New Restrictions on Abortion in Texas : New law prohibits abortions after 20 weeks, increases regulation of doctors, clinics and abortion-inducing drugs

Texas abortion restrictions

The drama in Texas over abortion that drew national and international attention came to an end for the moment after the state House of Representatives then the state Senate voted to adopt tougher abortion regulations. Gov. Rick Perry signed the measure into law during a ceremony on July 17. The new law prohibits abortions in the 20th week of pregnancy, requires abortion clinics to be certified as surgical centers and increases regulations on doctors and abortion-inducing drugs.

Jeff Patterson, executive director of the Texas Catholic Conference, said the law protects life by requiring no termination of pregnancies after the first 20 weeks, and it improves standards for abortion facilities.

Advertisement

The conference is the statewide association of the Catholic dioceses in Texas and the public policy arm of the conference's board of directors—the bishops—that represents Catholic positions on issues before the Texas Legislature, the Texas delegation in Congress and state agencies.

"Twenty weeks is five months—that's late term and a point where babies can feel pain," Patterson said. "The higher standards for abortion clinics are in case there are complications or problems that occur when providing abortions."

The stricter regulations for doctors and the abortion-inducing drugs such as RU-486 are to ensure they follow Food and Drug Administration guidelines. "A lot of doctors don't follow the prescription guidelines," Patterson said. "It means two separate visits, but that's to make sure there are no problems."

The measure also requires that doctors performing abortions have hospital privileges within 30 miles of the facility in which the abortion is performed. "About 20 percent of the time there are complications," Patterson said. "In case there's a problem they can get the woman to a hospital to care for her."

According to the Texas Department of Health, there were five deaths out of 937,818 abortions performed between 2000 and 2011. The last time a woman died from an abortion complication was in 2008. For pro-life groups, the legislation is another incremental step in ending abortion. In 2011, Texas legislators passed a bill requiring a woman seeking an abortion to receive a sonogram from the doctor who is to perform the procedure at least 24 hours before the abortion.

This year's legislation garnered national and international attention during a filibuster by Democratic State Sen. Wendy Davis of Fort Worth June 26, the last day of the first special session, thus killing the proposed bill. Perry then called a second special session and added abortion to the agenda. The Texas Constitution calls for the Legislature to meet biennially in odd-numbered years for 140 days beginning the Tuesday after the first Monday in January. Under the Constitution, the governor can separately call special sessions on subjects of his choice that may last up to 30 days.

When anti-abortion legislation failed to gain traction during the regular session as lawmakers focused on the state budget and other matters, Perry decided to add abortion to his call for a special session that began hours after the regular session adjourned. After a series of delays allowed Davis to engage in a filibuster in the waning hours of the session, the measure died despite clear majority support. Perry called a second special session and again added the abortion legislation as an agenda item.

Marie Seale, director of the Diocese of Austin Office of Pro-Life Activities and Chaste Living, said the filibuster got the attention of pro-life supporters and brought them out to the Capitol in large numbers for the second special session. "People were wildly upset about what Wendy Davis did to legislation in the first special session," she said. "When pro-lifers saw the vote being taken from them, they riled up."

Seale said that pro-life supporters realized their presence was needed in large numbers and they were moved to take action. "It means being inconvenienced, packing lunches and getting at line early in the morning," she told the Catholic Spirit, newspaper of the Austin Diocese. "That's what really what Christian life is supposed to be: a call to action."

Although the church, the Texas Catholic Conference and other pro-life groups regularly ask people to make their presence known, this was a grass-roots effort to get as many pro-life supporters to the Capitol as possible. Laypeople got on Facebook and called on friends and other pro-life people they knew to show up dressed in blue at the Capitol. "I've never been so impressed," Seale said. "It's a grass-roots movement, but at the same time I've never seen the laity really answer the call. ... This is our faith in action. I'm in awe and praying it doesn't end."

The challenge is now to keep the momentum going and Seale said the events made her realize how much work her office has to do. "Many women came forth with post-abortion stories," she said. "They felt called to share how abortion affected them. That means Project Rachel has to grow. I'm hoping to pull people who are now on fire and get them involved." Project Rachel is a diocesan pro-life ministry for those who are suffering from the spiritual and emotional trauma of abortion.

