Pro-lifers
fight back ..... through legislation and
modern technology.
Texas
House votes to require women to see sonogram
image of unborn child before abortion
Matthew Cullinan Hoffman Wed
Mar 09 19:08 EST Abortion
AUSTIN,
March 9, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com)
- The Texas House has joined the Senate
to require women to see a sonogram image
of their unborn child before undergoing
an abortion, in a 107-42 vote held yesterday.
The
legislation would require women to receive
and view the image between 24 and 72
hours before an abortion, and listen
to the heartbeat as well.
Governor
Rick Perry, who fast-tracked the bill
by making it an “emergency item”
for the current legislative session,
warmly hailed its passage.
“I
commend the Texas House for passing
this legislation, which bolsters our
efforts to protect life by ensuring
Texans are fully informed when considering
such an important decision,” said
Perry in a press release. “The
decision to choose life becomes clear
when someone has access to all the information
and I look forward to this important
legislation reaching my desk very soon.”
While
the House version requires the sonogram
for all women seeking an abortion, the
Senate version makes an exception in
rape and incest cases. It also requires
only a two hour period between the sonogram
and the abortion. The main sponsor of
the Senate version says that although
he supports the stronger House version,
he believes it cannot pass in the more
liberal upper chamber.
If
one of the two bills is signed into
law, Texas will join 17 other states
with abortion sonogram legislation,
Reuters reports. The bill has failed
in two previous votes in 2007 and 2009,
but its prospects are better this year
with a stronger Republican legislative
majority.
Texas
already requires women seeking an abortion
to be made aware of information about
abortion alternatives (see the Texas
“Woman’s Right to Know”
informational
pamphlet here and abortion
alternatives resource directory here.
The
Abortion Advantage abortion centre,
for example, meets the legal requirement
by stating on its website http://www.abortionadvantage.com/abortion-laws.html,
“The state law does not require
that you view the materials- you have
the right to refuse the information.
It requires that we inform you of the
materials and how you may obtain them.”
If you choose to view the materials
you may do so by
CLICKING HERE: Texas Dept. of Health
- A Woman’s Right to Know Act
- HB15.
Minnesota
GOP leaders introduce fetal-pain abortion
ban despite veto threat
Peter Smith | Wed Mar 09 14:52 EST |
Abortion
ST.
PAUL, Minnesota, March 9, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com)
– Pro-life leaders have introduced
legislation in both chambers of the
Minnesota state legislature that would
ban abortion after 20 weeks gestation
on the basis that an unborn child feels
pain by that point.
Sen.
Gretchen Hoffman (R-Vergas) and Rep.
Mary Liz Holberg (R-Lakeville) each
introduced the Pain Capable Unborn Child
Protection Act in the state Senate and
House of Representatives. The bill is
premised on medical evidence that suggests
an unborn child is capable of experiencing
pain at 20 weeks since conception, if
not earlier.
“For
far too long, Minnesota’s abortionists
have been inflicting unconscionable
suffering on unborn babies by killing
them when they are already extraordinarily
developed and pain-sensitive,”
said Scott Fischbach, Executive Director
of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for
Life (MCCL). “It is illegal to
treat animals in such a brutal way;
this bill will finally protect unborn
children at 20 weeks and older from
the torturous pain of abortion.”
Modeled
on the fetal pain abortion ban enacted
in Nebraska, the proposed law requires
abortionists to perform tests and determine
the gestational age of an unborn child
before committing an abortion.
The
proposed Minnesota law only allows an
exception if an abortionist certifies
that continuing pregnancy carries a
serious risk of death or “substantial
and irreversible physical impairment
of a major bodily function.” The
law specifically excludes emotional
or psychological factors from being
considered.
The measure also specifies that an abortionist
ending a pregnancy after 20 weeks gestation
must actually try to deliver the unborn
baby in a way that gives the child the
best opportunity to survive outside
the womb. Only if delivery or other
methods to save the unborn child’s
life “pose a greater risk either
of the death of the pregnant woman or
of the substantial and irreversible
physical impairment of a major bodily
function” would abortion be permitted.
The
measure says abortionists who violate
the law may face both civil and criminal
penalties. Abortionists who intentionally
or recklessly violate the law would
face felony charges.
The
bills also provide for a legal defense
fund to which both the legislature and
private citizens may contribute.
However,
the bill is staunchly opposed by Democrat-Farmer-Labor
Gov. Mark Dayton, who has promised to
veto the legislation if it passes both
chambers of the GOP-controlled legislature.
“I
can assure you that nothing as extreme
that violates that basic fundamental
right - and it is a Constitutional right
as established by the United States
Supreme Court - will be enacted with
my signature,” said Dayton, according
to the Minnesota
Star-Tribune. “It will
not happen here in Minnesota.”
While
Republicans control the legislature,
the Star-Tribune reported that several
GOP sources say they are hoping pro-life
DFLers would give them the two-thirds
majorities in both chambers to override
Dayton’s veto.
"For
to me to live is Christ, and to die is
gain." (Phil 1:21)