#the current texas governor who signed into law a ban on abortions after six weeks

[larrylimericks]

2Oct22

In Texas, abortion’s unlawful Cos Abbott’s a massive twatwaffle. H emblazoned support For the present O’Rourke— May he win by a margin colossal.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

April 3, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

APR 04, 2024

The election of 2000 was back in the news this week, when Nate Cohn of the New York Times reminded readers of his newsletter, using a map by data strategist and consultant Matthew C. Isbell, that the unusual butterfly ballot design in Palm Beach County that year siphoned off at least 2,000 votes intended for Democratic candidate Al Gore to far-right candidate Pat Buchanan. 

Those 2,000 votes were enough to decide the election, “all things being equal,” Cohn wrote. But of course, they weren’t equal: in 1998 a purge of the Florida voter rolls had disproportionately disenfranchised Black voters, making them ten times more likely than white voters to have their ballots rejected.

That ballot and that purge gave Republican candidate George W. Bush the electoral votes from Florida, putting him into the White House although he had lost the popular vote by more than half a million votes.

Revisiting the 2000 election reminds us that manipulating the vote through voter suppression or the mechanics of an election in even small ways can undermine the will of the people.  

A poll out today from the Associated Press/NORC showed that the vast majority of Americans agree about the importance of the fundamental principles of our democracy. Ninety-eight percent of Americans think the right to vote is extremely important, very important, or somewhat important. Only 2% think it is “not too important.” The split was similar with regard to “the right of everyone to equal protection under the law”: 98% of those polled thought it was extremely, very, or somewhat important, while only 2% thought it was not too important. 

Recent election results suggest that voters don’t support the extremism of the current Republican Party. In local elections in the St. Louis, Missouri, area on Tuesday, voters rejected all 13 right-wing candidates for school boards, and in Enid, Oklahoma, voters recalled a city council member who participated in the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, and had ties to white supremacist groups. 

Seemingly aware of the growing backlash to their policies, MAGA Republicans are backing away from them, at least in public. Earlier this year, Florida governor Ron DeSantis called for making it harder to ban books after a few activists systematically challenged dozens of books in districts where they had no children in the schools—although he blamed teachers, administrators, and “the news media” for creating a “hoax.” 

Today, lawyers for the state of Texas told a federal appeals court that state legislators might have gone “too far” with their immigration law that made it a state crime to enter Texas illegally and allowed state judges to order immigrants to be deported. (Mexico had flatly refused to accept deported immigrants from other countries under this new law.) Nonetheless, Arizona legislators have passed a similar bill—that Democratic governor Katie Hobbs refuses to sign into law—and are considering another measure that would allow landowners to threaten or shoot people who cross their property to get into the U.S.

Indeed, the extremists who have taken over the Republican Party seem less inclined to moderate their stances than either to pollute popular opinion or to prevent their opponents from voting. 

While Trump is hedging about his stance on abortion—after bragging repeatedly that he was the person responsible for overturning Roe v. Wade—MAGA Republicans have made their unpopular abortion stance even stronger. 

Emily Cochrane of the New York Times reported today that the hospital at the center of the decision by the Alabama state supreme court that embryos used for in vitro fertilization have the same rights and protections as children has ended its IVF services. And on Monday, Florida’s supreme court, which Florida governor Ron DeSantis packed with extremists, upheld a ban on abortion after 15 weeks and allowed a new six-week abortion ban—before most women know they’re pregnant—to go into effect in 30 days. 

In the past, people seeking abortions had gravitated to Florida because its constitution upheld the right to privacy, which protected abortion. But now the Florida Supreme Court has decided the constitution does not protect the right to abortion. Caroline Kitchener explained in the Washington Post that in the past, more than 80,000 women a year accessed abortion services in Florida. This ban will make it nearly impossible to get an abortion in the American South. 

Anya Cook, who in 2022 nearly died after she was denied an abortion under Florida’s 15-week ban, gave Kitchener a message for Florida women experiencing pregnancy complications: “Run,” she said. “Run, because you have no help here.”

Extremist Republicans have managed to put their policies into place not by winning a majority and passing laws through Congress, but by creating cases that they then take to sympathetic judges. This system, known as “judge shopping,” has so perverted lawmaking that on March 12 the Judicial Conference, the body that makes policy for federal courts, announced a new rule that any lawsuit seeking to overturn statewide or national policies would be randomly assigned among a larger pool of judges. 

On March 29, the chief judge of the Northern District of Texas, where many such cases are filed, told Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) that he would not adhere to the new rules. 

