The Texas Abortion Bill - Pros and Cons - Research Paper Example

Texas HB15 & the Abortion Debate: Relating to the provision of a sonogram before an abortion Goal: What is the problem that needs to be addressed? Why is it a state problem? Is this on a Texas problem or have other states had similar issues? The Texas abortion bill requires that women seeking an abortion must take a sonogram test to determine the heartbeat and developmental status of the fetus, as well as requiring other medical tests and reporting measures that severely overstep the appropriate range of government power into the private life of the individual. The problem in this situation depends on the individual’s own moral views on abortion and the legitimate functions of the State with regard to personal privacy. The reason that it is considered a state issue in Texas is primarily due to the concentration of anti-abortion leaders in the political representatives of the state and their advocacy of this bill. It can be stated that there is no national or local cry from women popularly who are seeking government regulations to control their personal reproductive decisions, but rather a minority group of political conservatives are seeking to apply their moral views to society through this legislation that would introduce mandatory testing and reporting requirements into the medical process of abortion. HB15 “Relating to providing a sonogram before an abortion; providing penalties,” was introduced into the 82nd Legislative Session of Texas because local anti-abortion advocates believed that they had the political support to push the bill through, but the larger issue is whether this minority has the right to impose their morality on others through the restrictions advocated in the bill, or whether these powers are inconsistent with the individual’s right to privacy. (Texas Tribune, 2011) By some interpretations, the initiation of this legislation has little chance of becoming popular law and surviving a court challenge, making it symbolic of demagoguery and an example of trying to stir-up attention and debate on the abortion issue in Texas in hopes of attracting national media attention. Interest parties: Who are the individual groups and institutions that are affected by the policy and its outcome? The interested parties in this debate are all women particularly who believe it is their right to self-determine their reproductive choices according to their own morality, rather than that of a Republican, “moral minority” that seizes power through political control of the House and uses this power to pass anti-abortion legislation. The anti-abortion advocates behind the bill are trying to save the life of every unborn child out of their ideological opposition to abortion fundamentally. The problem is that anti-abortion advocates cannot accept that other individuals may have moral standards and views that are different and with that the right to self-determine their lives according to their own definition. The counter-argument to this is that abortion is murder and people must do anything they can to stop it. The reasoning behind the mandate for women to receive a sonogram in the case of an abortion is to morally shame the woman by making her listen to a fetal heartbeat before she undergoes the procedure. In this instance, the anti-abortionists are interested in humiliating women and forcing them to walk through a bureaucratic system of State control due to the moral views of the anti-abortionists. Policy positions: What are the different policy proposals for the various interested parties? Name the preference for each and what they will gain by having their policy enacted and what they will lose by having another policy enacted. The Dallas News reported on the legislative details of HB15 and the debate in the House over the bill, writing: “Women in Texas must be offered a fetal sonogram and hear a heartbeat before having an abortion under legislation approved by the Senate on Thursday. The legislation, hailed by abortion opponents as a way to entitle women to more information, would be in addition to a 24-hour waiting period and state-dictated medical information that already are required.” (Hoppe, 2011) That this bill is even under debate and discussion by the House is a type of grandstanding by the anti-abortion advocates, as they cannot tolerate any woman actually receiving an abortion. Every abortion is the death of a living baby, and the sonogram is intended to prove this. The problem is that the majority of America does not accept this view and they support the woman’s right to privacy and reproductive health. As every attempt of the anti-abortionists to outlaw the procedure or implement other restrictive laws dictating majority from public legislation is subject to legal review where it will likely be overturned on the basis of the protections recognized in Roe v. Wade, the anti-abortionists believe they have a religious calling that must be imposed on all other members of society, contrary to their own personal abilities to make moral choices. “Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, who authored the bill for the past two sessions, said the bill has been leavened with ‘wisdom, counsel and the hand of God,’” reports the Dallas News. “Under his legislation, women must be given the opportunity to see a sonogram that must be taken within two hours of the abortion procedure and hear a fetal heartbeat, if detectable. She can decline those options, but doctors still must describe what they see in the sonogram, including development of the body and organs. The oral description can be waived only in instances of severe fetal abnormality, rape or incest, or for a minor who has been exempted from the state's parental-consent law under the order of a judge.” (Hoppe, 2011) Again, the actual demagoguery of the bill, its language, and intent can be viewed as equally morally offensive by those who do not rejoice in abortion but recognize it as a human tragedy that is worsened by the meddling of others in the private, family decisions undertaken by free individuals. The problem here is the inflexibility and vehemence of anti-abortion activists who cannot accept a woman’s right to choose for herself in the occasion, and instead wish to humiliate, denigrate, and force these women to stop a practice they see as genocide. Even more, society cannot resolve this moral issue definitively, and radical views may be posited in defense of the life of the unborn child. Government/ legislative action: What activities in the government have occurred? Has there been a proposal or several? Which committees are involved, if any? HB15 has been introduced to the Texas Legislature, debated, and subjected to an amendment process in the House, and then finally passed by majority vote by the chamber. The Bill now awaits being sent to the Texas State Senate for review, debate, and a vote. The Texas tribune reports: “Thursday's debate on Stephenville Republican state Rep. Sid Miller's abortion sonogram bill, House Bill 15, began shortly after 2 p.m. It ended shortly after 9 p.m. The bill passed to third reading on a vote of 103-42, which means one easy step remains before it heads to the Senate.” (Hamilton, 2011) According to the report, the debate process included the submission of numerous amendments from both anti-abortionist and abortion rights defenders that were debated as well until the final version was passed. “The many hours of debate featured 34 amendments — and a number of amendments to the amendments — most of which were proposed by Democrats and were subsequently tabled along votes that stuck fairly close to party lines. Amendments ranged from the humorous (El Paso Democratic state Rep. Marisa Marquez's proposed allowing pregnant women to mandate vasectomies by court order) to the highly personal (Dallas Democratic state Rep. Rafael Anchia's gave an account of his wife's high risk pregnancy as he proposed an exception for women who have irreversible complications).” (Hamilton, 2011) The tragedy of abortion is a family matter that is best left to the private decision making process of the individuals who are directly involved. Yet, the anti-abortionists state they are protecting the helpless and the voiceless. With this type of moral argumentation and division, there simply cannot be a social solution to the debate. Even to argue for tolerance of the right to privacy can be attacked by anti-abortionists as justifying genocide. Thus, the nation will watch this debate in Texas from both sides of the issue, making it the battleground and attention-drawing spectacle that the legislation’s authors must have hoped to inspire popularly. Bibliography: Hamilton, Reeve. Texas Abortion Bill Tentatively Passes House. The Texas Tribune, 3/3/2011. Web. 11 April 2011. Hoppe, Christy. Texas Senate passes bill to require sonogram before abortion. Dallas News, 17 February 2011. Web. 11 April 2011. Read More