On January 17, 2019 Texas State Representative Tony Tinderholt filed a bill to abolish abortion in the state. HB896 is an, “Act relating to prohibiting abortion and protecting the rights of an unborn child,” and it in essence tells authorities to ignore federal mandates and to protect the preborn child with the force of law as a born child.
State Representative Tony Tinderholt
Texas is where the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision which forced unrestricted abortion on demand began.
Roe was a pseudonym for Jane Roe a/k/a/ Norma McCorvey and Wade was Henry Wade, a Dallas district attorney who defended the Texas law, leading, eventually, to the Supreme Court ruling: Roe v. Wade. The Roe V. Wade case and a companion case, Doe v. Bolton were heard by the Supreme Court at the same time. Plaintiffs in both cases, Norman McCorvey (Jane Roe) and Sandra Cano (Mary Doe) claim they were lied to, manipulated and deceived.
In 1969, Norma McCorvey became pregnant and after meeting pro-abortion attorney Sarah Weddington, on March 17, 1970 she signed the affidavit which catapulted Roe into being. The case was first filed in Dallas on behalf of plaintiff Jane Roe and all other women “who were or might become pregnant and want to consider all options.”
Texas abortion law challenge 1970
At the time, in Texas, abortions were prohibited except to save the pregnant woman’s life. But, on June 17, 1970 the three-judge federal panel struck down the Texas abortion statute.
The case was brought to the Supreme Court on the basis that Norma McCorvey, the Roe in the case was raped and needed an abortion. The fact is that she was never raped and never wanted an abortion. In fact, Norma later became pro-life and sought to overturn the infamous decision.
Doe v. Bolton, the companion case to Roe, opened the door for abortion on demand by allowing the “health of the mother” exception” to be defined however the doctor chose.
Sandra Cano was Doe in the Doe v Bolton Supreme Court abortion case
Testimony from Sandra Cano the Former Doe of Doe v. Bolton, before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Senate Judiciary Committee June 23, 2005 showed that, like the Roe case, she never wanted an abortion.
Roe v Wade was argued for the first time before the Supreme Court on December 13, 1971 but because of new appointments to the Court, the case was reargued a second time on October 11, 1972 before the full nine-man court in, conjunction with Doe v. Bolton.
Supreme Court at time Roe v Wade legalized abortion (Image credit: Oyez)
The cases were decided January 22, 1973.
In 1998, McCorvey told marchers at the March for Life, “I lied and I’m sorry, I’ve repented, I’ve asked Jesus into my heart…”
Norma McCorvey who was Jane Roe of Roe v Wade becomes pro-life
Neither McCorvey nor Cano lived to see abortion end.
ABOLISHING ABORTION IN TEXAS:
State Representative Tony Tinderholt
Texas state Representative Tony Tinderholt’s measure would amend the Texas penal code for the “Rights of a Living Child” to read, “A living human child, from the moment of fertilization on fusion of a human spermatozoon with a human ovum. The proposal states that the preborn child, “[I]s entitled to the same rights, powers, and privileges as are secured or granted by the laws of this state to any other human child.”
The proposed law would add to the Government code the following abortion enforcement, “The attorney general shall monitor this state’s enforcement of Chapters 19 and 22, Penal Code, in relation to abortion. The attorney general shall direct a state agency to enforce those laws, regardless of any contrary federal law, executive order, or court decision.”
The state’s local code would be amended to read that, “The governing body of a political subdivision of this state shall ensure that the political subdivision enforces Chapters 19 and 22, Penal Code, in relation to abortion, regardless of any contrary federal law, executive order, or court decision.”
It amends the penal code to apply even if the conduct [ the abortion] is “committed by the mother of the unborn child, the procedure performed by a physician or other licensed health care provider, including a procedure performed as part of an assisted reproduction as defined by 160.102, Family Code; or the dispensation of a drug.”
IGNORING ROE:
Rep. Tinderholt’s measure clarifies that all changes apply only to acts committed on or after the measure takes effect and it requires that the State Constitution would override the Supreme Court decision in Roe as well as any other federal mandate:
Any federal law, executive order, or court decision that purports to supersede, stay, or overrule this Act is in violation of the Texas Constitution and the United States Constitution and is therefore void. The State of Texas, a political subdivision of this state, and any agent of this state or a political subdivision of this state may, but is not required to, enter an appearance, special or otherwise, in any federal suit challenging this Act.
To monitor the bill’s status, go here.
The measure follows calls for Texas Governor Greg Abbott to keep his promise to abolish abortion in the state. That promise was made to sixteen year old Jeremiah Thomas who passed away last year from cancer. Thomas’s dying wish that Texas abolish abortion made headlines and Governor Abbott told the dying teen, “Your wish is on the Republican Party platform positions, and it’s what we’re going to be pursuing this next legislative session. And that is to outlaw abortion altogether in the State of Texas. And, so your wish is granted.”
Jeremiah’s parents, published an online petition to invite others to join Jeremiah’s wish by urging Governor Abbott to keep his promise by making abolishing abortion an emergency item for the State legislature.
Rep. Tinderholt was placed under protection following a 2017 attempt to criminalize abortions in the state, which resulted in several threats.
Measures to abolish abortion have also been proposed in Oklahoma. Senator Joseph Silk claims he was a “Typical pro-lifer,” until he “bumped into these crazy Abolitionists.”
Abolitionist and pro-life groups differ in whether incremental legislation is the correct strategy for abolishing abortion.
Senate Bill 13 (SB13), known as the Abolition of Abortion in Oklahoma Act, would equate abortion with homicide in Oklahoma, Sen. Silk claimed in the video below.
Shortly after the 1973 Supreme Court ruling on abortion, pro-lifers attempted to pass a complete ban on abortion via a Human Life Amendment. Those efforts were sadly defeated. Since that time, pro-life groups have worked to pass incremental legislation to protect the child in the womb. Those measures include the Heartbeat Bill, 20-week bans, parental consent requirements, an many others.
Abolitionists via their Free the States campaign are seeking to convince local governing authorities to “Ignore Roe” and protect the child in the womb.
Complete abolishment of abortion efforts come as pro-life measures like the Heartbeat bill which would outlaw abortion as early as six weeks, when the fetal heartbeat can be detected, are being proposed in several states. As the public demands tighter restrictions on abortion, pro-abortion forces are growing desperate and working to open the flood gates for home or mail order abortion pills. At the same time, new appointments to the Supreme Court are causing both sides to ask whether Roe will stand in coming months.
The humanity of the preborn child in the womb is impossible to deny. Today, ultrasound images, fetal monitors, sonograms and abortion victim imagery testify to the fact that the baby in the womb is a developing person which should be protected under the US Constitution as any other person. The analogy to other past dark times in history, such as slavery, when humans were not granted their God-given rights motivate pro-lifers and abolitionists alike.
Both want abortion abolished, both say their strategy is best, hanging in the balance is the preborn child.
Saynsumthn's Blog 