Seale said the Gabriel Project, a diocesan ministry for women in crisis pregnancies, also will need to grow to meet the needs of the mothers and their babies. She said that many pro-life people who had not been politically active before now realize the challenge of getting legislation passed. The next legislative session is in 2015, and Patterson said pro-life groups want an end to judicial bypass, which allows girls under age 17 to forgo parental consent for abortions by getting approval from a district judge.

Pro-life groups also want expansion and funding of crisis pregnancy centers and an end to regulatory requirements that prevent the centers from providing options other than abortion, as well as social services that will allow a woman to keep her child.

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
Tim O'Leary
4 years 10 months ago
It was amazing how little the national media (except Fox News) reported what the bill would actually do. Planned Parenthood and the mainstream media kept talking about how many abortion clinics would be shut down, when all they have to do is provide better healthcare for the women (not the children), including having admission privileges to a hospital within 30 miles (in case there are health problems to the mother during the execution of the child). And banning most abortions after 20 weeks is far less restrictive than most European countries (they are banned after 12-14 weeks in France, Germany, Italy etc.). even the new Texas law has huge exceptions and so this is a very limited success. The Texas legislature has had several other prolife (meaning human rights) successes recently. They also require an ultrasound before the abortion, ban sex-selection abortions, and outlawed coercion of a mother to have an abortion. As usual, the Democrats are fighting these human rights laws at every step (although 4 crossed the aisle in the 20 weeks legislation).
john andrechak
4 years 10 months ago
ultra-sound mandate, you mean state mandated sexual assault, if these are trans-vaginal
john andrechak
4 years 10 months ago
Only a fool will believe that the same politicians who voted for this law wouldn't have there daughter off to NY State if she was pregnant, if not only from rape but if it meant she couldn't finish the cheerleader try-outs
Tim O'Leary
4 years 10 months ago
John - I guess you're saying that only a fool would not want to kill their grandchild? It is belied by the countless pro-life women who don't kill their children. I don't think you know any real pro-life people. What a warped view you have of humanity.
john andrechak
4 years 10 months ago
Tim, As you put it, you are guessing what I said. What I did say was that only a fool would believe that those who voted for this law would not avail their daughter to an abortion if she was raped, or the pregnancy would threaten her school, career, etc. If one was to find truly pro-life people it wouldn't be either within those Texas politicians who voted for this law but supported the Iraq War, work to deny health care for millions, resist efforts to reduce the threat to all humans from climate warming; there certainly no such thing as a pro-life Repub. The Party that embraces a Randian Socio-darwinism of every man for himself and nothing for women and children. Who believe that "there is no society" now that is warped BTW, do you think that Right WIng Fundamentalists like being in the same room as us Papists?
Tim O'Leary
4 years 10 months ago
So, the worst insult you can give the Texas lawmakers is that they are really pro-abortion, and not sufficiently pro-life. And you also think it an apt insult to say they believe too much in Darwin, like the Sociodarwinian Richard Dawkins. So much for fundamentalism. As to hating papists, the secular wing of the Democratic Party has inherited all the anti-Catholic juice that is left in this country.
john andrechak
4 years 10 months ago
not pro-abortion, just that they would avail themselves or their family to an abortion; no, not pro-abortion for other people; just like they are "pro-family values" except for the chance to have an affair with an aide (pro-family Senator Ensign Rep Gingrich) hire call girls(pro-family Vitter) as they are against welfare unless it is subsidies for their corporate farm It is not that this group is "not sufficiently pro-life" they aren't pro-life
Tim O'Leary
4 years 10 months ago
As if the Democrats were faithful in their private lives. Again, you are defending the outwardly pro-abortion by saying the Republicans don't live up to their stated principles. Great way to keep the abortion industry trucking along.
john andrechak
4 years 10 months ago
Tim, Please show anywhere in my posts that I defend the "outwardly pro-abortion". And the Republican stated principles. I am not accusing any of them of having principles. What I do find defining is their mouthing these "principles" for votes whiling living otherwise, be it talking "pro-life" while signing death sentences, or supporting pre-emptive war, or blocking any effort to reducing the deaths resulting from the lack of health care, or pro-family values while having affairs.
john andrechak
4 years 10 months ago
