I was walking my dog while talking on the phone with my older daughter two nights ago, and I asked her if she was protesting. She is a young woman in Austin, TX. and women were marching on the capitol to protest the legislature's determination to end legal abortions in Texas.
"I did go down there," she said, "and I'll bike back down there again tonight, but I'm feeling cynical." She told me that they were trying to recapture the spirit of the night of the filibuster, but that had been spontaneous. But that wasn't the only problem.
"It's kind of like a pep rally, isn't it?" I said.
She agreed. She did go into the legislature building and face off with anti-abortion activists. She said it was the only time it felt useful. Otherwise, the speakers are preaching to the choir.
I remember feeling the same way the first time I marched on Washington, back in 1980, an anti-nuclear rally. We were a huge crowd of people who agreed with each other.
"The legislators are going to do what they want," she said. "I went to DC to protest the Iraq War before it started, and it made no difference." Even so, she was going back and I'm glad. I think marching on Washington or a state capitol is part of the quintessential American experience.
After we hung up, I really thought about why we do what we do, whether it's NC's Moral Mondays, the Iraq War, Occupy Wall St or the Texas Legislature.
The reason we protest, even though the powers that be are going to do what serves their own interests, is that they don't have our blessing. They will never have the luxury of looking at the fallout and thinking they were doing the will of the people, and that nobody foresaw the consequences. I'm thinking mostly of the Iraq War here, but I think it's true for other movements as well.
"I did go down there," she said, "and I'll bike back down there again tonight, but I'm feeling cynical." She told me that they were trying to recapture the spirit of the night of the filibuster, but that had been spontaneous. But that wasn't the only problem.
"It's kind of like a pep rally, isn't it?" I said.
She agreed. She did go into the legislature building and face off with anti-abortion activists. She said it was the only time it felt useful. Otherwise, the speakers are preaching to the choir.
I remember feeling the same way the first time I marched on Washington, back in 1980, an anti-nuclear rally. We were a huge crowd of people who agreed with each other.
"The legislators are going to do what they want," she said. "I went to DC to protest the Iraq War before it started, and it made no difference." Even so, she was going back and I'm glad. I think marching on Washington or a state capitol is part of the quintessential American experience.
After we hung up, I really thought about why we do what we do, whether it's NC's Moral Mondays, the Iraq War, Occupy Wall St or the Texas Legislature.
The reason we protest, even though the powers that be are going to do what serves their own interests, is that they don't have our blessing. They will never have the luxury of looking at the fallout and thinking they were doing the will of the people, and that nobody foresaw the consequences. I'm thinking mostly of the Iraq War here, but I think it's true for other movements as well.
If Texas ends up with women dying or maimed in botched, back alley abortions, there will be no denying that the actions in the legislature were responsible and that they voted how they voted because this is what they wanted. They did not have everyone's backing.
That's why we protest.
Ironic - our Texas legislature is not voting on a bill to end legal abortion in Texas. In response to the reality of greedy people such as Kermit Gosnell, we women of Texas have requested our state legislators enact a law requiring medical care in clinics providing abortions, as well as providing for the care of 21-week fetuses who are capable of surviving with medical care. To do less classes both the woman and child less than the unique individuals confirmed by their unique human DNA. Those of us who support the medical care of these individuals are troubled by the vehement arguments of those who fight against providing it. The pro-choice decisions remain with only a one-month adjustment.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I understand, this would close most clinics that provide abortion in the state. Am I wrong? I'm only seeing what's on the national news.
ReplyDeleteKermit Gosnell is not representative of abortion providers. What he did was already illegal.
What did you mean by your last statement?
As I've read in local news, and in e-mail from my state representative, the one month earlier cut off is due to medical capabilities providing viability to 21-month gestation births. As with all preemies, there is cost involved, but medical assistance has provided such births viability. Kermit Gosnell certainly is not representative of all abortion providers, but he exists and is not alone, which gives one good reason for requiring a stronger reporting structure. Abortion, whether natural or medically induced, requires invasive procedures that have medical risks. Other recent procedures family members have gone through, though in clinics and not hospitals, have confirmed my desire to have medical assistance available. At the very least it should give comfort to patients and in worse-case scenarios could be life saving. The last statement? The only impact on a woman's pro-choice decisions is the one-month change from 24 weeks to 20 weeks. One month adjustment. How can these changes possibly close all clinics and send women back to illegal and unsafe abortions?
ReplyDeleteFirst, I want to apologize for characterizing the law as making abortion illegal in Texas. It's the same sort of statement that the NRA makes when they say that having background checks at gun shows is just a foot in the door to banning guns. It isn't, and it isn't the place of one group to decide what other people are thinking. So I am guilty of seeing the moves in Texas as the step towards ending abortions, and it isn't my place to do that. I'm sorry.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the news, the medical requirements would close 95% of the abortion providers in the state. So while it's one thing to want to protect women, cutting off access could have the opposite effect, opening the door to unregulated disasters like Kermit Gosnell, only more underground. People get desperate and poor people often have few options for travel.
I don't normally wade into abortion politics because I see both sides. The rightness of it really depends on when life begins, at least to me. I see that as a religious question, and I don't think we should legislate religion. I appreciate your balanced views, Phyllis. I hope all is well with you.
Thanks, Nina - I will check on that 95% number. I cannot imagine how the bill as I've read it could cause that many closures. Frankly, though, I don't see it as a religious question, nor tied to when "life" begins. I see it has a human rights question as to when one human has the right to kill another. For me, though religious thoughts do come to mind, it's a fact that the combined DNA from egg/sperm creates unique DNA defined as human and that takes precedent in human rights questions - religion should not, too many differences.
ReplyDeleteI went to the Texas legislature's site. Text from the act (which has been wide-spread) reads as though it:
ReplyDelete"... does not impose an undue burden or a substantial obstacle on a woman's ability to have an abortion because:
(A) the woman has adequate time to decide whether to have an abortion in the first 20 weeks after fertilization; and
(B) this Act does not apply to abortions that are necessary to avert the death or substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman or abortions that are performed on unborn children with severe fetal abnormalities."
Perhaps the "bad" part is contained in:
"...physician performing or inducing an abortion:
(1) must, on the date the abortion is performed or induced, have active admitting privileges at a hospital that:
(A) is located not further than 30 miles from the location at which the abortion is performed or induced; and
(B) provides obstetrical or gynecological health care services; and
(2) shall provide the pregnant woman with:
(A) a telephone number by which the pregnant woman may reach the physician, or other health care personnel employed by the physician or by the facility at which the abortion was performed or induced with access to the woman's relevant medical records, 24 hours a day to request assistance for any complications that arise from the performance or induction of the abortion or ask health-related questions regarding the abortion; and
(B) the name and telephone number of the nearest hospital to the home of the pregnant woman at which an emergency arising from the abortion would be treated."
From what you've learned, 95% of the clinics in Texas do not have a physician that has active admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles? How else could that be read? (Full text at http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=832&Bill=SB1)
95% of the clinics in Texas do not have a physician that has active admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles?
DeleteAre you serious? That is unacceptable. I do not condone abortions but my goodness, if they are to performed, could they at least be safe?
As you know I am pro-life but I will say this, Nina. Even though we disagree, I feel you must protest. In fact, I insist.
ReplyDeleteToo many times both sides miss what the other is trying to say. And I truly believe that both sides, no matter how contentious, keep each other accountable.
The sermon on Sunday said that I have to stand up for what I believe in and proclaim it. I just did.
ps I'll have to read why dear Phyllis had to say too.