feel it is wrong, I also feel that my opinion on the matter is of little consequence. Only the mother is in the position to make that decision and in the end, the only one who's decision matters.
Now, as to the topic of the article, making a mother liable to be put to death for making this painful decision is a direct affront to women and their selves and bodies. This law would constitute an attack on women.
Give me a break. There was a shitload of comments and your opinion is not being silenced. You just don't understand some of the workings of NT.
"I'm just waiting for someone to say it's silly, that democrats/progressives aren't about murdering babies."
Look how you managed to make this about me for the rest of the thread and not about this war on women by 'conservatives' with that moronic statement.
TiG has not commented or been part of the discussion at that point. So what's the point of name dropping?
That shows you either didn't read the posts or have no rebuttal to offer.
You've mentioned responsibility and such, which has been addressed. But it doesn't explain why abortion should be restricted or prohibited, as the Bill in question would effectively do in addition to consequences. Or why you think it's your place to intrude in other peoples personal decisions/choices.
Says the one who doesn't address posts or answer questions yourself. Too funny.
Yes?
Thanks for sharing your view.
I understand. I sort of feel that way myself. But mostly not, too. For me, the question is why I should give a damn about Auschwitz, Birkenau, Ugiers, battered women, children dying of cancer or any similar thing if I don't care about the unborn being slaughtered? Why the hell should I be offended morally by the woman who's just drowned her toddlers in the bathtub but not by the one who had her child suctioned out of her womb? For the life of me, I can't see the difference. Some imaginary finish line of "being born?" Please! The child is no less dependent after being born. In fact, it is more dependent than before being born.
My first gut reaction to this bill was that it was idiotic. Not because I thought it was an attack on women but because I don't feel the answer to death is more death, generally. It certainly wasn't due to some misplaced compassion concerning " making a mother liable to be put to death for making this painful decision." I find it beyond disgusting that the media laments over 500,000 Covid deaths but thinks nothing of the over sixty million deaths due to abortion. Sixty MILLION! Covid is nothing.
Yeah, I suppose contemplating murdering the fundamental reason for one's existence would be painful. What if, though, she avoided the decision altogether by recognizing that sex is not some casual past time? That it has, or can have, consequences? And less I be accused of attacking women, if I had my way, most men who impregnated a woman who got an abortion would be castrated. As painfully as possible. I find it exceedingly unfortunate that men don't have to pay the same price women do when it comes to pregnancy. I find it exceedingly unfortunate that many men think of sex only as a pleasurable past time with no obligation on their part.
Here's an idea! Call me crazy but what if we treated sex as what it actually is? Not the thing itself but, rather, the reward for the actual thing? Commitment! What if sex were an act of giving rather than taking? A man, by having sex with a woman, saying that he devotes his life to her well being? How crazy is that?
Don't have a clue. Your the one who brought TiG into this, not me.
Or that nothing you've said is relevant.
This would be an example of what I find to be irrelevant. Or perhaps inane would be a better word to use. Do we not intrude in other people's personal choices when they decide to murder someone else? When someone ends the life of another for the $50 dollars in the cash register, do we not intrude on that person's choice? Why I should have to explain this to you is baffling to me and why I don't respond, normally, to you.
[deleted]
He didn't claim that.
He specifically wrote TG, NOT TiG
Yeah. You'd think he would have figured that out by now but apparently not. Considering who I was speaking to, TG obviously refers to Trout Giggles but he just keeps doubling down on his error. I thought about pointing this out to him earlier but I found it too amusing and let him continue. I suppose that's bad on my part but, hey, I'm only human.
I am curious, however, why TiG himself didn't correct him.
Also, Trout Giggles has to be one of the five coolest monikers ever. It's just so fun. And no, I don't include my own in that list.
I suppose I could complain about your partiality, Perrie, but why bother? You are simply a harbinger of the near future. One where 1984 is not a cautionary tale but, rather, a blueprint.
That said, I don't wish to appear ungrateful for your providing this space for comment on various issues. I am grateful and I don't take it for granted. I simply wish your standards were more... impartial. For instance, why is it apparently acceptable to you that someone can say my comment is "moronic" but when I say something denouncing someone's hubris it is unacceptable? That isn't a complaint about the "moronic" statement. That is her opinion and I would never complain about her making it. To my knowledge, I've never flagged anyone's comment. I vastly prefer someone stating what they believe or feel over saying something they think will pass your arbitrary standards.
An oversight and my mistake then. I thought he mentioned TiG. I retract my associated statement.
As I said, I think it is wrong. I could not make that decision. That is my opinion on the subject. I realize that the world is made up of many different people with many different attitudes. In order for me to place my attitude upon someone else, I would, by necessity, have to place my mores and my values at a higher relative position than theirs. In essence, I would have to make them, their values, less than me and my values. I am not willing to do this. Every person has their own life to lead. I can give my input, say what I think and feel, but in the end, the decision is their decision. I do not make this statement lightly, as I have been in this exact position.
