Originally published at: Texas bans abortion after 6 weeks, even in cases of incest or rape | Boing Boing
…
let’s see the names of the MEN who wrote this bill for a MAN to sign into law. fuckwads.
Some of them may be males, but men? That’s debatable.
So if a woman miscarries after 6 weeks does that mean she can sue God’s representative in Texas for His participation in an abortion? Does it mean she can sue anyone who’s donated money to the Church as someone who empowered Him to perform the spontaneous abortion? The answer to both questions is probably yes. Whether she can win is a different question, but she could keep the court system (and Governor Asshole) busy for a while.
I’ll just jump in here to say that the concept of a “fetal heartbeat” is bullshit. A fetus doesn’t have a heart at 6 weeks. (A fetus isn’t even a fetus at 6 weeks.) You can also culture embryonic cells to the point where they differentiate into the cells that will eventually form the heart, and they’ll beat in a petri dish. The cells in question don’t form what could reasonably be called a heart until nearly the midpoint of pregnancy.
Framing it as a “fetal heartbeat” is pure emotional manipulation, but I guess that’s par for the course here.
Texas bans abortion after 6 weeks, even in cases of incest or rape
Traditional family values, eh?
Its more likely (and likely intended) that the woman in question is imprisoned for failing to carry the child to term.
Realistically, it means she can worry about being accused of committing a crime if she seeks medical help, and so will not do so, increasing maternal mortality in the state.
I read the text because it sounded like a loophole that you could just get an abortion without getting an exam to detect a heartbeat, but the law requires a physician look for a heartbeat. It also lies and says current medical research indicates that a heartbeat indicates it will progress to birth.
Here’s my loophole (though the Rebublicans won’t consider it valid):
A physician who performs or induces an abortion under
circumstances described by Subsection (a) shall make written
notations in the pregnant woman’s medical record of:
…
(2) the medical condition of the pregnant woman that
prevented compliance with this subchapter.
The medical condition of the pregnant woman that prevented compliance with this subchapter is that the woman is a human being, recognized by the Constitution with the rights to life, liberty, and property, all three of which are involved in her choices relating to her body and health. A fetus is not recognized by the Constitution as having any rights, despite how Republicans choose to represent it. If they did, they’d be granted citizenship and social security numbers and pregnant women would qualify for child support and child tax credits, etc.
This is the other shoe: Court to weigh in on Mississippi abortion ban intended to challenge Roe v. Wade - SCOTUSblog
It’s there to go into effect pending a permissive SCOTUS ruling, nevermind that such a ruling would also demolish the medical privacy rights established in Roe v Wade, but if you point that such a precedent would pave the way for mandated vaccinations or vasectomies you get death threats.
A fetal heart beat is all the GQP needs for a vote.
To be a woman, or to do things “like a girl” doesn’t really seem to be a weakness to me; rather a strength.
The main loophole of course is being a prominent wealthy conservative married white xtian middle-aged male who needs an abortion for his secret girlfriend. But as always it doesn’t need to be written into the text.
Yes… once again I am disgusted by this State.
Looks like the law has some low-hanging fruit designed to be thrown out (the ability of people to sue with no standing) in the hopes that the courts won’t notice the rest of the egregious asshattery in the law.
Could you rephrase to “international”?
Also, when being at it, could you abort Texas?
Reading the post I was thinking about this Janelle Monae lyric from Django Jane (NSFW, I guess):
You’d be surprised what I can do, with Texas.