If "believing in Darwinism" means accepting "evolution" and the science that supports this understanding of our world, no i would never accuse US fundamentalists of such a thing. Their rejection to any science is established and in opposition to the Church's embrace of God's gift of the intellect. One of many reasons I am disgusted with the pandering of Catholics to these sects. Comparing Slavery, especially American slavery which stands out in history for its cruelty, in which a civil society condones and protects the selling and "owning" of fellow humans, to a civil society that has chosen to grant the right of privacy to women to include her right to chose to bear a child, is, well laughable. With this intellectual convulsions then one equates freeing slaves to forcing a woman to among other things bear a child from rape. As far as the US Pro-Life Movement being pro-life, lets do this test. Can anyone believe that if abortions were outlawed and nearly eliminated would these people and groups turn to doing so to the death penalty, or opposition to the military industry, or oppose a war similar to the Iraq Invasion? Or perhaps work for universal health care, or prevention of workplace fatalities through a robust government role? A good one, eh? What efforts are being made in these fields are vigorously opposed by both the politicians who claim they are pro-life and the "pro-lifers" who vote them into office.
Tim O'Leary
4 years 10 months ago
John - I agree that slavery was cruel and is a terrible blight on America's past. But, it was the Democratic party that defended slavery to the end, whereas the Republican party was founded specifically to rid the nation of slavery (by a coalition of abolitionists, Free Soilers & Whigs). Slavery does have a similarity to abortion, in that both involve denying human rights to a subset of our humanity, with cruel consequences and blatent contradictions of basic ideas of science and common reasoning (e.g. the black man was deemed inferior based on the pigment of his skin; the unborn child is deemed human if the mother says it is human, with the full force of the law, but also lower than an animal and suitable of surgical quartering if the mother so wished). So, the comparison is really no laughing matter. Have a look at the Gosnell case recently in the news if you still think this is trivial. Some people (Pelosi, Obama, Clinton, Cuomo...pick any ambitious politician seeking higher positions in the Democratic party presently) claim they don't know when the unborn becomes human, and use that doubt to permit its killing. Or, they are willing to state that humanity doesn't arrive until a fiat by the mother, or magically upon severing the umbilical cord. This is not science. It is ideology. Jesus had a warning about a millstone around one's neck being preferable to hurting one of these little ones, or leading them astray.
john andrechak
4 years 10 months ago
A little puzzled by your references of Republican and Democrat in your reply. As far as Democratic Party and slavery, how does that work in this context? What defended slavery was a planter class whose political arm was called the Democratic Party. Again with slavery, if the crusade to eliminate abortion is equal to the that of ending slavery-just writing that is a strain-then is penetrating a woman or forcing her bear a child from rape the same as freeing a slave? I would like to hear your thoughts on what the US pro-life movement would be if abortion was eliminated.
john andrechak
4 years 10 months ago
The effort by the Pro-Life Movement in the US to end abortions is only dwarfed by its massive mobilization against the unjust and unjustified invasion of Iraq, Who can forget the great majority of the US Bishops laying down in front of the Pentagon! I was truly moved by this display of moral consistency by the Bishops, who shown the nation and the world that the Church had as much opposition to "preemptive war" as its does to gay marriage! Shame, shame on the Bishops! Working these groups who are are against everything this Church stands for, and for the most part our from sects that are anti-Catholic! Do you think these people even like being in the same room with Catholics? More Pre-Natal Care?! How, with bake sales? These are the same people who supported Ron Paul's answer "leave him" to the question "what should be done to a person lying in the streets injured who doesn't have insurance! The people who supported the Iraq War, the people who cut food stamps, schooling funding, whose basic belief system of Randian Socio-Darwinism, "There is no such thing as society" lies in direct opposition to the Church teaching. But what should one expect from the Church's bishops? These are the same who stood literally next to Pinochet while a short distance away women were being raped by security forces. Same group that stood with Franco. With the Kings, ate with the royalty, were the royalty.
Tim O'Leary
4 years 10 months ago
John - you are all over the place, bringing in Iraq and gay marriage into a pro-life discussion. I suppose one has to find something else to rage about since the inhumanity of child killing is indefensible on its own merits. As to your opposition to ultrasound, it is so typical of the pro-abortion side to want to hide the reality of what is going on. And if an ultrasound is invasive, imagine how much more invasive the sharp weapons of the trade are that are used to destroy the living being in the womb. Abortion has become the central principle of the Democrats, just like slavery was in the 19th century.
john andrechak
4 years 10 months ago
