Discussion:
Texas: Possible future death penalty for women who have abortions
(too old to reply)
Lenona
2021-03-17 22:05:24 UTC
Permalink
I'd like to believe this is faulty reporting - but I doubt it.

Btw, most of this article is NOT about what might happen in Texas.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/will-this-vaccine-debacle-help-us-realize-why-abortion-access-is-such-a-big-deal/ar-BB1eEKCa?ocid=mailsignout&li=BBnb7Kz

Excerpt:

...Since Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court, state legislatures itching to end the protections of Roe v. Wade have passed regulations that are defiantly unconstitutional, in an effort to force the issue nationwide. TRAP laws designed to shutter clinics under the pretext of advancing maternal health have been sidelined in some states as they now try to ban abortion outright. Last week, Mark Joseph Stern interviewed professor Mary Ziegler about Arkansas’ new, near-total abortion ban. The state joins at least 11 others in passing complete or near-total bans in the hopes of becoming the case that will overturn Roe. Also last week, Republican Texas state Rep. Bryan Slaton introduced a bill to abolish abortion, allowing for the death penalty for women and physicians who carry out the procedure...
J.D. Baldwin
2021-03-17 22:39:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lenona
I'd like to believe this is faulty reporting - but I doubt it.
I've seen these shrieking, hysterical headlines half a dozen times a
year for the last ten. I didn't even read the copy or follow the
link, and I can confidently say the reporting is worse than "faulty"
-- it is straight-up fraudulent.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone objects to any statement I make, I am
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / ***@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it.-T. Lehrer
***~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lenona
2021-03-17 23:49:41 UTC
Permalink
So you're saying Slaton DIDN'T introduce that bill?

(That's what I was referring to, as one can tell from the title.)

As it happens, Garry Trudeau did a Sunday strip, maybe over 30 years ago, in which reporters asked Bush Sr. to reconcile his views on abortion with his views on the death penalty. (Can't find it right now, but I know it's in my paper files somewhere.)
J.D. Baldwin
2021-03-18 13:51:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lenona
So you're saying Slaton DIDN'T introduce that bill?
I am saying that the headline is dishonest. I am sure the nexus of
dishonesty is not the identity of the legislator who introduced *a*
bill in the Texas legislature. You can probably puzzle out what I
mean by that if you give it a few minutes' thought.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone objects to any statement I make, I am
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / ***@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it.-T. Lehrer
***~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lenona
2021-03-18 14:12:34 UTC
Permalink
If you're saying MY headline was hyperbole, OK.

If you're saying Slate's headline was dishonest, I don't get it.

If you're saying Rep. Bryan Slaton's bill was not as described - or that he somehow didn't realize just what he was proposing - I'd like to see proof of that.
J.D. Baldwin
2021-03-18 16:10:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lenona
If you're saying Slate's headline was dishonest, I don't get it.
That is what I am saying. And I haven't read the Slate article and I
haven't read the bill. I am simply extrapolating from past Slate (and
other, similar, source) headlines I've been seeing for 20-30 years,
breathlessly declaring that X will lead to Y when X will in no way
lead to anything resembling Y. This is of a piece with all of that.

I am sure this fellow Slayton introduced a bill in the Texas
legislature whose subject was abortion. I am fairly sure that his
bill is unconstitutional according to current Supreme Court
jurisprudence on the subject. I am sure to a moral certainty that his
bill does not introduce a death penalty for abortionists or the
mothers who seek them. There is just no way in hell that happened.
Slate are a bunch of lying sacks.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone objects to any statement I make, I am
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / ***@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it.-T. Lehrer
***~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------
Travoltron
2021-03-18 17:46:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.D. Baldwin
I am simply extrapolating from past Slate (and
other, similar, source) headlines I've been seeing for 20-30 years,
breathlessly declaring that X will lead to Y when X will in no way
lead to anything resembling Y. This is of a piece with all of that.
Libs like to claim that the "slippery slope" is a right-wing fallacy.
But then suddenly it's a real thing when it's one of THEIR pet causes.
Lenona
2021-03-18 17:48:25 UTC
Permalink
According to the wording, the BILL was introduced, and the death penalty is being ALLOWED. I assume that means it's not being firmly ruled out.