In the end, for me, it comes down to this: Am I making the decision about their life and what they choose to do, or am I letting the individual have the right and responsibility to make that decision for themself? I cannot try to assert that level of control over any person.
It isn't necessary that you do. Your statement suggest that such control is dependent upon you, or dependent upon human decision. Were that true, child abuse would not be an actual thing but only a figment of human imagination. You state "In order for me to place my attitude upon someone else, I would, by necessity, have to place my mores and my values at a higher relative position than theirs," which suggests that you yourself establish what is moral and what isn't, at least, for yourself. So, are you going to claim child abuse only exists because you think it does? Are you going to say that the child abuser isn't wrong simply because his or her morals differ from yours?
Wake the hell up! [deleted] Right and wrong isn't dependent on your opinion. If you claim to stand for a thing, freaking stand for it. [deleted]
I've never flagged, nor ever will i, i'll not back down what i back up with my own unique interpretation of that which we all view as our 'own' realities, and yes, i don't wish my opposers silenced, unless it be eye seen silencing them with a solidly backed inertia absorbing difficult to traverse printed curse i've printed terse , as i've done much worse, but not finished, as i'll do worser, as i just move the printed cursor and wa la, worser , but if in the shoes of an RA that i couldn't cast or spell, i'd find it a difficult to join a confederate union where West VS East, yielding the least , product consumed by some, rejected by others, but always remember these aren't my enemies, they re my sisters and brothers
[deleted]
You keep brining actions of independent beings into this. Auschwitz was real and horrendous. Child abuse is wrong. Child abuse exists and is horrendous. It is not a figment of the imagination. Violence is an unfortunate tendency to some people. Murder is wrong. Because I cannot force my will upon others does not make these truisms any less real to me. Do you think that I did not try to convince her that it was wrong? Do you think that I did not try and make her see my point of view?
Up to and until the fetus is a viable lifeform outside of the womb, there are two lives to take under consideration. One of those is independent and aware, the other is not yet fully formed and is fully dependant upon the first. There are a mountain of reasons why one would and would not have a child.
If you want to make abortion illegal, go ahead and try. I do not see the purpose in fucking up two lives when one has not fully formed yet. It is vindictive and counterproductive, and that is what the legislation proposed in Texas will do. It will fix nothing and will harm many, more so than just having an abortion in the first place.
Nobody who supports the death penalty is pro-life.
Unbelievable
Think State Rep. Slaton wants to do anything about all those that died in the state due to the deficiency of their power grid, and their energy sources?
81 deaths...
Considering it's Texas, not really. The same is true of Arkansas too.
So Texas isn't the ONLY backward State in the USA.
Of course not. There are several states that are socially ass-backwards.
No, there is OHIO too.
Alabama too if I am correct.
Just one day.
That’s all it would take. One day, outta the blue, all genders reassigned for a single 24 hour period. It would change the world.
There's very little gender gap on abortion.
Get raped by an inbred meth head and tell me how ya feel about the baby you’re growing. Then you can weigh judgement.
I'm sorry for trying to enlighten you. Stick to your myths.
Lol Sean, you believe that pregnancy resulting from rape is a myth. Ok.
So I suppose abortions due to the fetus being malformed and medically likely to not survive, or women who aren’t medically able to safely have a baby, are myths as well.
So?
Her body; her choice.
Any man who thinks he should control a woman is a fool who will always be unhappy.
Gave up trying to do that many years ago.
Am now happy as a confirmed bachelor and doing my best not to fall in love.
I have a friend who now has an 18 yo myth it would seem if anyone buys into that bs statement,
I have a friend with a 21 year old "myth" too.
But they're not myths. My own mother is a prime example.
Hear hear! As Bob famously said, "No woman, no cry"...
My husband told me that if men had to give birth, the world population would decrease significantly, because there would never be a second kid.
He’s correct MsAubrey; we probably would have already went extinct lol!
Imagine the reaction of a man in a woman’s body, having a baby forced into their womb.
Yeah... I'm pretty sure that would fly like a fart in church.
Maybe if a woman in Texas has an abortion they should execute the father.
That brings up a whole 'nother side to this debate. "Men" like the wanker who thought up this bill must think that women get pregnant spontaneously or something. Frankly, I don't want to know what goes on in their thinking process...anyway...
It takes 2 people...one of each sex...to make a baby. Let's leave out the artificial insemination and turkey basters. We're talking natural conception that involves a round of Mattress Mambo. Why can't these "men" ever consider the other men that are involved in all this so-called baby making going on?
I completely agree with you. I'd absolutely love for men to be accountable.
If this is enacted it probably will lead to more children in foster care and in Texas that isn't a good thing at all as the feds have shown.
