Roe v Wade is on deck

[Toni]

The quote from Seago tells it all: He sees nothing wrong with forcing a woman to risk sepsis, permanent sterility, and even death rather than more quickly terminating a pregnancy that cannot result in a viable baby.

The idea of a baby is so much more palatable for some than the idea that a woman can obtain appropriate medical treatment in a medical emergency or simply because she finds herself unwilling to continue a pregnancy for whatever reasons she finds legitimate.

It's a feature, not a bug.

Yeah, I've met a few before.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

For Anna, there would have been little to no time to get an abortion in Texas by the time she discovered her pregnancy. She and Scott were open to having a baby, even if a bit sooner than they might have planned, so they moved up their wedding plans to December.

When their wedding day arrived, Anna was 19 weeks pregnant. And she was in her wedding dress, getting makeup done with her bridesmaids, when she noticed something was wrong.

"It felt like something was coming out of me. So I freaked out. I literally wet my dress in the seat that I was in," she says.

Anna had to race against time
Anna's water had broken too early for the baby to survive. She and Scott spent the night of their wedding in the emergency room, trying to take in the heartbreaking news.

"Basically, the doctor looked at me and was like, well, the baby's underdeveloped," says Anna. "Even with the best NICU care in the world, they're not going to survive."

And as painful as it was to hear that, the doctors told Anna there was another urgent concern.

" 'You're at a high chance of going septic or bleeding out,' " she says the doctors told her — a risk of infection or hemorrhage, which could become deadly. " 'And unfortunately, we recommend termination, but we cannot provide you one here in Texas because of this law.' "

[...]

"A physician who made that determination in the moment would be doing so knowing that if someone second-guessed their judgment, [anyone] could file a lawsuit saying that you violated SB 8," she says.

In the emergency room on their wedding night, Anna and Scott say the doctors appeared nervous and concerned but could do little to help them.

"I remember being like, what, why can't you just do this?" says Anna. "They couldn't even say the word 'abortion.' I could see the fear in these doctors' eyes that they were just so scared to even talk about it."

"They were typing stuff out on their phones and showing it to us," adds Scott, saying that the doctors were afraid to even be overheard helping them plan an abortion.

The next day, Anna's OB-GYN needed a plan to get Anna to a place where she could get the procedure as quickly as possible. They ruled out some nearby states, including Oklahoma and Arkansas, with mandatory waiting periods as long as three days.

"So there's two options," says Scott. "There's New Mexico and there's Colorado. Would we rather have her go into labor on a plane or, like, out by Midland in a car?"

"And I said absolutely not," says Anna's doctor, who spoke with NPR on the condition of anonymity over fears of facing lawsuits. "Because West Texas is at least eight or nine hours of desert. Sometimes you have hours with no cellphone reception, no gas station ... in the middle of a medical crisis. So I requested she at least take a flight. And make it a direct flight if possible."

But Anna says that plan came with its own set of risks. There's a lump in her throat as she talks about what could have happened on the plane.

"I had to come up with a game plan with my OB in case I went into labor on the flight. And I made sure that I bought us front-row seats so I could be close to the bathroom in case it happened. And I'm like, no one should ever have to do that."

But even through tears, Anna says she knows she was lucky to have several thousand dollars in savings to cover the cost — and to get an appointment in Colorado at all.

A quote from the article by an anti-abortion activist.

"Yeah, I mean it's, it's absolutely horrific," says John Seago. He's the legislative director with Texas Right to Life, which helped push SB 8 through the state legislature last year. He says even though he feels for Anna and for Palmer's patient, the law's supporters believe that abortion is an "act of injustice," no matter what.

"Even in the worst circumstances, another act of violence on an innocent victim is not the best solution that we have," he says.

Seago says when it comes to medical emergencies, medical associations should do more to help doctors understand what's allowed under the law.

"It seems politically advantageous for some of these groups that oppose the bill, and oppose all pro-life legislation, to just say this is unreasonable," he says.

Yes, I read that article. Thanks for posting it here--I had forgotten where it was that I read it.

The quote from Seago tells it all: He sees nothing wrong with forcing a woman to risk sepsis, permanent sterility, and even death rather than more quickly terminating a pregnancy that cannot result in a viable baby.