Sounds to me as though Slaton was saying "I'm not advocating that part; I'm just not opposing it either."

After all, if he thinks abortion is murder, even in the first 30 days, and IF he supports the death penalty for murderers, then it would be kind of hard for him not to execute SOMEBODY for the crime.
Terry del Fuego
2021-03-18 18:18:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lenona
According to the wording, the BILL was introduced, and the death penalty
is being ALLOWED. I assume that means it's not being firmly ruled out.
<https://www.texastribune.org/2021/03/09/texas-legislature-abortion-criminalize-death-penalty/>

"Under the bill filed Tuesday, women who receive an abortion and
physicians who perform the procedure could be charged with assault or
homicide, which is punishable by death in Texas, confirmed Shannon
Edmonds, a staff attorney with the Texas District and County Attorneys
Association. The association does not have a position on the bill."
J.D. Baldwin
2021-03-19 02:53:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lenona
According to the wording, the BILL was introduced, and the death
penalty is being ALLOWED. I assume that means it's not being firmly
ruled out.
That's completely absurd. Terry mentioned some vague wording from a
"Texas Tribune" (whatever that is) report that abortion might lead to
charges of assault or "homicide." Some varieties of homicide carry
the death penalty, but very specific and severe enhancements have to
be met to turn a first-degree murder (not "homicide") into a capital
case in Texas. Does the Slate article quote any part of the bill that
supports its notion? Can you?

You don't have to answer, though of course you are free to do so. I
already know the answer: the answer is No, you can't. Because that
wording doesn't exist. Because Slate makes shit up routinely and this
is no exception.

It ought to be trivial to prove me wrong: quote the relevant part of
the bill. Again, this will not happen, but I just want to underscore
that part of my point.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone objects to any statement I make, I am
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / ***@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it.-T. Lehrer
***~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------
ansaman
2021-03-19 08:19:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.D. Baldwin
Post by Lenona
According to the wording, the BILL was introduced, and the death
penalty is being ALLOWED. I assume that means it's not being firmly
ruled out.
That's completely absurd. Terry mentioned some vague wording from a
"Texas Tribune" (whatever that is) report that abortion might lead to
charges of assault or "homicide." Some varieties of homicide carry
the death penalty, but very specific and severe enhancements have to
be met to turn a first-degree murder (not "homicide") into a capital
case in Texas. Does the Slate article quote any part of the bill that
supports its notion? Can you?
You don't have to answer, though of course you are free to do so. I
already know the answer: the answer is No, you can't. Because that
wording doesn't exist. Because Slate makes shit up routinely and this
is no exception.
It ought to be trivial to prove me wrong: quote the relevant part of
the bill. Again, this will not happen, but I just want to underscore
that part of my point.
Thanks. There is always such rhetoric on both sides of the
abortion issue. Everyone is looking for MONEY and using
extreme language to get MORE.
--
The most polite way to infer that someone
may be lying according to Elizabeth II:
"recollections may vary" EPIC!
Lenona
2021-03-19 12:12:18 UTC
Permalink
OK, fine. I just find it odd that anti-abortion types never bother to say that they would categorize it as second- or third-degree murder or homicide, if they could. Or explain (convincingly, that is) why women wouldn't at least have to go to prison after having a first-trimester abortion, which is when 90% of them take place - and that percentage would be higher if it weren't for all the roadblocks.

(Speaking of which, I don't understand why allegedly pro-choice cartoonists typically draw women as being in the seventh month or so. It's not exactly hard to come up with OTHER ways to make it clear that she's pregnant and seeking a first-term abortion, after all.)

Lenona.

P.S. As usual, I didn't get to see Terry's post.
Terry del Fuego
2021-03-19 16:02:42 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 02:53:16 +0000 (UTC),
Post by J.D. Baldwin
That's completely absurd. Terry mentioned some vague wording from a
"Texas Tribune" (whatever that is) report that abortion might lead to
charges of assault or "homicide."
Texas Tribune is, to me, irrelevant. What interested me more was the
claim that "a staff attorney with the Texas District and County
Attorneys Association" confirmed the allegation. Granted, anyone can
become a lawyer and becoming one in no way negates one's ability to be
hopelessly and intentionally full of shit, but I at least *attempted*
to go a little farther than "I don't like the source." For what it's
worth, when I attempted to search, Slate doesn't even appear in the
results.
Post by J.D. Baldwin
Does the Slate article quote any part of the bill that supports its
notion? Can you?
Simply finding the bill itself took longer than I expected, but it
appears to be TX HB3326, which can be found at
<https://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB3326/2021>. The word "homicide"
appears only once, incorporated into an insane rant:

"(6) as legislators, to fulfill our oaths of office to the United
States Constitution, so help us God, by disavowing the legal fiction
that the constitution prohibits this state from exercising its
reserved police powers to prohibit and criminalize homicide and from
exercising its constitutional and God-given duties to provide equal
protection to all persons within its jurisdiction;"

It later states:

"SECTION 7. Chapter 370, Local Government Code, is amended by adding
Section 370.007 to read as follows: Sec. 370.007. ABORTION
PROHIBITION ENFORCEMENT. The governing body of a political subdivision
of this state shall ensure that the political subdivision enforces
Chapters 19 and 22, Penal Code, in relation to abortion, regardless of
any contrary federal statute, regulation, treaty, order, or court
decision."

Texas Penal Code Chapter 19 is entitled "CRIMINAL HOMICIDE" which it
goes on to define as "murder, capital murder, manslaughter, or
criminally negligent homicide."

So I, clearly very much a layperson, see a proposed law saying that
abortion would fall under Chapter 19, which in part defines capital
murder.

I'm all for any reasonable explanation of why you seem to believe this
is being universally and/or disingenuously misrepresented, but am
hypocritically completely uninterested in another "Your source is
doodoo" rant.

I also understand that just because abortion *could* be prosecuted as
capital murder doesn't necessarily mean that it *would* be in every
case. But please don't insult my meager intelligence by hinting that
making such prosecution possible is not the likely intent (or, at the
absolute very least, a possible result) of this bill or that anyone
who believes it is is simply intentionally lying.
J.D. Baldwin
2021-03-20 02:30:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry del Fuego
Post by J.D. Baldwin
That's completely absurd. Terry mentioned some vague wording from
a "Texas Tribune" (whatever that is) report that abortion might
lead to charges of assault or "homicide."
Texas Tribune is, to me, irrelevant. What interested me more was the
claim that "a staff attorney with the Texas District and County
Attorneys Association" confirmed the allegation. Granted, anyone can
become a lawyer
You have no idea.
Post by Terry del Fuego
and becoming one in no way negates one's ability to be hopelessly
and intentionally full of shit,
You *really* have no idea.
Post by Terry del Fuego
"SECTION 7. Chapter 370, Local Government Code, is amended by adding
Section 370.007 to read as follows: Sec. 370.007. ABORTION
PROHIBITION ENFORCEMENT. The governing body of a political subdivision
of this state shall ensure that the political subdivision enforces
Chapters 19 and 22, Penal Code, in relation to abortion, regardless of
any contrary federal statute, regulation, treaty, order, or court
decision."
Texas Penal Code Chapter 19 is entitled "CRIMINAL HOMICIDE" which it
goes on to define as "murder, capital murder, manslaughter, or
criminally negligent homicide."
So I, clearly very much a layperson, see a proposed law saying that
abortion would fall under Chapter 19, which in part defines capital
murder.
Specifically, 19.03 covers capital murder. The string "19.03" does
not appear in the bill.
Post by Terry del Fuego
I'm all for any reasonable explanation of why you seem to believe
this is being universally and/or disingenuously misrepresented, but
am hypocritically completely uninterested in another "Your source is
doodoo" rant.
The source is doodoo based on long and uniformly doodoo-esque history.
The source is doodoo unless and until it can adduce a specific
amendment proposed to Texas Penal Code 19.03 that would be effected
enactment of the bill into law.
Post by Terry del Fuego
I also understand that just because abortion *could* be prosecuted as
capital murder doesn't necessarily mean that it *would* be in every
case.
It can't be so prosecuted without all of the elements, including
special circumstances, defined as "capital murder" as laid out in
19.03.
Post by Terry del Fuego
But please don't insult my meager intelligence by hinting that
making such prosecution possible is not the likely intent (or, at
the absolute very least, a possible result) of this bill or that
anyone who believes it is is simply intentionally lying.
It is not my intention that anyone who believes this nonsense is
intentionally lying. In fact, by definition anyone who believes it is
*not* lying. *Slate* is intentionally lying because it pretends to be
a journalistic outlet, implying a duty to investigate claims before
publishing them. They do this kind of thing too often for it to be
dismissed as a simple mistake. It's just a lie. They don't actually
believe it any more than I believe the moon landing was faked.