Good work Tim, got in the Democrat/ Slavery one so quickly!! Actually it was the Conservative/ Business portion of the US that started slavery and fought to save it; at that time its political wing had the name Democrat. Let me guess what is next, I support Fascism? And you prove your truly an US pro-lifer by your puzzlement of bring in Iraq into a discussion of the "pro-life" you cannot see the the moral failure of anyone who claims to be pro-life but supported a war that took hundreds of thousands of lives. A war based on lies. A war judged unjust and unjustified by leaders of all religions and sects in the US except for those good old pro-life southern Baptists AS far as the sexual assault of a woman I just have to wonder how many of those flaccid old law makers to get even with women.
Tim O'Leary
4 years 10 months ago
John -you need to brush up on your civil war history and where the Whigs stood. When Judgment Day comes and each Democrat is asked why they supported the killing of millions of children in their own country, it might not be a sufficient defense to say you supported food stamps. Food and healthcare are not that useful if you're already dead.
john andrechak
4 years 10 months ago
Now Rick Perry, that is a pro-lifer. How many death sentences do you get to sign before you aren't a pro-lifer; the greatest argument against the US "Pro-Life Movement" is the US "Pro-Life Movement"
Tim O'Leary
4 years 10 months ago
John - do you know how many humans die by capital punishment in Texas each year and how many get capital punishment in the womb? The number is 15/80,000 for last year. I have no problem calling the Republicans to be even more pro- life than they are. Even with this modest new law, the Democrats will have their way and ensure a thousand-fold ratio of killing the innocent. Couldn't these good feminists even outlaw sex-selection abortions?
john andrechak
4 years 10 months ago
Tim, Thanks for the number! So 15 and your still in the pro-life circle! Is there a top, or is it a range? How about African AMericans executed? Doe the Pro-Life Movement in the US offer a discount, like our "Founding Fathers" did with slaves with the census?
Tim O'Leary
4 years 10 months ago
John - I don't know how absolute your idea of pro-life is, but maintaining the status quo by pointing to the imperfection of the opposition has been a successful tactic of Democrats since slavery days. Some thought it a good argument to keep people enslaved by claiming that slaveowners treated their slaves better than employers treated their workers. In any case, even government math should tell you that 80,000 executions is worse than 15. And supporting the execution of innocent children is certainly worse than the execution of convicted murderers.
Mr. Anderson
4 years 10 months ago
Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Let's look at Rick Perry and Cameron Todd Willingham. Todd Willingham was innocent. Rick Perry's own commission to look into the case was preparing the final edit of the report that declared him innocent and Rick Perry fired the commission before it could issue the final report and appointed a new commission of his buddies to get that poor man killed. Rick Perry is a ***** [deleted by blog editor] Murder is Murder. Whether it be an innocent child or a convicted murder. "And supporting the execution of innocent children is certainly worse than the execution of convicted murderers" No! and the fact that you are making a value judgment one over the other shows your hypocrisy and your moral relativism.
Tim O'Leary
4 years 10 months ago
Mr. Anderson - do you really believe that innocence has no bearing on the morality of killing at all? Even in self-defense (of a person or a society). Your post above suggests you do, because you think it important to argue for the innocence of Todd Willingham. Why is it worse to execute an innocent man if (your last paragraph) innocence doesn't matter. I don't know Rick Perry but your language is very extreme.
Mr. Anderson
4 years 10 months ago
You know, I refuse to follow you down your rabbit hole of absolutism in the validity of viewpoint. Most rational people start with the premise that I may be wrong on things, but I am open to being convinced. My point was holding up Texas as the model of virtue in general, and Rick Perry in particular, is disgusting and demonstrate the extreme lengths that the pro-life movement will go to justify their denial of God's greatest gift to humans, a gift he gave no other living thing on the planet: the Power of Choice (Life is not the greatest gift, because He gave that to everything). God loves us so much He gave us the power to reject Him. I have read your comments and it is my opinion that you, Mr. Leary, are similar to the Taliban, or at least the Sadducees or Pharisees in your absolutism. You are judgment without compassion, will without restraint, determination without compromise and faith without love. the Pro-life movement has sacrificed everything to outlaw abortion in this country to detriment of the other social justice issues and look where it has gotten us: Americans die younger and experience more injury and illness than people in other rich nations, despite spending almost twice as much per person on health care. see U.S. National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine. This is what the republicans have wrought since the inauguration of Reagan. I stopped reading America because I had to see your comments. They are maddening and, frankly, sad.
Tim Reidy
4 years 10 months ago