Yup and more unsafe back alley abortions.
Pre Roe v. Wade all over again. It's sad how some people want to regress society to earlier times.
Mom once told me that those who try to control the lives of others should make sure that their own lives were squeaky clean.
My mother raped my father in college and stayed with him for the next 70+ years. "until death".
I grew up in a blissfully happy home. Mom taught me math and physics; Dad taught me camping.
As a paramedic on death watch, the doctors wanted me to call TOD on both mom and dad.
Mom stopped breathing and I wrote the time on my hand just like a paramedic should.
Everybody was looking at me and after an hour, I finally stopped the code on dad.
Weird to have called TOD on both parents.
As a paramedic I have written 'time of death' on my arm many times (we tend to write on ourselves).
I dutifully wrote TOD on my arm for both mom and dad.
That had to be tough. I know as paramedics, you have to do that more often than most, but to be your own parents, that's the tough part.
I wonder how many of these fucks introducing/supporting this bill have a mistress/abortion in their closets?
THAT is exactly the right question.
"THAT is exactly the right question."
Was a paramedic in the small county/small town I grew up in.
There were many times I learned more about my neighbors than I wanted to.
What the fuck is with the fucktards in Texas? If this fucktard has a daughter and/or a mistress you can bet your bottom dollar he'd give his okay for them to have an abortion.
Republican/conservative fucktard war on women marches on.
Exactly. Same story over and again. You see would be asshole fathers willing to sacrifice ANYTHING to keep a child secret.
I propose the death penalty for idiotic Republicans who father bills like this.
While it may seem like a good idea in theory, it only lasts as long as you get to decide what is acceptable.
I'm glad you like my idea.
I agree that I should be the one to decide. It will work best that way.
I second the motion....!
Is there anything we can do about those that make the claim that there is no "war on women"?
Third.
Life in prison?
And here I was thinking that I should decide.
Paint their toe nails neon pink, force them into open toed sandals, and parade them down Main Street in Harrison, Arkansas
Since it was my idea I get to be The Decider, but if I'm unavailable for any reason I will delegate the decision-making to you.
I thought you would take it that way.
I am the only person who decides what is acceptable for me.
Far right wing, hate based, racist, anti science fascism is not acceptable.
I do have high moral standards. Pretty sure I can be trusted to rule the world.
If I ruled the world, the first thing I'd do is outlaw decaf coffee. Only regular allowed. Next would be extra advocating and funding towards science and related programs.
Is there really a sweet spot in reality that people want time to stop at ?
IMO: This is the kind of crap that shows why it's so important to have a combination of ideologies and to respect both the laws that we have and work together on any new laws,amendments and/or public policies.
Many conservatives seem longing for yesteryear and many of the libs can't wait till the future.
Out of respect for previously enacted laws being changed much insight, consideration,debate and most of the time a lot of compromising should be crucial.
Unfortunately it doesn't seem like anything is being done with insight, consideration,debate and most of the time any compromising in anything that our politicians are doing STILL.
Sad.
Even sadder !
America has become a country where whatever party or person who has power at the time .... rules.
So as a large part of the world progresses forward we swing back and forth with no real unified set direction for our future.
I was hoping that this last election would be a start to a more unified government and populous. Boy was I wrong.
I just figured it out. If more idiots and others of low intelligence rape more girls and produce more intellectually challenged offspring because they cannot be aborted, it will increase the number of Trumpians in Texas.
The sad part is you're probably right.
....and in Arkansas.
Carved from polished alabaster the image of the fetus was placed on the golden alter as those in attendance lowered their heads in fear of that which was not yet among them.
So... Would "Plan B" be a part of that considering it halts ovulation after primary birth control "failed"?
SMH... these people thinking they're going to overturn R v W amaze me. They ate too many paint chips as a kid.
I wish TX would just secede already. We can take their federal funding and use it to wall them off.
If Texas did that Mexico would take back what is rightfully theirs.
now THAT is funny!
Yes it is funny. But, Texas already has a large population that are not exactly enamored with some of the white folk that have been running the place for decades. And the worst invasion to repel is the invasion that is already there and not happy.
Lol! Our children, and many family, and friends are of red and brown persuasion. I shared this line of discussion with them and they gotta kick outta it!
To them imagine: white folks arguing over who gets Texas ,,,
What was funny was you thinking Texas belongs to Mexico.
THAT'S hilarious.
The Alamo is a historical site.
Well, duh!
What's that got to do with Texas belonging to Mexico?
NOW THAT IS HILARIOUS.
Holy crackers.
[Deleted]
I heard Arkansas has outlawed all abortion. What the fuck?
Yes. Except for the life of the mother. No abortions for incest or rape. So Arkansas's population of psychopathic, brain dead, pin headed neanderthals will increase exponentially
IOW...new generations of Trump/GOP supporters?
