Roe v. Wade, 40 Years On: Rick Perry Still Carries The Battle Flag

roewadetimehed.jpg
Overshadowed by LBJ back then, still being argued now
The 40th anniversary of Roe v Wade is not so much a time of celebration, Rep. Donna Howard told a small crowd on the south steps of the Capitol this morning, as it was a look at the progress towards healthy women and healthy communities.

Some of that, liberal lawmakers predict, is likely to erode this session as conservatives attempt to roll back access to reproductive right for women in the areas of both contraceptives and the right to an abortion. The ongoing fight to keep Planned Parenthood out of the state's new Women's Health Program, of course, rises to the top of the list.

Stopping reproductive rights creates intended consequences, Howard said.

"It's actually increasing the probability, the actuality of intended pregnancies, which is actually going to increase, not decrease, abortions," Howard told a small group of mostly women who joined hands in solidarity at the Capitol. "They have a backwards way of looking at this. They think if we just say no, it won't happen. But obviously people will continue to have sex and continue to face these decisions."

Abortions should be safe and rare and should be the decision of the woman, Howard told the audience, drawing cheers from the crowd.

Howard sounded mild, however, next to Presbyterian minister Jim Rigby, who noted the ecumenical denominations so quick to swipe women's rights were the same ones that don't want to see women in the pulpit. Such decisions to take away women's rights turn women into nothing more than breeding stock, Rigby said.

Gov. Rick Perry, who supports a fetal pain bill this session, has said he wants to make abortion a thing of the past.

"Roe v. Wade paved the way for the loss of more than 54 million innocent lives, with more than a million added to that total with each passing year. This catastrophic loss of life is a grim testament to judicial activism, and a tragic stain on our national conscience," Perry said in a statement on the Roe v Wade anniversary. "In Texas, we've worked hard to strengthen our abortion laws to the greatest extent possible under Roe v. Wade. We will continue working to empower families and protect our children's future, until the day abortion is nothing more than a tragic footnote in our nation's history."

Follow Houston Press on Facebook and on Twitter @HairBallsNews or @HoustonPress.


Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
17 comments
Anse
Anse

The real irony is that by making it harder for women to get abortions, many conservatives have become de facto supporters of single motherhood. States that make it the hardest to obtain an abortion (as well as those that have little or no sex education, among other problems) have the highest rates of unmarried parenthood. So I suppose conservatives have come to accept one unsavory situation over another. For my part, you are a crazy wackjob if you think a blastocyst at a few days beyond conception is a human being.

rich5371
rich5371

Attempting to roll back the right to choose is misguided and wrong - as a Republican that is a major position of the party that I am in complete disagreement with.  However, the Republicans are not and never have tried to restrict a woman's right to contraception - this is a lie that has been oft repeated since the Romney / Obama campaign that continues to be presented as truth.  Being for or against having the government dictate to private industry who must pay for contraception is not the same thing as limiting or restricting access to contraception.  As a people we are ill served when presented with untruths - we all have the right to make up our mind what political party we prefer and should vote accordingly.  However we should have the real facts and it's the responsibility of the press to present those facts.  It's unfortunate that facts don't seem to be important in reporting any longer.

Jesus_H_Christ
Jesus_H_Christ

'Carries the anti-abortion battle flag?"

You credit the Governor with too much moral certitude. Rick would haul out a wheelbarrow full of infants, then club them to death on stage like baby seals if he thought it would appeal to his base.

TEA_PARTY_FOREVER
TEA_PARTY_FOREVER

If they really want to ban something that will save lives, they need to stop women from DRIVING. Hang up the phone, ladies.

StClaire
StClaire

Limiting abortions just makes it less safe, it doesn't make the demand vanish, Guvnor. If you care about humans rather more than mere embryos, you might consider this. But frankly, I've given you up as lost to human inner-cranial reasoning.

johansen
johansen

Like the Governor, I believe in the Bible's teaching that a woman is subordinate to her husband and it should be his wishes that guide the family. Therefore I see no problem with the Governor's demand that we place certain regulations on the impulses of women who misguidedly wish to terminate their pregnancy. Killing babies is wrong first, and second, a husband, or father figure can often bring this fact to light, even when a woman is hopeless and has no clear path forward. We need the steady guiding of a man to make clear those things that often seem opaque to the weaker sex.

fugate
fugate

Up next: a woman's right to vote. 

I mean,, what were we thinking back then anyway?

vonHaupstadt
vonHaupstadt

@Anse  

Dammit! Everyone needs to take personal responsibility!

But don't have an abortion. That's irresponsible. In fact, it's murder.

And don't take any state or federal aid while you're a single mom trying to go to school and work. That's mooching. Instead, get a loan or babysitting from your parents.

Republican simple. Republican removed from reality.