Mr. Anderson, your user account has been suspended because a) you did not use a full name and b) your use of uncharitable language.

john andrechak
4 years 10 months ago
mr. anderson, Your post is very in poinitng out embrace of moral relativism of the "pro-life" movement in the US. Mr. Leary in one of his replies to myself uses the simple math of this thinking when he notes 15 executions verses 18,000 abortions-not sure how he get that last number, by the way. Catholic Organizations bring (further) shame upon the Church by being in the same room as Rick Perry
Tim O'Leary
4 years 10 months ago
John - I can't believe you didn't check the number a couple of comments above before you wrote 18,000. You just lost 62,000 human beings executed by abortion each year. According to the very pro-abortion Guttmacher numbers of annual abortions by state, abortions have been in the 80 thousands for several years (see here http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0103.xls). Please don't be so cavalier with the number of abortions, as it suggests you don't care about them. As regards moral relativism, you and Neo don't seem to know what it means. It is not about preferring less deaths than more, but about the moral truth of things.
Jim McCrea
4 years 10 months ago
Your idea of "human beings executed by abortion" is simply an opinion not held by most people, i.e., those who have been born. Fetuses MAY be human, based on the stage of their development in the woman, but they are not people by any legal or rational definition of the word. A substantial portion of society (including many Catholics) simply does not view the fetus as being human, with some granting that status when the fetus can be force birthed prematurely and survive at that time.
Marie Rehbein
4 years 10 months ago
"For pro-life groups, the legislation is another incremental step in ending abortion." Pro-choice groups see it the same way. The problem with this legislation is that a fetus that modern medicine can identify as having no chance of surviving once it is born will not be able to be aborted so that the parents can try again sooner. Of course, the Catholic mother would see such a pregnancy through, but why should someone who has no religious reason for continuing such a pregnancy be required to continue it?
Tim O'Leary
4 years 10 months ago
Marie - the Texas legislation is more modest than you think as it (unfortunately) permits abortion beyond 20 weeks for fetal malformation. But, Catholics and others do not oppose the killing of the unborn solely for religious reasons, but for human rights reasons. Even atheists are capable of being against abortion, euthanasia and the death penalty.
Marie Rehbein
4 years 10 months ago
In the case of atheists who are against abortion, it is not currently the case that anyone is required to have an abortion, and preventing people from following their consciences is also an infringement of their human rights.
Tim O'Leary
4 years 10 months ago
Marie - there is a hierarchy of human rights, and one cannot advance one's freedom by taking the life of another human being, just as one cannot be permitted to enslave another even if one's conscience thinks it is for the best. So, it really comes down to the humanity question. And this is not primarily a religious question. As to laws forcing people to have abortions, we thankfully do not have that yet (outside China), although there are strong societal pressures in many societies that contribute to the killing of children with Down syndrome (>90% now are killed before birth) or even girls (over 120 million abortions in Asia for being female - the ultimate feminist irony) and I strongly doubt that these decisions are being freely made by the mothers.
Tim O'Leary
4 years 10 months ago
To Jim, John and others below. This argument that the unborn is "less-than-human" is a recent phenomenon. The AMA in the early 20th century, and the suffragettes, and all Christian denominations, were adamantly opposed to abortion from conception once modern science made plain the humanity of the unborn from conception. No new science changed that opinion. What changed was the loss of understanding of human dignity as something inherent in the individual. Human dignity became connected to functional capacity (their degree of development, or capacity for thought, pain, etc). That led to a license to discard them, use them, get them out of the way. The worst this reached were the eugenics movements of the early century (Margaret Sanger of Planned Parenthood was a vocal exponent of this) and the abortion rights movements that started in Nazi (for what they called "undesirables") and atheistic Communist countries, China (1-child policy) and with the feminist movement ("unwanted" child) in the West. No science has justified this shift, but an ideology that has lost the sense of inclusiveness when it comes to human dignity. Each person must ask themselves what reason tells us about our own unborn past. Were you a human when you were conceived, or were you an animal for a few months from conception until you reached a certain development stage (it is either human or animal). And toward the end of your life, as your mental faculties deteriorate, will you again enter a period where you lose your humanity. It is only such beliefs (against all scientific or philosophical or Catholic understanding) that could justify the loss of human rights. And, if you are not sure, then do not kill. Do not risk committing a murder of an innocent person. Do not aid another person to do it either, by money or vote. The position I argue for is that every conceived human being is a child of God, with full human dignity, a person who will outlast the Universe. We have no right to kill them for our own pleasure or advantage. I want the people and the government to recover this understanding.
john andrechak
4 years 10 months ago
A couple of points, I have neither argued that the fetus is not human, and I have never mentioned either Political Party in my responses. So for the later, I am always surprised your lines about the Democratic Party verses the GOP. Of course your statements about eh Democratic Party really don't ho;ld water, but I don't see the discussion about the Texas "Pro-Life Movement have anything to do with parties. Again as far as your comparison of anti-abortion efforts to that of freeing slaves, I ask again, does that make assaulting a woman with a medical device the same as freeing a slave?
Tim O'Leary
4 years 10 months ago
I don't quite get your question regarding assaulting a women with a medical device. Do you mean the suction devices used to extract a living being from her womb, which I am certainly against. If you mean an ultrasound, well there are plenty of imaging techniques that the woman could opt for. I would support alternative ways for the woman to be informed if she had strong objections to an ultrasound, such as watching an ultrasound of another woman contemplating an abortion, assuming consent. Certainly less invasive than any cutting device. So, I would say that an ultrasound is certainly worth saving a human being, if it might change the women's mind. And, for anybody who considers themselves pro-choice, why would they not want every women to be fully informed. Surely, they are interested in a fully informed choice, and do not just want a dead baby. Or, maybe they do just want that, especially if they have eugenics or population-control motives for poor women. To have women informed even more, I would have them see a video of one of the girls who survived abortion attempts on their lives? Here are three examples. Melissa Ohden, Claire Culwell or Gianna Jessen’s story. Here is a link.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5PlZzpfHQI&feature=related Do you think the Democrats would be willing to support a law that would have Melissa's video shown in the waiting rooms of all Planned Parenthood abortuaries?
john andrechak
4 years 9 months ago
Very what, gracious, or what, manly of you to allow a woman to choose not to be violated against her will be an ultrasound probe; Again, very good of you for saying forcing a woman to be violated, assaulted by a medical device is worth it; "to have women informed even more" you would have them.." Who needs Sharia Law with the likes of you Mr. O'Leary The best argument against the US Pro-Life Movement is the US Pro-Life Movement From you to the Bishops to the Fundamentalists to the Perrys. Santorums, etc
john andrechak
4 years 10 months ago
This story does as good any any to show that the Pro-Life Movement in the US is actually just anti-abortion. Because even if one concedes the moral urgency of preventing abortion, why does that stop this group of good old Texans from using the "coalition from campaigning to end capital punishment, expand health care, oppose pre-emptive wars? What is stopping them? Well, most of them love pre-emptive wars, capital punishment and care less about the millions without health insurance, the thousands that will die each year from lack of it. And of course the US Bishops have more then ceded the moral ground of Pro-Life by their deafening silence when this nation invaded Iraq. Just look the priority of the pro-lifers expressed by Ms. Seale; stopping teenagers from forgoing parental consent.
Tim O'Leary
4 years 10 months ago