The idea of a baby is so much more palatable for some than the idea that a woman can obtain appropriate medical treatment in a medical emergency or simply because she finds herself unwilling to continue a pregnancy for whatever reasons she finds legitimate.

Baby? When did Pro-life become about a baby?

 

[Toni]

For Anna, there would have been little to no time to get an abortion in Texas by the time she discovered her pregnancy. She and Scott were open to having a baby, even if a bit sooner than they might have planned, so they moved up their wedding plans to December.

When their wedding day arrived, Anna was 19 weeks pregnant. And she was in her wedding dress, getting makeup done with her bridesmaids, when she noticed something was wrong.

"It felt like something was coming out of me. So I freaked out. I literally wet my dress in the seat that I was in," she says.

Anna had to race against time
Anna's water had broken too early for the baby to survive. She and Scott spent the night of their wedding in the emergency room, trying to take in the heartbreaking news.

"Basically, the doctor looked at me and was like, well, the baby's underdeveloped," says Anna. "Even with the best NICU care in the world, they're not going to survive."

And as painful as it was to hear that, the doctors told Anna there was another urgent concern.

" 'You're at a high chance of going septic or bleeding out,' " she says the doctors told her — a risk of infection or hemorrhage, which could become deadly. " 'And unfortunately, we recommend termination, but we cannot provide you one here in Texas because of this law.' "

[...]

"A physician who made that determination in the moment would be doing so knowing that if someone second-guessed their judgment, [anyone] could file a lawsuit saying that you violated SB 8," she says.

In the emergency room on their wedding night, Anna and Scott say the doctors appeared nervous and concerned but could do little to help them.

"I remember being like, what, why can't you just do this?" says Anna. "They couldn't even say the word 'abortion.' I could see the fear in these doctors' eyes that they were just so scared to even talk about it."

"They were typing stuff out on their phones and showing it to us," adds Scott, saying that the doctors were afraid to even be overheard helping them plan an abortion.

The next day, Anna's OB-GYN needed a plan to get Anna to a place where she could get the procedure as quickly as possible. They ruled out some nearby states, including Oklahoma and Arkansas, with mandatory waiting periods as long as three days.

"So there's two options," says Scott. "There's New Mexico and there's Colorado. Would we rather have her go into labor on a plane or, like, out by Midland in a car?"

"And I said absolutely not," says Anna's doctor, who spoke with NPR on the condition of anonymity over fears of facing lawsuits. "Because West Texas is at least eight or nine hours of desert. Sometimes you have hours with no cellphone reception, no gas station ... in the middle of a medical crisis. So I requested she at least take a flight. And make it a direct flight if possible."

But Anna says that plan came with its own set of risks. There's a lump in her throat as she talks about what could have happened on the plane.

"I had to come up with a game plan with my OB in case I went into labor on the flight. And I made sure that I bought us front-row seats so I could be close to the bathroom in case it happened. And I'm like, no one should ever have to do that."

But even through tears, Anna says she knows she was lucky to have several thousand dollars in savings to cover the cost — and to get an appointment in Colorado at all.

A quote from the article by an anti-abortion activist.

"Yeah, I mean it's, it's absolutely horrific," says John Seago. He's the legislative director with Texas Right to Life, which helped push SB 8 through the state legislature last year. He says even though he feels for Anna and for Palmer's patient, the law's supporters believe that abortion is an "act of injustice," no matter what.

"Even in the worst circumstances, another act of violence on an innocent victim is not the best solution that we have," he says.

Seago says when it comes to medical emergencies, medical associations should do more to help doctors understand what's allowed under the law.

"It seems politically advantageous for some of these groups that oppose the bill, and oppose all pro-life legislation, to just say this is unreasonable," he says.

Yes, I read that article. Thanks for posting it here--I had forgotten where it was that I read it.

The quote from Seago tells it all: He sees nothing wrong with forcing a woman to risk sepsis, permanent sterility, and even death rather than more quickly terminating a pregnancy that cannot result in a viable baby.

The idea of a baby is so much more palatable for some than the idea that a woman can obtain appropriate medical treatment in a medical emergency or simply because she finds herself unwilling to continue a pregnancy for whatever reasons she finds legitimate.

Baby? When did Pro-life become about a baby?