Rather than moderating their stances, extremist Republicans are doubling down on their attempt to create dirt on the president. With their impeachment effort against President Joe Biden in embarrassing ruins, House Republicans are casting around for another issue to hurt the Democrats before the 2024 election. 

Jennifer Haberkorn of Politico reported today that in the last month, House Republican Committee chairs have sent almost 50 oversight requests to a variety of departments and agencies. Haberkorn noted that there is “significant political pressure on the party to produce results after months of promising it would uncover evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors involving Biden.”

But it is Trump, not Biden, who is in the news for questionable behavior. In The Guardian today, Hugo Lowell reported that Trump’s social media company was kept afloat in 2022 “by emergency loans provided in part by a Russian-American businessman under scrutiny in a federal insider-trading and money-laundering investigation.”

There is more trouble for the social media company in the news today, as two of its investors pleaded guilty to being part of an insider-trading scheme involving the company’s stock. They admitted they had secret, inside information about the merger between Trump Media and Digital World Acquisition Corporation and had used that insider information to make profitable trades. 

Meanwhile, Trump is suing Truth Social’s founders to force them out of leadership and make them give up their shares in the company. His is a countersuit to their lawsuit accusing him of trying to dilute the company’s stock. 

Of more immediate concern for Trump, Judge Juan Merchan denied yet another attempt by Trump—his eighth, according to prosecutors—to delay his election interference trial. The trial is scheduled to begin April 15.

Finally, in an illustration of extremists aiming not to moderate their stances but to impose the will of the minority on the majority, Republicans are putting in place rules to make it easier for individuals to challenge voters, removing them from the voter rolls before the 2024 election.

Marc Elias of Democracy Docket noted today that states and local governments have regular programs to keep voter registration accurate, while right-wing activists are operating on a different agenda. In one 70,000-person town in Michigan, a single activist challenged more than a thousand voters, Elias reported, and in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, right-wing activists have already challenged 16,000 voters and intend to challenge another 10,000.

One group boasted that their system “can and will change elections in America forever.” 

Rather like the election of 2000.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[ohioprelawland]

Iowa Passes New Bill on Abortions

By Zeyu Su, The Ohio State Class of 2025

July 18, 2023

Recently, the Republican-led Iowa legislature passed a bill banning most abortions after six months. On Friday July 14, 2023, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds officially signed the new abortion bill into law after Tuesday’s session, where lawmakers got together and held a special session with the purpose of passing the bill. With the bill being passed, Iowa will join a list of states that have limitations on abortions, which includes Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, and Texas. It is worth mentioning that Ohio and South Carolina have also passed a six-week abortion bill recently, however, both of the bills are currently facing legal challenges, and it is possible that the same could happen to Iowa and its bill.

Currently in Iowa before the new bill, abortions are legal up to 20 weeks of pregnancy. However, with the new bill going into effect after the signature of Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds, the new abortion bill will be effective immediately, assuming the new bill is not blocked by a court. It will prohibit and ban abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, which is usually before many women will even know if they are pregnant or not. The new bill does not just ban abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, in some cases, abortions are banned when any fatal pulse or cardiac activity can be heard and detected via the ultrasound. There are exceptions for pregnancies resulted from rape and from incest. For exceptions to be applied to those pregnancy cases, the rape needs to be reported to law enforcement or a public or private health agency, including a family doctor, within 45 days of the rape. For incest, within 140 days, the case needs to be reported too.

Once the news broke out, voices and opinions from different sides emerged. In her statement, Governor Kim Reynolds said that the bill was passed to serve as justice for the unborn, and “justice for the unborn should not be delayed” (Edelman, 2023). She believes that they have a responsibility to not only protect the unborn in law, but to also create changes in the Post-Roe world where the destructive culture of abortion still exists in society. There were many Iowans who support the new six-week abortion ban. Vicki Miller, one of the Iowans that are in favor of the ban, said that “life is precious”, and claimed that the Bible said once a child is conceived as a child, the child is alive. On the other hand, there were many voices that went against the new abortion ban. In her recent statement, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre claimed Iowa’s new abortion ban will “penalize health care providers and cause delays and denials of health and life-saving care” (Kekatos & Ross, 2023). The Biden-Harris administration will continue to fight and defend against any attempts that try to ban abortions nationwide. Many Pro-Life supporters also begun to the preparations of filing legal challenges in court to get the new bill blocked. In his most recent statement, Mark Stringer, the Executive Director of ACLU of Iowa, said “The ACLU of Iowa, Planned Parenthood, and the Emma Goldman Clinic remain committed to protecting the reproductive rights of Iowans to control their bodies and their lives, their health, and their safety —including filing a lawsuit to block this reckless, cruel law” (Fingerhut, 2023).