Yup
right, because everyone expects Trump to be in politics 20 years from now.
makes a whole lot of sense.
of course. Trump may still be living in some liberal heads st that time!
Tell me again Tex...... How much grift is Trump looking to take from supporters so he and his children can stay relevant in politics.
Don't take it out on me because of your Trump obsession!
No, we will take it out on you Tex, because you and those like you unleashed Trumpanstein on the world not caring what the results.
Kind of like the topic of this seed where only women are to be punished for the act of making a baby, and the men don't have to be held to the same laws that they want to impose.
Trump appears to STILL be living in your head 24/7, rent free!
Well gee Tex, since the GOP still insists that it's the 'Party of Lincoln' 156 years after his death, it follows that 20 years from now the contemporary GOP would still be viewed as the Party of Trump.
I have never referred to the GOP as the Party of Lincoln.
Now, there IS someone here who does so quite frequently, but it ain't me!
If you have some personal issue with the name SOME use, please take your concerns up with THEM!
And if you honestly believe Trump will be around in politics for 20 years, well, 'nuff said!
Is it your posit that the GOP does NOT insist that it's the Party of Lincoln Tex?
BTFW, you seem to be the only one that doesn't recognize that the GOP is NOT an individual.
If you honestly believe that my comment reflects your fantasy interpretation, well, 'nuff said!
I just looked on the GOP website--not a single mention of being the Party of Lincoln. Do you have some proof you can share?
BTFW, I Never referred to it as an individual. Don't be obtuse.
That is a non-responsive equivocation Tex.
Then why blather about 'I Never' and 'it ain't me' Tex?
Don't be obtuse.
I believe it is much more that you just didn't like the answer. You claimed the GOP refers to itself as the Party of Lincoln, and I looked for proof of it. I couldn't find it, and asked you to prove it. You failed.
Nope. I asked you what YOUR posit is Tex.
Oh and I stated that the GOP insists they ARE the Party of Lincoln, NOT that they refer to themselves as such.
Oh and how about actually addressing my posit rather than deflecting. If 156 years hasn't deterred them, why would 20 years?
Is that not what it all boils down to, punishing women for having sex? Bills like the one proposed is exactly that, a punishment for women. Never mind the blatant unconstitutionality of it. It punishes women while hiding behind the facade of abortion.
Yes, basically.
So what happens to horny men when women stop having sex with them because it could lead to the death penalty?
Thank god for the Internet, right?
Your posit is wrong then.
The GOP is the GOP.
It doesn;t refer to itself as the Party of Lincoln.
In fact, it is far more likely that some Democrats trying to make some kind of point refers to the GOP as the Party of Lincoln far more often than a member of the GOP does,.
BTFW, is the Democratic Party the Party of Roosevelt? Or Kennedy?
Wow you STILL don't understand my question or my posit.
I understand it was pointless just fine.
So not at all.
just fine.
Sigh, just goes to show they want to go back in time EXCEPT when it comes to their gadgets. Gotta have that expensive new jet, greatest cell, biggest smart tv.... but women belong in the time of illegal abortions.
Societally, most of them want to devolve back to before coverture was abolished, technologically they want ultra modernity.
Questions;
1- will they be investigating "miscarriages" (RU 486)
2- will they be hiring more teachers/judges/special police units
3- how much will their taxes be raised
4- are their social services up to the task
Nope.. They are pro-birth, not pro-child. And you know not one of those dickheads will ever consider adopting a child they forced to be born.
It is not even pro-birth. It is I can have sex with my daughters and if they get pregnant, there is not a damned thing they can do about it.
IF the father gives his consent for the adoption to take place.
Not unheard of in recent history:
Since that would entail 'social justice' it's doubtful.
Once born, they are on their own...
They aren't now so we can conclude that they won't be.
On the other end of the spectrum dems have introduced, or will, a bill that provides tax payer funding for overseas abortion. America last.
Nah, we will pay for you to go to Canada, though...
nah, i love this country and don’t want to live anywhere else. But you are free to leave. Regarding your “nah” Here ya go, pal.
I'll take that over the foreign military industrial complex being taxpayer funded.
What lies/nonsense are you on about now?
Something about Hillary needing babies to make pizza ,,,, ;~)
Oh man! I'm going to order pizza tonight and now I know what one of the toppings should be!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sausage, onions, and extra baby parts please!
I could go for a plain stem cell topping myself. :p
Jeesh I usually wait until satan-worshipin’ evening to have stem cell deep dish, but what the heck, it’s Friday !
It's Lent so I have to skip my favorite topping...eyeballs
Sometimes, you just need to indulge a little. Fetal pizza with cheese filled umbilicals on the side.
sounds placentiful
This bill is the worst thing proposed this year and that includes some very stupid things
No surprise it was proposed by a Republican/Conservative/Texas. Very stupid indeed!