Others who believe it are, of course, not liars either, not if they
actually believe. They are simply being credulous. Demand a chain of
legal reasoning that gets you from the content of the bill to an
amendment of 19.03. When someone provides that, there will at least
be a case. Any prosecutor who charged capital murder without a
special circumstance would be flirting with disbarment. Nah, just
kidding. Bar disciplinary committees never go after prosecutorial
misconduct. But if they did, it would be a slam dunk.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone objects to any statement I make, I am
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / ***@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it.-T. Lehrer
***~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry del Fuego
2021-03-20 17:54:52 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 20 Mar 2021 02:30:09 +0000 (UTC),
Post by J.D. Baldwin
Specifically, 19.03 covers capital murder. The string "19.03" does
not appear in the bill.
This seems a stretch. The bill doesn't mention *any* specific section
of Chapter 19 but does mention the chapter as a whole while clearly
equating abortion to homicide. You can argue that it's badly written
due to lack [legal something Latin words etc.], but I don't see how
you can in good faith claim that at the very least the intent isn't
what the opponents claim.

Is that actually what we *really* disagree on here? Am I hearing "He
isn't trying to do that" when what you're really trying to say is "He
can't do that"?
Post by J.D. Baldwin
The source is doodoo based on long and uniformly doodoo-esque history.
I'm not talking about Slate. I'm talking about your out-of-hand
dismissal of the source I cited, which came across as "I've never
heard of it, but I know it sucks."

Related-ish, I'm finding it impossible to find any refutation. And I
don't mean "refutation that I accept" I mean "any refutation
whatsoever." No, that's not proof. But it *is* really, really odd. If
the intent of the bill is not what most seem to believe, you'd think
that there would be a LOT of interest in getting the word out,
possibly starting with Slaton himself via his Twitter account.
Searching Fox News for "Bryan Slaton" turns up nothing. Searching them
for "Texas abortion" turns up lots of stuff, none of it relevant and
none of it newer than 2 months ago. Ditto Newsmax...or not quite
"ditto"--neither search turns up *anything* there. I'd expect
both/either of those to have *some* interest in pushing a
"Conservatives aren't monsters" angle. [cheap shot deleted] And I only
went directly to those sites because neither Google nor Bing (new W10
install and I haven't bothered to change defaults yet) with their
allegedly global searches were getting me anywhere.

I can find lots of big and little news names pushing the allegation,
including no shortage of Texans, but I can't find *anyone* aside from
you refuting it.
Post by J.D. Baldwin
The source is doodoo unless and until it can adduce a specific
amendment proposed to Texas Penal Code 19.03 that would be effected
enactment of the bill into law.
Are you saying that the bill simply can't be passed (enforced?
upheld?) as written because it references Chapter 19 gobally but
references no specific section of Chapter 19 or...what, exactly?
(Proofreading note: This may read as sarcasm but is in fact an
expression of genuine puzzlement. I find your point akin to
"Americans" excluding people from North Dakota because the state
wasn't explicitly mentioned.)

I *do* understand that literacy, logic and the law are often mutually
exclusive, so it's possible that by stubbornly sticking to the first
two and being ignorant of the third I'm missing some subtlety. (Again,
*not* sarcasm.)
Post by J.D. Baldwin
Any prosecutor who charged capital murder without a
special circumstance would be flirting with disbarment. Nah, just
kidding. Bar disciplinary committees never go after prosecutorial
misconduct. But if they did, it would be a slam dunk.
OK, so we seem to be in agreement that at least a subset of l*wy*rs
are garbage and that "prosecutorial misconduct" is often redundant. So
I guess my fundamental question is: Can you look me in the virtual eye
and say sincerely and in good faith that Bryan Slaton's *INTENT* is
really, truly *not* to punish abortion via execution? Can you find
anything in his outbursts that even hints that the rest of us are
misinterpreting his actions?

