unborn-human-fetus

Texas pro-life omnibus bill must pass before midnight

Texas has championed many pro-life measures which protect pre-born children and their mothers from the predatory abortion business. Texas’s pro-life legislative accomplishments include parental notification, informed consent, mandatory sonograms, a 24-hour waiting period, and the Prenatal Protection Act (which recognizes the pre-born as victims when their pregnant mothers are killed), among others.

In a monumental piece of legislation, introduced in Texas’s overtime special session, Senate Bill 5, the pro-life omnibus bill, would ban abortion after 20 weeks (when science shows that the unborn can feel pain). In addition, it includes commonsense, humane measures such as a requirement that abortion clinics follow the same health and safety regulations that ambulatory surgical centers are held to, a requirement that doctors secure admitting privileges at local hospitals (as a precaution against the common medical emergencies that ensue after botched abortions), and a requirement that doctors to personally administer medicated abortions (rather than dangerously sending a woman home with their child’s death sentence in pill form).

According to Texas Right to Life – and to the dismay of pro-abortion groups in Texas – because of its stringent measures regulating abortion, the passage of SB5 would mean the closure of the majority of Texas abortion mills. A huge flurry of pro-abortion zealots broke every House rule during an frenzied protest to these life-saving measures. The mob had to be escorted by police when they refused to respect House rules during their “citizen filibuster.” These opponents, who reject the possibility of protecting 10,000 of Texas’s smallest residents every year as a result of SB5 passing, are supported by pro-abortion groups such as Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice Texas, who back the threat of pro-abortion politician Wendy Davis to filibuster the bill to death.

SB5 has fewer than ten hours to pass, so if you’re a Texan, follow this link to contact your legislator about stopping the filibuster. As Live Action President Lila Rose often suggests, for those who cannot help on a local level, please contribute your prayers for the success of this pro-life measure in Texas.

  • johno

    Ending the Gosnells of the world would be good for Texas.

  • Basset_Hound

    It seriously makes me want to puke out a lung seeing the talking gerbils on our local NBC affiliate babbling on like Wendy Davis is some kind of folk hero. Even worse are the idiots jumping on Facebook to defend her publicity stunt.

  • Bob

    Maybe instead of targeting the symptom of a problem the legislature could consider real sex education that acknowledges that people will have sex. Teaching proper use of birth control would prevent most unwanted pregnancies. Parents, mentors and peers can do the job of teaching morality and should do so; but the state should defer to law, and roe vs wade has settled the law. Abortions should be safe, affordable, and rare. The law being filibustered is under a false pretense of making abortion safer. But by adding unnecessary and costly precautions to an already highly regulated field without subsidizing its implementation, the law is merely an attempt to block as many abortions as possible that law doesn’t allow to be explicitly banned. But you want that. You do not care that the law does nothing to address the demand for abortion (which Texas has one of the largest teen pregnancy rates in the US) which means that services will have to be provided through black markets. Unsafe. Expensive. Prohibition led to bad moonshine poisoning many people who were unable to access regulated legal alcohol. I wrote more than I intended but this senator did the right thing even if, in the long run, this law is inevitable. Thank you if you read this argument thoroughly and completely before any reply.

    • Rebekah

      “Maybe instead of targeting the symptom of a problem the legislature could consider real sex education that acknowledges that people will have sex. Teaching proper use of birth control would prevent most unwanted pregnancies.” This argument is saying that people have no ability to control themselves, which is simply not true. Abstinence, not birth control, prevents pregnancy out of wedlock. Abstinence, not birth control, acts as though people have the ability to control their bodies and act in a responsible manner that not only prevents pregnancy out of wedlock, but STD’s as well.

      “Parents, mentors and peers can do the job of teaching morality and should do so; but the state should defer to law, and roe vs wade has settled the law.” So you are saying that if there is an immoral law, concerned citizens should sit back and follow it and not try to change it? Such reasoning, if our founding fathers had held to it, would have led them not to rebel against England, and there would be no United States today. Such reasoning, if abolitionists had held to it, would have led them to give up runaway slaves to their masters during the time before the Civil War.

      “Abortions should be safe, affordable, and rare.” The murder of a child is never safe. Murder should never be affordable. I am glad that you acknowledge that murder of a child should be rare, however, I do not understand why you think it should be legal at all.

      “But by adding unnecessary and costly precautions to an already highly regulated field without subsidizing its implementation, the law is merely an attempt to block as many abortions as possible that law doesn’t allow to be explicitly banned. But you want that.” Yes, I want abortion to be illegal. Why? It’s murder. No argument of convenience, no argument that this pregnancy is unwanted changes that.

      “You do not care that the law does nothing to address the demand for abortion (which Texas has one of the largest teen pregnancy rates in the US) which means that services will have to be provided through black markets. Unsafe. Expensive. Prohibition led to bad moonshine poisoning many people who were unable to access regulated legal alcohol.” Why are you putting murder of a child in the same category as prohibition? One act, killing a child, is immoral. Drinking alcohol, in and of itself and in moderation, is not. Does alcohol sometimes lead to terrible consequences for those who practice it? Yes. That’s what led the founding fathers to try to ban it. Murder, on the other hand, has always been illegal. Does that mean it doesn’t happen? No. But just because something happens even though it is illegal does not mean that we should legalize it in an attempt to make it safer. Think about how this argument sounds if you use it for rape, murder, or theft.

      I apologize for such a lengthy reply.