John - the reason anti-abortion is the highest priority in the pro-life teaching of the Church is because of the sheer number of innocent victims of abortion compared to the other things you want to include under a pro-life agenda. I am in favor of alternatives to capital punishment in keeping society safe that still results in justice to the victims of murderers. I am in favor of expanding health care that works and certainly against unjust war. The Bishops have spoken out against all these things. But coalitions need to focus. When the abolitionists went up against slavery, one could have said they should have expanded their interests to indentured servants and treatment of Indians etc. Fine. But the key then was slavery and the key now is abortion. Over a million victims a year in the Land of the Free. And from a political point of view, to make anything happen, we need to pick the most anti-abortion party existing today or start a new one. The one thing that will never help the little ones is the Democratic Party. This should be clear as day to anyone observing the current political landscape.
john andrechak
4 years 10 months ago
THe bishops have spent more effort against gay marriage-1 million dollars by the Maine Diocese alone- then they even thought of against the Iraq War, Capital Punishment, etc. IIf they are willing to fight gay marriage to that extent, your argument about prioritize falls flat. Again, as you continue to bring up slavery, which I image most of those fundamentalist Texans don't think was too bad. is the effort to free a slave the same as forcing a woman to be assaulted by a medical device? And I must say while one can argue that life begins at conception, go ahead, but calling this stage of life the "little ones?" Please All you seem to be doing is making excuses for someone to vote Repub
Tim O'Leary
4 years 10 months ago
The Bishops think the Gay assault on marriage is important to the whole society, and that it will further endanger the souls of children as well as the gays themselves. But, typical of a Democrat to distract from the issue under discussion, the killing of the unborn. Remember when Democrats used to say they looked out for the littly guys. Then along came abortion. Maybe, you could help the discussion along by saying when you think the government should protect an unborn child, and what species the little ones are (human, animal, vegetable, mineral???) as all your arguments seem to focus on complaining others are not doing enough about other things.
john andrechak
4 years 10 months ago
if gay marriage is an assault on all of society, what is an unjust and unjustified war? To say that gay marriage is more of a threat then war is a joke, simply a joke and proves what a moral failure we are dealing with in the US Bishops
Tim O'Leary
4 years 10 months ago
You're trying to avoid the prolife question, John. When do you think the government should protect an unborn child, and what species are the little ones (human, animal, vegetable, mineral???). I'm beginning to think you might be "pro-choice", but please clarify. It would certainly explain a lot.
john andrechak
4 years 10 months ago
actually defining it; you cannot be pro-life by just opposing abortion; you cannot justify working with anti-abortion groups that support capital punishment, pre-emptive wars, trying to prevent health care expansion; and please lets not get the Repub or Dems, I never mentioned them; and the slavery, please that is so weak; and while life may begin with conception, the "little ones" though I do know that the anit-abortion groups do end their concern AT birth
Tim O'Leary
4 years 10 months ago
John - most anti-abortion people I know support organizations that help pregnant women through their pregnancy and beyond, including adoption services, foster care and beyond. Birthright is one of my favorites. There is also Amazing Grace Adoptions and Orphan Care (and Foster care). Many people you deride as fundamentalists work in these agencies, alongside papists. Then there are the many specifically Catholic adoption agencies, such as Catholic Charities in most dioceses. But I'm sure you know about them, and maybe even support them. By the way, 12 million Africans were transported to the Americas in the 3 centuries of the Atlantic Slave Trade from 1500-1800 and 4% of these were brought to the lands of modern day USA (~1/2 million). By comparison, in the 40 years since Roe v. Wade, there have been 16 million abortions in the USA of African-Americans (36% of all abortions). Do you really think the Democrats are looking out for them? Do you believe you can be pro-abortion and pro-life? Where do you stand on the human rights of the unborn? When do they deserve to have human rights?
