Austin, TX (LifeNews.com) -- A Texas lawmaker has filed legislation in the state Senate that would make abortion illegal should the Supreme Court overturn its Roe v. Wade decision allowing unlimited abortions. The measure, known as a trigger law, would go into effect once the landmark case is reversed.
Sen. Dan Patrick, a Houston Republican, is behind the bill, which is similar to proposals lawmakers have put forward in Virginia, Oklahoma and Utah.
"Many of us on the pro-life side and even those on the pro-choice side believe it is a matter of time before Roe vs. Wade is overturned," Patrick told the Dallas Morning News.
"I want to have a law on the books in Texas that clearly says if Roe vs. Wade is overturned, there will be no abortions in Texas," he added.
(...)
Patrick said there is some dispute about whether the Texas law would be able to be enforced if Roe is overturned and he wants to make sure abortions are prohibited should the nation's high court reverse itself.
"Without a trigger bill, there would be a fight over whether we are a pro-life or a pro-choice state," he told the Dallas newspaper. "Some might view us as a pro-choice state because we have laws for parental notification and parental consent where if you get a parent's approval, you can have an abortion."
However, abortion advocacy groups will likely strenuously oppose the legislation and the Texas affiliate of NARAL has indicated it would oppose it.
NARAL has a good chance of blocking the bill in the Senate because the chamber has a rule requiring a two-thirds vote before a bill can come up for a debate.
(...)
"Our approach to include a post-Roe activation clause, sometimes called a trigger clause, enabled the legislators to speak their hearts without abortion industry lawyer's breathing down their backs," Bordlee explained.
source.
Hm, a "pro-life or pro-choice" state.
This reminds me of the rhetoric of the ante-bellum period in the US: pro-slavery or anti-slavery.
I am happy that this law is being filed, but there needs to be more done.
When slavery was abolished in the US, it was done in the name of acknowledging the humanity of the Black man.
But because the Black man was not considered a legal equal-- the Dred Scott decision was still the law of the land-- the Southern States were able to pass discriminatory laws against Blacks. Blacks were citizens in name only.
What there needs to be is the recognition of the equality of the unborn child. Right now, we have a version of Dred Scott. The Court has basically said that unborn children do not have any rights, period. The State can choose to protect some of them, especially later in a pregnancy, but other than that, they do not have rights.
This goes beyond the "abortion issue", just as the issue of civil rights for Blacks goes beyond slavery. We have to have a whole new conception of who the fetus is, not just a conception of abortion being wrong. An abortion law can easily be overturned. Citizenship is a bit more difficult to revoke.
