Whose Womb?
"Good Grief!" is an oxymoron. The phrase contradicts itself. The word and idea are a bit amusing when used by Charlie Brown, but political maneuvering may fit the same description -- contradictory and confusing -- without the amusement factor.
There has been rumbling for over thirty years which now has ignited into a roar due to recent changes of Justices in the United States Supreme Court. Some of the noise attempts justification based on Roe vs. Wade. Even though the core issue extends further back than January 1973, let's take a look at Roe vs. Wade to see who was squawking, which rights were protected against government invasion and under what circumstances.
Who. Roe (a lady), Hallford (a medical doctor), and Doe (a married couple who were unable to procreate) instituted a lawsuit to enable the Judicial Branch of government to review the Legislative Branch's authorship and enactment of Texas' abortion laws.
The Protected Right. The United States Supreme Court held the statutes unconstitutional which outlawed abortion (unless a woman's life was at stake) and vested all rights in the State's imaginary womb.
The United States Supreme Court was forced to protect Texans from Texas government. In doing so, the High Court balanced individual personal liberty interests against the State's legitimate interest to protect health and the potentiality of human life.
The Circumstances. The Court allowed State regulation after the end of the first trimester but disallowed Texas' interference with an abortion decision during that period.
House Bill 175. With some modification, HB 175 attempts to administer CPR to the defective Texas abortion statutes and then sweeps wide and deep. In essence the Bill criminalizes abortion (beginning at fertilization) except to prevent the woman's death.
The enactment of HB 175 would automatically repeal law that has protected Texans and recognized a need for medical opinion and the freedom to rely on it.
Here's what Texans would lose.
Texas Health & Safety Code § 170.001 [Abortion means an act involving the use of an instrument, medicine, drug, or other substance or device developed to terminate the pregnancy of a woman if the act is done with an intention other than to increase the probability of a live birth of the unborn child of the woman, preserve the life or health of the child, or remove a dead fetus].
Texas Health & Safety Code § 170.002 [prohibits prosecution when the abortion is performed by a physician who concludes in good faith medical judgment that the fetus is not a viable fetus and the pregnancy is not in the third trimester; the abortion is necessary to prevent the death or a substantial risk of serious impairment to the physical or mental health of the woman; or the fetus has a severe and irreversible abnormality, identified by reliable diagnostic procedures].
Texas Health & Safety Code Chapter 171 [The Woman's Right To Know Act].
Texas Health & Safety Code Chapter 245 [The Texas Abortion Facility Reporting and Licensing Act].
Texas Family Code Chapter 33 [Parental Notice. A physician may not perform an abortion on a pregnant unemancipated minor unless the physician gives at least 48 hours actual notice to a parent of the minor].
Texas Occupation Code § 164.052 (18) and (19) [A physician commits a prohibited practice if the physician performs an abortion on a woman who is pregnant with a viable unborn child during the third trimester of the pregnancy unless the abortion is necessary to prevent the death of the woman; the viable unborn child has a severe, irreversible brain impairment; or the woman is diagnosed with a significant likelihood of suffering imminent severe, irreversible brain damage or imminent severe, irreversible paralysis; or the physician performs an abortion on an unemancipated minor without the written consent of the child's parent unless the physician concludes that on the basis of the physician's good faith clinical judgment, a condition exists that complicates the medical condition of the pregnant minor and necessitates the immediate abortion of her pregnancy to avert her death or to avoid a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function and that there is insufficient time to obtain the consent of the child's parent, managing conservator, or legal guardian].
The final crux of HB 175 is The One Man Band and the Return To The State's Imaginary Womb. One Hundred percent power is vested in the Texas Attorney General to determine whether the United States Constitution prohibits Texas from banning abortion.
HB 175 is not a good deal anyway you cut it.
© Coninc., TheDownsideUp.Com 2006
There has been rumbling for over thirty years which now has ignited into a roar due to recent changes of Justices in the United States Supreme Court. Some of the noise attempts justification based on Roe vs. Wade. Even though the core issue extends further back than January 1973, let's take a look at Roe vs. Wade to see who was squawking, which rights were protected against government invasion and under what circumstances.
Who. Roe (a lady), Hallford (a medical doctor), and Doe (a married couple who were unable to procreate) instituted a lawsuit to enable the Judicial Branch of government to review the Legislative Branch's authorship and enactment of Texas' abortion laws.
The Protected Right. The United States Supreme Court held the statutes unconstitutional which outlawed abortion (unless a woman's life was at stake) and vested all rights in the State's imaginary womb.
The United States Supreme Court was forced to protect Texans from Texas government. In doing so, the High Court balanced individual personal liberty interests against the State's legitimate interest to protect health and the potentiality of human life.
The Circumstances. The Court allowed State regulation after the end of the first trimester but disallowed Texas' interference with an abortion decision during that period.
House Bill 175. With some modification, HB 175 attempts to administer CPR to the defective Texas abortion statutes and then sweeps wide and deep. In essence the Bill criminalizes abortion (beginning at fertilization) except to prevent the woman's death.
The enactment of HB 175 would automatically repeal law that has protected Texans and recognized a need for medical opinion and the freedom to rely on it.
Here's what Texans would lose.
Texas Health & Safety Code § 170.001 [Abortion means an act involving the use of an instrument, medicine, drug, or other substance or device developed to terminate the pregnancy of a woman if the act is done with an intention other than to increase the probability of a live birth of the unborn child of the woman, preserve the life or health of the child, or remove a dead fetus].
Texas Health & Safety Code § 170.002 [prohibits prosecution when the abortion is performed by a physician who concludes in good faith medical judgment that the fetus is not a viable fetus and the pregnancy is not in the third trimester; the abortion is necessary to prevent the death or a substantial risk of serious impairment to the physical or mental health of the woman; or the fetus has a severe and irreversible abnormality, identified by reliable diagnostic procedures].
Texas Health & Safety Code Chapter 171 [The Woman's Right To Know Act].
Texas Health & Safety Code Chapter 245 [The Texas Abortion Facility Reporting and Licensing Act].
Texas Family Code Chapter 33 [Parental Notice. A physician may not perform an abortion on a pregnant unemancipated minor unless the physician gives at least 48 hours actual notice to a parent of the minor].
Texas Occupation Code § 164.052 (18) and (19) [A physician commits a prohibited practice if the physician performs an abortion on a woman who is pregnant with a viable unborn child during the third trimester of the pregnancy unless the abortion is necessary to prevent the death of the woman; the viable unborn child has a severe, irreversible brain impairment; or the woman is diagnosed with a significant likelihood of suffering imminent severe, irreversible brain damage or imminent severe, irreversible paralysis; or the physician performs an abortion on an unemancipated minor without the written consent of the child's parent unless the physician concludes that on the basis of the physician's good faith clinical judgment, a condition exists that complicates the medical condition of the pregnant minor and necessitates the immediate abortion of her pregnancy to avert her death or to avoid a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function and that there is insufficient time to obtain the consent of the child's parent, managing conservator, or legal guardian].
The final crux of HB 175 is The One Man Band and the Return To The State's Imaginary Womb. One Hundred percent power is vested in the Texas Attorney General to determine whether the United States Constitution prohibits Texas from banning abortion.
HB 175 is not a good deal anyway you cut it.
© Coninc., TheDownsideUp.Com 2006
Labels: EglPress
posted by KKHC | 5:39 PM
<< Home