The Abortion Debate

Texas, while one of the largest and most diverse states in the United States is also one of the most ideologically conservative. This is especially prevalent through traditional behaviors and the religious influence upheld in its legislature. These qualities can be seen in vast majority in the Senate Bill No. 6, or more popularly known as the “Bathroom Bill”. This newly proposed bill was brought forth for the first time in May of 2016 and has since turned people to anger and fear as it has been gaining momentum.

Texas has a long history of conflict with the federal government over laws and policies, particularly when dealing with environmental, social, and educational issues. Texas has conservative right-wing views and has been in conflict more often with the federal government since President Obama has been in office. The dilemma generally arises from a clash in opposing political and social views. One major issue that has arisen in over the course of the last two years has been a battle over funding for Planned Parenthood. Although the courts have deemed that this quarrel is not about abortion rights or access to abortion, the truth of the matter is that it really is. Texas leaders are against abortion and are trying to skirt federal law that allows abortion by imposing their personal agenda opposing abortion or anything that seemingly supports abortion on the Texas people. The problem is that in the midst of this chaos, low-income women of Texas are the ones who are suffering through the loss of basic and preventative healthcare.

The Affordable Care Act was a funded mandate issued by the federal government use funding to help persuade states in implementing the new healthcare reform. With almost half the country, including Texas, refusing to enact Obamacare, there is an obvious difference between what the states and the federal government want. The controversy surrounding Planned Parenthood and similar clinics is the ethical debate of abortion. Single-issue groups, interest groups that primarily focus on one specific issue like pro-life and pro-choice advocates relentlessly fight for their beliefs on the merits of abortion and seemingly, pro-life resonated with Texas policymakers. Policymaking starts in the interest of the people and their concerns which is translated to the state and local government through public interests and elections. The issue will be discussed for the state’s policy agenda whether to be pursued further. In this case, pulling funding from Planned Parenthood, which was introduced by the people and given to the attention local and state officials, will now be debated to be made an official state policy, which was successful in the favor of pro-life advocates. But by defunding Planned Parenthood, many low-income women no longer have access to effective birth control or other forms of healthcare. Krugman, in his opinion, insists that political participation of the people is the only way to prevent unfavorable state and local candidates to hold public office and therefore, prevent unfavorable legislation to be passed within state government that may negatively impact the state and its

Five years ago, we learned in Texas what can happen when efforts to defund Planned Parenthood are carried out. The network of health-care providers falls apart and women lose access to essential preventive services. Planned Parenthood is not something that, at first, was affecting Texas government. When Texas decided to focus on the fact that they preform abortions, basically, just ignoring the fact the government started by providing reproductive health care and still do. That’s when Planned Parenthood was forced to fight back, which started to affect Texas government because of their involvement. Years ago, Texas voluntarily gave up $30 million a year in federal funding for women’s health programs, just so it could exclude Planned Parenthood from the roster of approved

One of the issues that I feel most passionately is the right to abortion, which I consider not only a matter of individual liberty but a basic human right. The right to choose when to be pregnant and to give birth is an essential feature of democratic societies. Unfortunately, the state of Texas has made it extremely hard for Texas women to exercise this right by shutting down many of the state's abortion clinics. Poor and rural Texas women are among the least likely to have access to abortion services. Draconian anti-abortion laws, such as a law that requires women to pay burial expenses for aborted fetal tissue, impose an additional and obscene burden. As a representative, I would oppose any legislation that makes it more difficult for Texas

The Texas Senate Bill, commonly referred to as the Texas SB 5, can be described as a policy which was created on 11th June 2013in Texas articulating a list of intricate measures that add up and regulate abortion rules and regulations. The measures which were proclaimed by the enactment of this policy included a thorough ban on abortion given that abortion is at its 20 weeks post-fertilization and these measures was used to depict that the Texas state has a stringent compelling role and interest into the protection of all fetuses from excruciating pain. The Bill was successfully enacted into law after being pushed by Governor Rick Perry (Nicole 12).