Thenonymous
Thenonymous

@rich5371 Wow! Is "Rich" short for "Rich Fantasy World"? because that statement is so moronic that I'm inclined to believe that you're just being disingenuous.

Allowing women to have their birth control pills covered by their insurance - insurance that offers that coverage, which they have already paid for - is not "dictating" jack-shit to private industry. The fact that a company like Hobby Lobby offers insurance to some employees, but can't abide the idea of those employees using birth control for "religious reasons" is the real problem. This is a slippery slope - because by that exact same token, a company could claim to be Christian Scientists, and demand that their employees not go to the doctor at all. These are the people to whom the Republicans were paying election-year, lip-service with all their  bluster about "religious liberty." On the upside, the Republicans never really cared one way or  the other. They just know that the more gullible elements of their base will get all bunched up about this sort of thing.

Thenonymous
Thenonymous

@fugate What were they thinking? I'll tell you. Religious prigs of this very same ilk worked hardest to get women's sufferage passed, because they knew they could use them to help push through Prohibition. It was purely cynical and exploitative.

rich5371
rich5371

@Thenonymous @rich5371 I will avoid personally insulting you as I can engage in a civil discussion without resorting to insults.  However I will also state that historically there have been policies that have included coverage for birth control, and policies that have not.  I even worked for a company, MCI, that had more than one policy I could choose from as an employee.  One of those cost me more out of pocket than the other, I was married and my wife was using birth control for much of the marriage (I have three beautiful daughters).  Our choice was the less expensive plan that didn't cover birth control, we paid around $19.00 a month for the pills that were prescribed.  There are birth control pills available today for as little as $9.00 a month, however once insurance is picking up the tab for 90+ percent of the pills being prescribed I can absolutely guarantee the average prescription cost will increase.  My point is I appreciated having that choice, and I appreciated the fact that the government didn't dictate what had to be included and what did not.  I would not work for Hobby Lobby, nor would I work for Christian Scientists if the position required my being precluded from having my health care needs met by a Dr.  That is my  choice and I'm glad I have that freedom.  Sorry that you feel you can not afford birth control if it's not picked up by your health insurance carrier, or that you're entitled to having the cost of your pills subsidized.  I frankly am tired of people feeling they're "entitled" to things that someone else is paying for.  Make no mistake, when birth control pills are covered by your health insurance carrier, the cost is covered by all of the policy holders, not just the individuals who are directly using the pills.

rich5371
rich5371

@Thenonymous@rich5371Wow, what an inane analogy.  Comparing coverage for birth control pills, which are not a treatment for an illness, and for which there are many alternatives, such as condoms, to coverage for interferon which is used to treat illness, just illustrates you have no grasp of the actual issue.  If any of the components found in birth control pills are needed for the treatment of illness they have always been covered.  It is simply the dispensable desire to use pills for the purpose of birth control that historically has not been a covered benefit of all health insurance policies.  I posit it is not the role of government to legally require all health insurance carriers to add this to their list of benefits.  And getting back to my original post, Republicans being against this requirement is not the same as Republicans wishing to restrict, limit, or eliminate a woman's access to contraception.

You're statement "the rest of us are trying to have a society here" is condescending and infers that my views are not valid and that your argument is both universally accepted as correct and superior to mine.  When someone can't prove their point with facts, they often resort to such tactics that are in no way relevant to the discussion.  Go ahead, insult me all you want.  You're still wrong and intellectually inferior.


Thenonymous
Thenonymous

@rich5371 @rich5371

You say that you are, "... frankly tired of people feeling they're "entitled" to things that someone else is paying for. Make no mistake, when birth control pills are covered by your health insurance carrier, the cost is covered by all of the policy holders, not just the individuals who are directly using the pills."

??? What the hell are you talking about? That's how insurance works. That's what you are promised in exchange for giving them your money.

Change your statement to read, "Make no mistake, when INTERFERON is covered by your health insurance carrier, the cost is covered by all of the policy holders, not just the individuals who are RECEIVING TREATMENT FOR CANCER."

The rest of us are trying to have a society here.

rich5371
rich5371

@Anse I'm not aware of that, and did try and find information via a Google search and didn't come up with anything, so real details would be appreciated.  I don't believe this is Republicans attempting to restrict access, just attempting to restrict taxpayer funded access.  The real question is who should pay for birth control - the user, or everyone in the form of taxpayer funds or higher insurance premiums.  There is no such thing as a free lunch, some has to pick up the tab.

Anse
Anse

It's not just employer-provided coverage...the Obama administration attempted, I do believe, to offer access to contraception via a government-sponsored program that could serve as an alternative for people whose employers did not want to provide that coverage. Republicans objected to that, too.

Now Trending

Houston Concert Tickets

Around The Web

From the Vault

 

Loading...