I would, believe it or not, *love* to be wrong about this, even if
largely for reasons that if clearly expressed would probably put me on
a watch list.
J.D. Baldwin
2021-03-21 15:19:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry del Fuego
This seems a stretch. The bill doesn't mention *any* specific
section of Chapter 19 but does mention the chapter as a whole while
clearly equating abortion to homicide. You can argue that it's badly
written due to lack [legal something Latin words etc.], but I don't
see how you can in good faith claim that at the very least the
intent isn't what the opponents claim.
Oh, the bill is *terribly* written. That's not relevant to my point
-- or at least not relevant to my *core* point.

And yes the bill seeks to equate abortion to "homicide." I haven't
disputed that.

What I consider a lie is the prominent headline, both in Slate and
this thread, as to the death penalty for abortion procurement.
"Homicide" is not punishable by death in Texas; only capital murder
is.
Post by Terry del Fuego
Post by J.D. Baldwin
The source is doodoo based on long and uniformly doodoo-esque history.
I'm not talking about Slate. I'm talking about your out-of-hand
dismissal of the source I cited, which came across as "I've never
heard of it, but I know it sucks."
Oh, the "Texas Tribune" quote. Well, the report sucked. I don't know
anything about that source and didn't mean to comment on it except to
say that I've never heard of it. But I read that one for myself and
it makes vague, hand-waving claims it can't support. That isn't
reporting the news, and if that site claims to report news then it
does indeed suck at its job. I do not claim that the Texas Tribune is
actively lying; I do claim that about Slate.
Post by Terry del Fuego
I can find lots of big and little news names pushing the allegation,
including no shortage of Texans, but I can't find *anyone* aside
from kyou refuting it.
What can I say, it's sometimes lonely business to proclaim the truth.
Post by Terry del Fuego
Post by J.D. Baldwin
The source is doodoo unless and until it can adduce a specific
amendment proposed to Texas Penal Code 19.03 that would be effected
enactment of the bill into law.
Are you saying that the bill simply can't be passed (enforced?
upheld?) as written because it references Chapter 19 gobally but
references no specific section of Chapter 19 or...what, exactly?
Oh, that's part of the problem. Specifically, it does not amend the
definition of capital murder. Even if it were enacted into law, the
definition of capital murder would be unchanged in Texas from what it
is right now.

If enacted, the whole business would also be struck down for a lot of
other reasons -- unconstitutionally vague, running afoul of Casey
v. PP and other Supreme Court jurisprudence, others. The bill is a
confused mess. That's not why the Slate assertion (repeated in the
subject line here) is a lie. That assertion is a lie because the bill
does not even seek to amend Texas Penal Code 19.03.
Post by Terry del Fuego
OK, so we seem to be in agreement that at least a subset of l*wy*rs
are garbage and that "prosecutorial misconduct" is often
redundant. So I guess my fundamental question is: Can you look me in
the virtual eye and say sincerely and in good faith that Bryan
Slaton's *INTENT* is really, truly *not* to punish abortion via
execution?
A lot of anti-abortion people are strongly anti-capital-punishment as
well, so I would say there is no good reason to conclude that Slaton's
intent was to make abortion a capital crime. Even if he's the most
pro-death-penalty guy in Texas, though, it's not really possible to
know his intent on this point because he can't draft a goddamned piece
of legislation as well as an average eighth-grade dropout probably
could.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone objects to any statement I make, I am
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / ***@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it.-T. Lehrer
***~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry del Fuego
2021-03-21 17:11:18 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 21 Mar 2021 15:19:39 +0000 (UTC),
Post by J.D. Baldwin
What can I say, it's sometimes lonely business to proclaim the truth.
Likely sarcasm, but I suspect that we're done here.
Terry del Fuego
2021-03-21 18:37:20 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 21 Mar 2021 10:11:18 -0700, Terry del Fuego
Post by Terry del Fuego
Likely sarcasm, but I suspect that we're done here.
This reads about 100x more assholic than intended. What I actually
meant was "We're not going to convince each other, and this side of
the Mantovani reel I'm digitizing is about to end, so I need to attend
to it."

