Perry's tougher abortion stance: What does it mean for Texas?
by BRAD WATSON
Posted on December 28, 2011 at 6:49 PM
Updated today at 7:18 PM
Gov. Rick Perry's "transformation" on his abortion stance is getting attention because of the potential impact in Texas.
Speaking in Iowa on Tuesday, Perry said he is now against abortion — even in cases of rape or incest — after watching a documentary called "Gift of Life."
He said he would still support the procedure to save a mother's life.
In Texas, the concern is how this could potentially affect abortion laws and issues in Texas next year if Perry doesn't make it to the White House.
With fresh polls showing Perry support lagging, the chances grow he'll be back at the Governor's Mansion for the 2012 legislative session.
His new outlook against abortions in cases of rape and incest heartens Texas pro-life groups.
"Certainly the belief that all children should be protected in the womb — regardless of the circumstances by which they came to be conceived — should be protected... is a position that we would support," said Becky Visosky of the Catholic Pro-Life Committee of North Texas.
Perry enjoys deep support among pro-life groups, and signed their favored sonogram bill into law earlier this year.
Providing the state wins an appeal overturning a court order blocking the law, pro-life groups look to tighten it further. They want to remove the law's exemption for women pregnant through rape and incest from hearing the doctor's explanation of the sonogram.
Perry didn't weigh in directly on that part of the law, but pro-life groups hope he would openly favor the change now.
"That really brings it home," Visnosky said. "That child in the womb is not responsible for the circumstances that brought them into existence, and they deserve the protections and the right to life just as much as you and I do."
Texas Alliance for Life has endorsed Perry, and the group's executive director, Joe Pojman, still hopes Perry can win the White House.
"We are interested next session in strengthening the sonogram law so that all women considering abortion will hear the description of the unborn child during the sonogram," Pojman said.
Pro-choice groups and many Democrats say they will keep fighting the sonogram law.
"This will probably lead to a law saying that if a 14-year-old victim of incest wants to get an abortion, she would then have to submit to a sonogram, which is one of the most invasive procedures this legislature has come up with," said Andy Brown, chairman of the Travis County Democratic Party.
Perry's campaign hasn't responded yet, but both sides in the sonogram law issue suspect they know what he'd support.
The state's appeal of an Austin federal judge's preliminary injunction of the law will be heard before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals next Wednesday.
I was going to post this in Texas Heathens -- but the group is down. So I posted it here for all of you.I live in Texas and hate to see what will happen here because of his anti-abortion stance - I am Pro-Choice.
The irony of the "pro-life" movement is that many of them are also pro death penalty.
you mean fascist, bigot etc. - life
hey that's new, bigot-life! arsewholes
the whole social value moral blah blah common sense stuff as politics is just cover/decoy for thi$:
Thanks for the link!
It's as if the ones that suck the teet of the religion or tv are the ones that destroy common good/accountability imho
'god bless the mess'
'my excuse is that i'm xtian, muslim or orthodox jewish; why does the U.S. Constitution tread on my BS ways?! why oh why' is what they surely say all day... : P
That's so cool Mr. M. glad I could inspire. I like to do that!
Any pro-life dingbat who thinks that criminalizing abortion will stop it is indulging in a form of self-delusion not much different from what they do every Sunday at church. Abortion was around before Roe v. Wade and it would continue if Roe v. Wade was overturned.
It would simply go underground. It would, in many instances be more dangerous and if not dangerous, then difficult and expensive to procure. Many more women would die from sepsis and mishandled procedures and quacks who pass themselves off as doctors. More women would go either to Canada or Mexico, where these procedures remain legal and are likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.
So long as there is a demand for abortion, SOMEONE will attempt to maintain its availability. That simple.
That's so true! Right you are!
They are trying to pass the sonogram bill right now in Texas.
I'll link the article below
Abortion sonogram bill advances in Texas House
, HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Published 06:30 a.m., Thursday, March 3, 2011
Flexing their super-majority muscle in the Texas House, Republican lawmakers swatted away a swarm of amendments offered by the Democratic minority on Thursday and gave preliminary approval to a House version of a bill requiring doctors to perform a sonogram on women requesting an abortion. Declared an emergency by Republican Gov. Rick Perry, the measure passed by a vote of 103 to 42.
House Bill 15, sponsored by state Rep. Sid Miller, R-Stephenville, requires a doctor performing an abortion to conduct the sonogram at least 24 hours before the procedure was to take place. The doctor also is required to show the woman the sonogram image, play the sound of the fetal heartbeat for her and describe in some detail the image that appears on the sonogram. The woman does not have to view the sonogram or hear the heartbeat, although she still would have to hear the doctor's description.
Miller's bill is a more stringent version of Senate Bill 16, sponsored by state Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, which passed two weeks ago. Patrick's bill, approved by a vote of 21-10, requires the sonogram to be performed within two hours of the abortion. It also makes an exception for women who have been the victim of rape or incest or where the fetus has fatal abnormalities. The House version does not allow exceptions.
Miller's bill had been expected to pass easily on Wednesday, but Democrats, working to delay the inevitable, offered up a number of amendments, as well as a procedural point of order that sent the bill back to the State Affairs Committee. When debate resumed Thursday afternoon, a handful of Democrats, including Carol Alvarado, Jessica Farrar and Garnet Coleman of Houston and Joaquin Castro, Michael Villarreal and Trey Martinez Fisher of San Antonio, continued their strategy of offering up amendments deep into the night. All were rejected, usually by margins reflecting the GOP's 101-49 super-majority status.
The final amendment, the 34th offered, would have essentially replaced the House bill with the Senate version. It was rejected by a vote of 113 to 32.
Earlier in the debate, Alvarado described Miller's bill as "government intrusion at an all-time high."
"So why would we be considering a big-government kind of bill?" Castro asked during discussion on the House floor. "Do you feel that the author and others that support the bill feel that women are just too dumb to make a decision they've contemplated for quite awhile?"
"I think it's about shaming women, humiliating women and embarrassing women when they would have to undergo such a mandate," Alvarado said.
Miller insisted that the purpose of his legislation was informed consent and that he had a moral obligation to make sure women were fully aware of what they were doing when they sought an abortion. He said women testified before the State Affairs Committee he chairs that abortion providers, even though they're required to perform sonograms, often failed to provide sonogram information to women. He told his colleagues the women testified they would have changed their minds about having an abortion had the information been made available to them.
"Anytime you abort a human life, that's probably the most tragic procedure that could ever be performed," he said during debate on Wednesday. "If we can save human lives, that is an emergency. I would even put it in front of the budget. . . . If you're asking me which is more important, the life of an unborn or the money in our state budget, I'm going to choose life over money any time."
Patrick acknowledged that the discrepancies between the two bills could be a problem. State Sen. Carlos Uresti, D-San Antonio, whose district reaches into the far reaches of West Texas, agreed with Patrick. He sponsored a successful amendment to Patrick's Senate bill to reduce the amount of time between the sonogram and the abortion procedure.
"The 24-hour waiting period in the House bill would be a tremendous imposition on women in my district because of its vast size and the limited availability of medical facilities," Uresti said. "If the bill returns to the Senate in its current form, I intend to stand firm on the Senate amendments that limited the waiting period to two hours, struck the provision requiring a woman to provide documentation about being raped and restored the ability of doctors to communicate with their patients by telephone."
"I believe at the end of the day we'll be able to work with House leadership and pass one of the best sonogram bills in the country," Patrick said.
Amazing. Republicans don't want the government in your business ... unless you're a woman, in which case they're All OVER Your Business!!!