More than Women’s Health: Responsibility and Consequences in the Abortion Debate

Texas State Capitol at dusk.

On Monday afternoon, I boarded a bus at my church and traveled to the state capitol building in Austin, Texas to attend the Stand4Life rally. Texas has been in the spotlight recently for the pro-life legislation that has been making its way through the state legislature. The proposed bill would ban abortion after 20 weeks of gestation, require abortion clinics to meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centers, and ensure that doctors providing abortions had admission rights at a hospital within 30 miles.

Abortion-rights advocates have fought hard to keep the bill from passing, but it seems imminent that the bill will be signed into law in the coming weeks. Why would opponents of the bill work so hard to prevent the regulation proposed in the legislation? There are two main ideas that drive their thinking—choice without responsibility and sex without consequences.

Read the rest of my article here.

*I have the privilege of being a contributor to the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’s Public Square Channel. I will be writing articles for them periodically and linking back to their page from here. Find out more about CBMW at www.cbmw.org.

6 comments

  1. Or, it may be that this bill will kill women. We can debate which death is more consequential, I suppose — but it will kill women.

    They should have the right to choose their own life.

    1. Ed, before we start this all over again, let me ask you to provide proof for any subsequent comments. Document your facts. This accusation is unfounded. Show me IN THE BILL where it kills women. I’m afraid you will be unable to do so.

      1. Your denial that the intent of the bill is to close down the clinics that save women’s lives is, to me, disingenuous.

        The bill’s intent to close down clinics was clearly stated by Lt. Gov. Dewhurst.

        The provisions that close the clinics are those that require them to come up to surgical center standards. By the way, birth centers are not required to do that — which may be part of the reason that a woman in Texas is 42 times more likely to die in childbirth, than were she to have an abortion. (Texas has a lousy record of protecting women in childbirth, too — but since so many more die that way, don’t you think it’s odd that the legislature focuses on the safe procedures, and not the less safe ones?)

        So your question cannot be answered to your satisfaction, I fear.

        So, we’d have to start this all over again, until you get to the point of recognizing the intent of the bill, and what the bill does, despite your claim that it’s not in the bill. It’s there, in the action, more than our Constitution contains “democracy” (no mention), or “political party” or “freedom.” The specific word is not there; the intent, and the action, is.

        1. Ed, you said the bill will kill women. In fact, you said it twice. I asked for proof from the bill. It’s not there.

          As for intent, it is intended to close abortion clinics unwilling to meet the standards. Those abortion clinics kill unborn children. Thus, the bill has an intent to protect the lives of unborn children. Can you see that intent?

          I’m all for raising the standards for birth centers as well. Sounds like you might be too.

          However, to say “this bill kills women” as you did is untrue.

          1. When women are denied cancer diagnostic services, they die.

            Is this why you favor the bill, that you don’t see any connection between the delivery of health care, and health?

            And how dare you try to contradict our Lt. Gov.! I’ll take his word over yours — and you should, too.

            If your for raising standards of birth centers, why have you been silent on the matter now? Why did you support the effort to shut down safe parenting clinics, instead?

            To say this bill does not kill women is to blind one’s self to the facts.

            Here’s what happens when abortions past 20 weeks are not legal: Women die from septic shock, who could easily have been saved

            Of course, you’ll claim that the law allows this woman to be saved in Texas.

            Really? In what clinic?

          2. Ed, last comment of the night from me. Your anger is showing and it’s not healthy.

            Clinics that do not meet surgical center standards can still perform cancer screenings as long as they don’t perform abortions. We have been down this road before. Women’s health clinics do not have to close. The clinics can simply stop performing abortions and remain open.

            Don’t put words in my mouth or intentions in my heart.

            I pray you have a good night. I’m going on vacation in the morning and will not be updating this blog for a week.

Comments are closed.