Should abortion laws in the state of Texas be more strict? Every state has different steps

As well as supporting abortion, there is also an interest group, which is opposed Abortion. This group is called, "Naral Pro-Choice Texas" and their main duties is to create restrictions on abortion and expand access to abortion. Another group which supports my ideas regarding a much different, is the “Immigration Reform Coalition of Texas,” which support one hundred percent my policy of making all immigrants legal, if they have been here for more than five years and if they pay their taxes every year.

Abortion is a highly discussed issue nationwide, even among different ethnic groups as it tends to affect all. The initial abortion bill indicates that medical providers to provide abortion only at the facilities that are fully equipped to carry out the procedures. This is in fact protecting the right of the Texans women and also reducing the numbers of abortion facilities that are all over the state. This in part is also continuing in the culture that builds the foundations of the state of Texas. She could also use the issue of abortion as an excellent entry point to discuss women and healthcare. This controversial issue affects all Texans as a whole and therefore not

Overall, the best choice would be to reject the proposal. It would negatively impact not only the women and families of Texas, but also the rest of the United States if we put the law in place. The requirements it contains put an intentionally destructive strain on the people and system they affect. The only logical solutions are to either raise government funding to provide the capital behind the changes so clinics don’t close, or reject the changes entirely. Women deserve to have a

In Texas, according to Planned Parenthood (2017), for a woman who is under eighteen years of age, Texas “requires that one of your parents give permission for your abortion, and separately that one parent be told of your decision 48 hours before the abortion takes place. A judge from your county (or a neighboring county, if fewer than 10,000 people live in your county) can excuse you from both of these requirements.” This law has been shaped by both influencers. Republicans by how it is more restrictive than other states due to Texas being a republican state and republicans having a negative view on the subject. But it is also affected by Planned Parenthood by how it still allows a way for a woman under the age of eighteen to acquire an abortion legally and

On June 27th, 2016 The Supreme Court threw out a Texas abortion access law in a victory to supporters of abortion rights, Supreme Court ruled 5-3 that Texas anti-abortion law is unconstitutional. “The Supreme Court ruled in favor of abortion rights in a major case challenging an anti-abortion law passed in Texas. The majority opinion, written by Justice Breyer, struck down the legislation mandating clinics have admitting privileges with local hospitals and requiring they meet the same standards as surgical centers. Breyer wrote "We conclude that neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes,". He said that the restrictions placed "a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a provability abortion," amounted to an undue burden on abortion access," and were violations of the U.S. Constitution. He was joined by Justices Kennedy, Ruth Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. “The 5-3 decision was courts most far-reaching statement on abortion since planned Parenthood V. Casey in 1992, which reaffirmed the constitution right to abortion established in 1973 in Roe V. Wade (the right to safe and legal abortion) ”

On Wednesday, March Second, Pro-life and Pro-choice supporters showed up outside the Supreme Court to defend their side regarding the Texas legislature passed in 2013. This law, placed new regulations on the state's abortion clinics, however, since this addition eleven abortion clinics have closed their doors (Liptak). Texas representative’s argue that the law is meant to strengthen patient care after some shocking violations. While pro-choice groups argue the law has imposed an “undue burden” on women seeking these facilities. Despite the conflict, this event this event can be used to display the advantages and disadvantages of Federalism.

A bill that has been signed by Texas has been a focus of controversies. The abortion bill demands a list of health regulations that abortion clinics are required to adhere to. The demands are that abortion would be prohibited 20 weeks after fertilization, and also

In 2013, lawmakers in several states including Texas proposed provisions called TRAP (Target Regulation of Abortion Providers) provisions, restricting access to abortion. Many of these regulations have nothing to with health but instead are silly restrictions made so it can be difficult or impossible for a large number of legal health centers that provide abortion to stay open. This includes strict requirements for doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and to administer abortion-causing medication under federal protocols that are no longer widely used, to the size of the center’s parking lot size and grass size. Advocates on both sides say the case tests how far states can go to restrict abortion providers and impose hurdles upon women seeking abortions.