Whenever a baby can be a proxy for controlling women. After it’s born, they only care about it if they can prove the mother is unfit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

New Missouri abortion bill

"SB 1178 - Under this act, a person or entity commits the offense of trafficking abortion-inducing devices or drugs if such person or entity knowingly imports, exports, distributes, delivers, manufactures, produces, prescribes, administers, or dispenses, or attempts to do so, any instrument, device, medicine, drug, or other means or substance to be used to perform or induce an abortion on another person in violation of state or federal law. The offense is a Class B felony, but is a Class A felony when: (1) the abortion was performed or induced, or attempted, on a woman carrying an unborn child of more than ten weeks gestational age; (2) the abortion was performed or induced, or attempted, on a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy..."

How godawful are these people to propose such a thing???

That's so stupid that it's probably a mistake.

Why do you think it was a mistake? Are you under the impression that they hold any value at all for a woman or girl? There is not even any clause regarding saving the life of the woman. Because why would they care about that?

I'm saying it's probably a mistake because making it a worse charge when it's done because of an ectopic pregnancy makes no sense at all. I think the original intent was to exclude ectopic pregnancies but somebody fucked up.

 

[Toni]

New Missouri abortion bill

"SB 1178 - Under this act, a person or entity commits the offense of trafficking abortion-inducing devices or drugs if such person or entity knowingly imports, exports, distributes, delivers, manufactures, produces, prescribes, administers, or dispenses, or attempts to do so, any instrument, device, medicine, drug, or other means or substance to be used to perform or induce an abortion on another person in violation of state or federal law. The offense is a Class B felony, but is a Class A felony when: (1) the abortion was performed or induced, or attempted, on a woman carrying an unborn child of more than ten weeks gestational age; (2) the abortion was performed or induced, or attempted, on a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy..."

How godawful are these people to propose such a thing???

That's so stupid that it's probably a mistake.

Why do you think it was a mistake? Are you under the impression that they hold any value at all for a woman or girl? There is not even any clause regarding saving the life of the woman. Because why would they care about that?

I'm saying it's probably a mistake because making it a worse charge when it's done because of an ectopic pregnancy makes no sense at all. I think the original intent was to exclude ectopic pregnancies but somebody fucked up.

I think this bit of legislation was written by someone who is quite ignorant about the biology of pregnancy. They are confusing biology with their theology. I’m sure they have heard that an exception should be made for ectopic pregnancy—and they intend there to be no exceptions. Certainly not to save the woman’s life. Even if the fetus cannot possibly grow into a viable baby.

Where you are going wrong is in thinking these are reasonable or well meaning people. They are neither.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

New Missouri abortion bill

"SB 1178 - Under this act, a person or entity commits the offense of trafficking abortion-inducing devices or drugs if such person or entity knowingly imports, exports, distributes, delivers, manufactures, produces, prescribes, administers, or dispenses, or attempts to do so, any instrument, device, medicine, drug, or other means or substance to be used to perform or induce an abortion on another person in violation of state or federal law. The offense is a Class B felony, but is a Class A felony when: (1) the abortion was performed or induced, or attempted, on a woman carrying an unborn child of more than ten weeks gestational age; (2) the abortion was performed or induced, or attempted, on a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy..."

How godawful are these people to propose such a thing???

That's so stupid that it's probably a mistake.

Why do you think it was a mistake? Are you under the impression that they hold any value at all for a woman or girl? There is not even any clause regarding saving the life of the woman. Because why would they care about that?

I'm saying it's probably a mistake because making it a worse charge when it's done because of an ectopic pregnancy makes no sense at all. I think the original intent was to exclude ectopic pregnancies but somebody fucked up.

I think this bit of legislation was written by someone who is quite ignorant about the biology of pregnancy. They are confusing biology with their theology. I’m sure they have heard that an exception should be made for ectopic pregnancy—and they intend there to be no exceptions. Certainly not to save the woman’s life. Even if the fetus cannot possibly grow into a viable baby.

Where you are going wrong is in thinking these are reasonable or well meaning people. They are neither.

Unfortunately, I can believe this option. Perhaps the original did make an exception and a moron "pro-life" person changed it.