Though admitting to digitizing Mantovani is probably *worse* than
being rude.
J.D. Baldwin
2021-03-21 20:46:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry del Fuego
Post by J.D. Baldwin
What can I say, it's sometimes lonely business to proclaim the truth.
Likely sarcasm, but I suspect that we're done here.
More jocular than sarcastic, and no I didn't take this too sharply.

As to your point that no one out there is challenging the "death
penalty" part of the assertion under discussion: I think people are
just so used to this kind of crazy hyperbole that no one takes it
seriously enough to bother calling it out.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone objects to any statement I make, I am
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / ***@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it.-T. Lehrer
***~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lenona
2021-03-18 18:12:44 UTC
Permalink
And as far as Slate's headline goes, my guess is that young women who are not deeply opposed to abortion might read the article and think "wow, that COULD be me, someday - after all, every contraceptive has a failure rate, and I don't live near a big city, etc., and no way am I going to tolerate all these roadblocks that people seeking vaccines are already facing."

Just to clarify, Dahlia Lithwick (she's a lawyer who used to work for Newsweek - she freelances for Slate) was saying that, re the vaccine, all the frustrating roadblocks, delays, expenses, red tape, etc., are pretty similar to what women seeking abortions go through. Except that people seeking vaccines get sympathy and support from almost everyone.

But, of course, women who are opposed to abortion (and last I heard, there is no gender gap on that particular issue) won't CARE about women seeking abortions and the roadblocks they face. So, you're at least half right.

Excerpt, from the second half:

..When Texas passed its controversial omnibus clinic regulation, House Bill 2, in 2013, the number of clinics that could operate in the state briefly dropped from 42 to 7. Had the Supreme Court upheld the new restrictions, Texas would have been left with 10 clinics—all in major cities—to serve 5.4 million women of childbearing age. Even after the Supreme Court struck down that law in 2016, many clinics never reopened. The number of clinics operating in the state now is about half what it was in 2013. While the litigation was wending its way through the courts, Texas experienced a natural experiment in what happened to women who lost access to reproductive care. Overnight, women seeking to secure abortions were forced to endure longer wait times, unnecessary repeat visits, burdensome travel, costly hotel stays, and missed work. The longer the wait time, the pricier the procedure became. In some cases, longer waits eventually precluded an abortion altogether. In Lubbock, for instance, a woman would have had to travel nearly 300 miles to reach her closest provider. Studies showed that the “number of Texan women of reproductive age living in a county over 100 miles from the nearest abortion provider in Texas more than doubled to just over one million when the admitting privilege requirement of HB2 went into effect.” Wait times at the remaining open clinics quickly soared to 20 days and longer. Women began to cross state lines to obtain abortions, turned to dangerous self-managed abortions, black-market scammers, and drugs they could purchase in Mexico.

A sample CNN account at the time was representative of how this affected poor women in particular: Women traveling hundreds of miles needed gas money. Poor and rural and non-English-speaking women didn’t always have access to bus tickets, taxis, hotels. Some slept in their cars while awaiting procedures. Women missed procedures because their babysitters didn’t show up, their paychecks didn’t clear, time off work was denied, protesters blocked clinics. And yet, at oral argument over HB 2 before a federal appeals court in 2014, Judge Edith Jones suggested that the 300 miles round-trip between the Rio Grande Valley and Corpus Christi was a breeze: “Do you know how long that takes in Texas at 75 miles an hour? This is a peculiarly flat and not congested highway.” Spoken like someone who has never slept in her car....
Lenona
2021-03-18 00:01:04 UTC
Permalink
It's also worth remembering that if the number of American women who have had an abortion seems exaggerated (23.7% by age 45, according to the Guttmacher Institute), maybe that's because plenty of women are too afraid to let anyone know they had one. Aside from the few people they could trust to help and not hinder them.

In other words, we all know someone - maybe even a good friend or dear relative - who felt the urgent need to get one, whether we know the exact names or not.


Lenona.
Terry del Fuego
2021-03-18 12:51:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lenona
Also last week, Republican Texas state Rep. Bryan Slaton introduced a bill to
abolish abortion, allowing for the death penalty for women and physicians
who carry out the procedure...
Upside: It sets a precedent that reproduction can be regulated,
opening the door to allow execution of those who *don't* have
abortions.
Loading...