john andrechak
4 years 10 months ago
again Tim, I have never mentioned any national political party in any of my posts; as far as protecting the little ones, the Bishops didn't seem to worry about that did they? Or was the Church Sex Scandal a commie plot?
Tim O'Leary
4 years 10 months ago
This is getting hilarious. Now you throw some calumny at the Bishops on the fly. You bring up everything possible to avoid answering my straightforward question on abortion. Me thinks thou dost distract too much. If you want to see how some college kids think about the issue, see this petition about legalizing fourth trimester abortions http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4872 (Peter Singer of Princeton would probably go for this).
john andrechak
4 years 10 months ago
"gay assault on marriage" now that is a joke
Stanley Kopacz
4 years 10 months ago
What perplexes me is why, in this age of multiple birth control technologies, unwanted pregnancies occur in these numbers. Isn't having unmarried sex with birth control a lesser evil than abortion? Why don't these women do what they have to do to prevent what they don't want? Lack of sex education? Fear of parents? Carelessness of youth?
Marie Rehbein
4 years 10 months ago
The reasons seem to be lack of education and access to birth control (due to cost?). The Guttmacher Institute tracks statistics pertaining to abortion. Their website gives the following information: 1. In 2008, there were 6.4 million pregnancies to the 62 million women of reproductive age (15–44) in the United States. Sixty-six percent of these pregnancies resulted in live births and 19% in induced abortions. 2. As of 2006, poor women with family incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level have rates five times the rate [for unintended pregnancy] of higher income women and two to three times the national rate. 3. Unintended pregnancy rates are generally highest in the South and Southwest, and in states with large urban populations. 4. Forty-two percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level ($10,830 for a single woman with no children; $22,050 for a family of four). Twenty-seven percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes between 100–199% of the federal poverty level. I calculate that this last fact means that 69% of abortions are the result of poor people dealing with reality when faced with it instead of spending their limited funds on preventing one of many things that could go wrong in their lives. Isn't that basically what one does when one doesn't have money?
Stanley Kopacz
4 years 10 months ago
Thanks for the information especially since I'm too lazy to look it up myself. I'm more into debating climate change. It puts things in perspective. The increasing impoverishment of America will certainly contribute to abortion levels. Universal health care including contraceptives would probably reduce them. But since this is considered socialist giveaway by some, it won't happen soon.
Marie Rehbein
4 years 10 months ago
On top of making contraceptives free, they have to become widely available and not something that a moralistic pharmacist gets to prevent people from getting because of a misinformed belief that the product causes abortions or the belief that preventing implantation equates to abortion. The north pole now has a lake of melted water in it, and people keep thinking that it's not worth changing our way of life to try to have some effect on the global temperature. If you can't make money off of something, it's apparently not worth pursuing.

Advertisement

Don't miss the best from America

Sign up for our Newsletter to get the Jesuit perspective on news, faith and culture.

The latest from america

The Holy Spirit might be the forgotten person of the Holy Trinity.
James Martin, S.J.May 21, 2018
Pope Francis walks past cardinals as he leaves a consistory in St. Peter's Basilica at the Vatican June 28, 2017. (CNS photo/Paul Haring)
Pope Francis is trying to ensure that those who elect his successor are humble men committed to “a church of the poor and for the poor.”
Gerard O’ConnellMay 21, 2018
James Martin, S.J. discusses this groundbreaking exhibition with Andrew Bolton, Curator in Charge of The Costume Institute and C. Griffith Mann, Michel David-Weill Curator in Charge of the Department of Medieval Art and The Cloisters, The Metropolitan Museum of Art. 
America StaffMay 21, 2018
Archbishop Matteo Zuppi (Photo/Community of Sant'Egidio website)
Archbishop Matteo Zuppi of Bologna calls Father James Martin’s book ‘Building a Bridge’ ‘useful for encouraging dialogue, as well as reciprocal knowledge and understanding.’
Matteo ZuppiMay 21, 2018