In 2018, Governor Kim Reynolds also attempted to sign a six-week abortion ban into law. However, that bill was permanently struck down by a district court in January 2019. It is worth keeping an eye on whether Reynolds’ attempt this time around will end in a similar result.

______________________________________________________________

Fingerhut, H. (2023, July 12). Iowa GOP passes a bill banning most abortions after about 6 weeks | AP News. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/iowa-abortion-ban-special-session-506e5e3fcd5517024a94a8e3a52d627e

Iowa passes bill banning abortions after ‘cardiac activity’ is detected. (2023, July 12). [Video]. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/iowa-republicans-pass-new-6-week-abortion-ban-rcna93625

Kekatos, M., & Ross, K. (2023, July 14). Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signs new 6-week abortion ban into law. ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/US/iowa-gov-kim-reynolds-signs-new-6-week/story?id=101082504

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Gov. Ron DeSantis has signed a bill that bans most abortions after 15 weeks, making Florida the latest state to restrict access to the medical procedure. Just two days ago, Oklahoma's governor signed a bill that would make performing an abortion a felony in most cases.

The new Florida law, which takes effect July 1, will replace a previous one that allowed abortions until 24 weeks of pregnancy.

"House Bill 5 protects babies in the womb who have beating hearts, who can move, who can taste, who can see, and who can feel pain," DeSantis said in a statement Wednesday. "Life is a sacred gift worthy of our protection, and I am proud to sign this great piece of legislation which represents the most significant protections for life in the state's modern history."

The new 15-week ban does not make exceptions for cases of incest, rape or human trafficking. It does allow an abortion if it would save the life of a pregnant person or prevent serious injury to them.

The law also includes exceptions for fetal abnormalities that are discovered after 15 weeks. In such cases, two doctors must sign off saying the baby will die shortly after birth before an abortion can happen.

Groups including Planned Parenthood warn that marginalized communities, including Black and Latino residents, will have the added burden of traveling out of state for the procedure.

"We've entered a dangerous time for Floridians' reproductive freedom. In just a few months, thousands of pregnant people in Florida will no longer be able to access the care they need without leaving their state," said Planned Parenthood President Alexis McGill Johnson in a statement. "The supporters of this bill have put their own political ambitions and beliefs before the health and futures of their constituents."

A Similar Mississippi Law Is Before The Supreme Court

Florida's new law is modeled after another in Mississippi that also bans abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. That law is currently being considered at the Supreme Court, where justices in the six-member conservative majority appear willing to uphold the law.

Upholding Mississippi's law would significantly roll back or overturn the protections that Roe v. Wade guaranteed pregnant people.

Florida's bill passed the state House in mid-February and then went to the state Senate. In both chambers, lawmakers of both parties shared their personal experiences with sexual assault and abortion and how it informed their votes.

Lawmakers Shared Their Own Experiences During The Debate Over Florida's Measure

During the House debate, Republican Rep. Dana Trabulsy shared that she had previously gotten an abortion and was "ashamed because I will never get to know the unborn child that I could have had."

"It's something I have regretted every day since," Trabulsy said. "This is the right to life and to give up life is unconscionable to me."

In the Senate, Democrat Lauren Book pushed for an amendment to the bill that would have allowed exceptions for incest, rape or human trafficking. Book spoke of her own experience of sexual abuse and rape.

"It's not OK to force someone who's been sexually assaulted and impregnated to carry that pregnancy to term if they don't want to, it's just not," she said. "And if a woman or a girl needs more than 15 weeks to decide, we should be able to give that to her."

Florida is not the only state using Mississippi's law as a blueprint. Republican lawmakers in West Virginia and Arizona have proposed similar legislation in anticipation of the Supreme Court ruling.

Other Republican-led states are also considering and implementing abortion bans more restrictive than Mississippi's 15-week model. Last May, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed into law a bill that effectively bans abortions as soon as a fetal heartbeat is detected or as early as six weeks. The Supreme Court has declined three times to take up the challenge to the Texas abortion law.

[coochiequeens]

An article from May 27 2021

On Tuesday, Democratic lawmakers in the Texas house of representatives successfully stalled a transphobic bill from going to a vote until it hit its “pass-or-die” deadline and expired.