 

[Toni]

New Missouri abortion bill

"SB 1178 - Under this act, a person or entity commits the offense of trafficking abortion-inducing devices or drugs if such person or entity knowingly imports, exports, distributes, delivers, manufactures, produces, prescribes, administers, or dispenses, or attempts to do so, any instrument, device, medicine, drug, or other means or substance to be used to perform or induce an abortion on another person in violation of state or federal law. The offense is a Class B felony, but is a Class A felony when: (1) the abortion was performed or induced, or attempted, on a woman carrying an unborn child of more than ten weeks gestational age; (2) the abortion was performed or induced, or attempted, on a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy..."

How godawful are these people to propose such a thing???

That's so stupid that it's probably a mistake.

Why do you think it was a mistake? Are you under the impression that they hold any value at all for a woman or girl? There is not even any clause regarding saving the life of the woman. Because why would they care about that?

I'm saying it's probably a mistake because making it a worse charge when it's done because of an ectopic pregnancy makes no sense at all. I think the original intent was to exclude ectopic pregnancies but somebody fucked up.

I think this bit of legislation was written by someone who is quite ignorant about the biology of pregnancy. They are confusing biology with their theology. I’m sure they have heard that an exception should be made for ectopic pregnancy—and they intend there to be no exceptions. Certainly not to save the woman’s life. Even if the fetus cannot possibly grow into a viable baby.

Where you are going wrong is in thinking these are reasonable or well meaning people. They are neither.

Unfortunately, I can believe this option. Perhaps the original did make an exception and a moron "pro-life" person changed it.

I think you're giving them way too much credit.

I wish I did not believe this were true.

 

[Toni]

Some people seem to indicate that the women are not publicly sharing enough of their trauma with others to get social permission for the medical procedure. That they have to cry,

I know for a stone cold fact, this is true of a lot of women after giving birth to children (that women conceal a lot of post partum depression). Maybe we need to tell people when they can take a pregnancy to term?

Women don't just conceal a lot of post partum depression. They are often told that 'it's just the baby blues' and 'you'll get over it as soon as you can get some sleep' and other not particularly helpful bon mots. Most women experience some degree of post partum depression. Sometimes, it does easily resolve with general recovery from pregnancy and childbirth, and getting some sleep. All of which is much, much harder when most women in the US must go back to work far sooner than their bodies are recovered.

What is really rare, even if one is talking about ob/gyns, is to find someone who actually listens to a woman talk about how she is feeling and believes her, much less helps her access whatever resources she needs to recover well from pregnancy. I write this as someone who had pretty easy and healthy pregnancies. 4 c-sections but all in all, uneventful recovery.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Baby? When did Pro-life become about a baby?

When the egg sees a sperm on final approach, it's a baby. That's the baby prolifers are pro-.
Once it's out of the womb, it's someone else's problem.

 

[lpetrich]

I think that there is a certain consistency of the right-wing position about abortion, but it requires reference to a certain theory about government. It is that the essential purpose of government is to punish and not to help people. "Less government" and "limited government" are nothing but empty posturing, when seen in that light. Right-wingers want more government when it comes to punishing those who do things that they don't like.

 

[Elixir]

The other question would become, just how much nuance is needed in such an opinion to shave/overturn Roe v Wade, without destroying the concept of precedence.

If you’re gonna destroy democracy, a few precedents will have to be sacrificed. Liberal extremist crap like letting wimmins own their own bodies, is logically among the first to go.

 

[lpetrich]

Texas court scuttles key lawsuit over state's abortion ban - POLITICO - "The ruling from the Lone Star State's Supreme Court may foreclose federal litigation aimed at privately-enforced anti-abortion statute."

The unanimous ruling from Texas’ highest court cuts off, for now, abortion rights advocates’ ability to use federal courts to halt enforcement of the law that went into effect in September and allows private citizens to sue abortion providers and anyone who helps a patient access the procedure after six weeks of pregnancy.

The Texas Supreme Court decision, however, does not foreclose other legal maneuvers abortion providers are using to challenge the law, like state-court suits against anti-abortion activists and groups considered likely to try to wield the statute to discourage abortions.

Next stop: Mississippi - the Supreme Court is set to rule on that state's challenge to Roe vs. Wade this summer.

While no state has yet enacted a copycat of the Texas law, a handful of states, including Idaho and Oklahoma, are close to doing so, likely drawing additional legal challenges that could become moot if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade later this year and gives states a green light to ban abortion early in pregnancy.

Courts will also likely continue to grapple with the private enforcement mechanism of Texas’ law, which other states are working to apply to other areas of law, including gun control.

 

[blastula]

Idaho

 

[lpetrich]

Idaho copies extreme Texas law and bans abortion after six weeks | Idaho | The Guardian

The Idaho bill would also allow family members to sue doctors who perform procedures after six weeks of pregnancy, before most people know they are pregnant. The bill provides a minimum reward of $20,000 plus legal fees within four years of the abortion for successful suits, compared to minimum $10,000 and legal costs under the Texas law.

Unlike the Texas law, the Idaho bill provides some exceptions in cases of rape or incest. While a rapist could not sue practitioners under Idaho’s new bill, family members could. Victims would have to file a police report and provide it to a doctor before they could get the procedure.

“This bill is not clever, it’s absurd,” said Democratic representative Lauren Necochea, adding that the rape and incest exemptions were “not meaningful”.

Idaho’s Uniquely Evil Abortion Bill Gives Rapists’ Families a Say | Vanity Fair

... Rather than empowering any old private citizens to sue to enforce the law, it specifically allows family members of the fetus—including family members of a rapists— to sue abortion providers for up to four years after the procedure, for a minimum of $20,000 in damages. While Idaho has so humanely said that the rapists themselves could not sue, under the proposed legislation, they could get their parents and siblings to do so, as well as the would-be brothers and sisters of the fetus in question. Oh, and apparently nothing in the bill would prevent a rapist with, say, 10 siblings from having every single one of them sue individually and then collecting their cash.

Idaho Is First State to Pass Abortion Ban Based on Texas’ Law - The New York Times

Which Republican-dominated state is next? Oklahoma? Florida?

 

[lpetrich]

Washington state governor signs bill that prohibits Texas-style abortion lawsuits | PBS NewsHour

A measure that prohibits legal action against people seeking an abortion and those who aid them was signed into law Thursday by the governor of Washington, a move designed to rebut recent actions by conservative states.

That's Gov. Jay Inslee.

New Jersey recently became the 15th state to protect the right to abortion in state law, according to the Guttmacher Institute, an abortion rights think tank. A measure in Colorado has passed the House there and awaits action in the Senate.

Elizabeth Nash, a state policy analyst with the group, said that California, Connecticut, New Jersey and New York all have legislation pending related to preventing people from suing providers and supporters, similar to the new Washington law.

California’s Democratic leaders have pledged to make the state an abortion “sanctuary” for women living in states that might outlaw or severely restrict access to the procedure. Lawmakers have introduced a number of bills to prepare for the potential influx of new patients. One bill would let letting nurse practitioners perform abortions without the supervision of a doctor.

Another would set up a fund to help pay for things like travel, lodging and childcare for patients seeking abortions – both within California and from other states.

Guttmacher Institute | Good reproductive health policy starts with credible research

 

[lpetrich]

Abortion tourism: New Evidence: Texas Residents Have Obtained Abortions in at Least 12 States That Do Not Border Texas | Guttmacher Institute - 2021 Nov

S.B. 8 bans abortion at a point so early in pregnancy that many people do not yet know they are pregnant. Combined with other factors—like navigating intentionally burdensome restrictions and raising the money to pay for an abortion— the new law makes it impossible for many to get care in Texas. And even those who have the means to travel outside the state have encountered overloaded clinics in the four states bordering Texas (Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma).

...
At least one clinic in each of these jurisdictions reported seeing additional patients from Texas: Alabama, Arizona, California, District of Columbia, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Ohio, Tennessee and Washington.

Clinics that responded to our survey expect the increase in calls and visits from Texas residents seeking abortion to continue despite many who inquire finding out-of-state care to be cost prohibitive or too logistically challenging.

...
Some providers in states bordering Texas also reported a domino effect, in which the influx of patients from Texas has decreased the availability of appointments for in-state residents, pushing some residents to travel out of state for care themselves.

One clinic in a state adjacent to Texas indicated that more than 25% of Texas residents who obtained abortions at the facility in September and October were more than 12 weeks pregnant—when only 13% of abortions in Texas to state residents occurred at that number of weeks or later before S.B. 8 was implemented. The need for some Texas residents to leave the state for abortion services is likely contributing to delays in obtaining care and the timeframe could lengthen even further for those traveling to states farther away from Texas.

Adjacent states:

• Dallas - Oklahoma City OK - 206 mi
• El Paso - Albuquerque NM - 266 mi
• Houston - Baton Rouge LA - 269 mi
• Dallas - Little Rock AR - 319 mi

Non-adjacent states:

• El Paso - Tucson AZ - 318 mi
• Dallas - Wichita KS - 364 mi
• Houston - Mobile AL - 468 mi
• Dallas - Memphis TN - 477 mi
• Dallas - East St. Louis IL - 634 mi
• El Paso - San Diego CA - 725 mi
• Houston - Atlanta GA - 793 mi
• Dallas - Indianapolis IN - 919 mi
• Dallas - Cincinnati OH - 933 mi
• Dallas - Washington DC - 1328 mi
• Dallas - Baltimore MD - 1366 mi
• El Paso - Vancouver WA - 1631 mi

Treating DC as an honorary state.

 

[lpetrich]

Here's What It’s Like to Flee Texas and Drive 200 Miles for An Abortion
Fort Worth TX - Oklahoma City OK - 200 mi

Texas women drive hours for abortions after new law | AP News
Dallas TX - Shreveport LA - 168 mi

The Trust Women clinic in Oklahoma City, which is about a three-hour drive from Dallas-Fort Worth, saw about 11 patients from Texas in August. In September, after the Texas law went into effect, that number jumped to 110, and phones at the clinic are ringing constantly, said Rebecca Tong, co-executive director of Trust Women, which also operates a clinic in Wichita, Kansas.

“Many of them are trying to literally drive through the night and then show up at 8 a.m. for their appointment, having not rested,” Tong said. “It’s just not a good situation to go into an outpatient surgery having driven through the evening and think you can just go right home afterward.”

The Texas law and the difficulty in scheduling out-of-state appointments also force women to wait longer, which means greater expense, more risk and fewer options for terminating the pregnancy, Tong said.

For many Texans, it's a long drive out of state for abortion - Los Angeles Times

While some Texas women can afford to fly farther afield — and more already are traveling to California — most drive to neighboring states for abortions. Trust Women expected to see just as many Texas patients Friday at its clinics in Wichita and Oklahoma City, which have booked appointments into October. Staff members were unsure what will happen after that.

Seems like a rerun of history: Remembering an Era Before Roe, When New York Had the ‘Most Liberal’ Abortion Law - The New York Times

In the first two years after it was passed, health officials estimated that more than 400,000 abortions were performed in the state. Nearly two-thirds of those procedures were for women who had traveled from outside New York to take advantage of the policy.

...
Pressed by women’s rights activists, three other states — Hawaii, Washington and Alaska — passed similar laws before Roe was decided in 1973. But they sought to avoid a flood of travelers by requiring people seeking abortions to have lived there for a certain period of time.

Alaska and Hawaii are awfully far away from the 48 contiguous states, but Washington State is a part of them, just like New York State.

 

[ZiprHead]

Another Texas GOP lawmaker is attempting to make abortion punishable by the death penalty

Similar bills filed in the Texas Legislature in previous years have failed.

www.texastribune.org

A Texas lawmaker has filed a bill that would abolish and criminalize abortions, leaving women and physicians who perform the procedure to face criminal charges that could carry the death penalty.

The legislation, filed Tuesday by state Rep. Bryan Slaton, does not include exceptions for rape or incest. It does exempt ectopic pregnancies that seriously threaten the life of the woman “when a reasonable alternative to save the lives of both the mother and the unborn child is unavailable.”

“It is time for Texas to protect the natural right to life for the tiniest and most innocent Texans, and this bill does just that,” Slaton said. “It’s time Republicans make it clear that we actually think abortion is murder. … Unborn children are dying at a faster rate in Texas than COVID patients, but Texas isn’t taking the abortion crisis seriously.”


Similar measures have in the past been filed by state Rep. Tony Tinderholt, R-Arlington, who received death threats and was placed under the protection of the Texas Department of Public Safety after he introduced the bill in 2017. The legislation did not receive a hearing.

Fuck Texas.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I presume the bill includes comprehensive sex education in school and widely available birth control.

 

[Rhea]

I presume the bill includes comprehensive sex education in school and widely available birth control.