A headline from June 4, 2021

On May 13, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed into law the state's Senate Bill 8 — the "Texas Heartbeat Act" — joining more than a dozen other states with similar legislation. Like other so-called "heartbeat" bans, which are currently being challenged in court, the law prohibits abortions after cardiac activity can be detected in the embryo, something that typically happens around six weeks into pregnancy, before most women know they're pregnant.

But Texas' bill is different: It gives private citizens, not the state, the authority to enforce the ban by filing civil lawsuits. When it goes into effect on September 1, any U.S. citizen, whether they reside in Texas or elsewhere, will be authorized to sue any doctor in Texas they believe to be in violation of the law. They could also sue anyone who "knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion, including paying for or reimbursing the costs of an abortion through insurance or otherwise."

That could include nurses, rape counselors, family members, or even volunteers like Northcutt.

Texas demo rats were able to stall a bill for the sake of the gender feels of TRAs but couldn’t do the same to protect women and girls.

[newjerseyprelawland-blog]

Idaho’s Abortion Law

By Amneh Alqudah, Drew University, Class of 2022

April 19, 2022

On March 23rd, Idaho Governor Brad Little signed an abortion bill, S.B 1309, making Idaho the first state to enact similar legislation to Texas’ abortion ban. Until the end of the 19th century, abortion was a legal practice in the United States, typically until a woman could first feel the fetus’s movements. It was not until the 1960s that court cases involving contraceptives laid the foundation for Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade was a landmark decision issued in 1973 in which the United States Supreme Court “struck down a Texas statute banning abortion, effectively legalizing the procedure across the United States” [1]. The court held that the 14th amendment of the constitution implied that a woman’s right to an abortion was implicit in a citizen’s right to privacy. Since Roe vs. Wade’s ruling, abortion has been allowed by the court through viability, estimated around roughly four months after a fetal heartbeat can be detected [2].

On September 1st, 2021, Texas’ radical abortion ban was placed in effect, halting almost all abortion care within the state. “The law, S.B. 8, bans abortion after approximately six weeks of pregnancy—before many people know they’re pregnant” [3]. In addition, the law makes no exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. The law, in essence, serves as a bridge to ending all abortions within the state. Supreme Court precedents prohibit states from banning abortion before fetal viability, the point at which fetuses can sustain life outside the womb or about 22 to 24 weeks into a pregnancy. A pressing concern about the law was that it would set a precedent for other states to place more restrictive abortion laws.

The Idaho bill was set to go into effect on April 22nd. However, the Idaho Supreme Court has temporarily blocked the law in response to a suit filed on March 30th by Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawai’i, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky, and Dr. Caitlin Gustafson, a health care provider who performs abortions at Planned Parenthood clinics [4]. Many women are unaware they are pregnant at six weeks. The law bans abortions once cardiac activity is detected, which happens around the sixth week of pregnancy. Family members, such as fathers, grandparents, siblings, or aunts of the fetus, can sue a medical provider that performs the abortion for at least $20,000. Up until four years after the abortion, lawsuits can be filed. Six judges appear willing to consider the law after hearing oral arguments about a Mississippi law that bans most abortions after 15 weeks, possibly undermining the constitutional right established in Roe v. Wade” [5].

Advocates for the Idaho bill have argued that Texas’s strategy toward abortion has effectively prevented abortions. Conversely, abortion rights advocates have argued that the bill would allow an unconstitutional ban to take effect and would attempt to disrupt already settled precedents. Planned Parenthood said, “The abortion ban blatantly undermines patients’ right to privacy. It also improperly and illegally delegates law enforcement to private citizens, violating the separation of powers and allowing plaintiffs without injury to sue, in violation of the Idaho Constitution” [6]. The court has currently issued a stay on the bill’s enforcement, and the state has until April 28th to respond to the court.

______________________________________________________________

Amneh Alqudah is currently an undergraduate senior at Drew University majoring in Political Science and Philosophy. She aims to attend law school this coming fall, aspiring to become a Criminal Justice attorney after she graduates 

______________________________________________________________

[1] https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2021/10/27/fate-of-texas-abortion-ban-at-supreme-court-tied-to-federal-intervention-in-1895-railroad-strike/

[2] https://reproductiverights.org/texas-abortion-ban-sb8-takes-effect/?s_src=19GAABORTION&gclid=Cj0KCQjwlOmLBhCHARIsAGiJg7kBmF47yBYCLw2gbha4L_59bnnYygv8wE21AB_xyIrVI7X04wtpPnoaAgeaEALw_wcB

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/01/us/supreme-court-texas-abortion.html

[4] https://abcnews.go.com/US/planned-parenthood-sues-idaho-abortion-ban/story?id=83784061

[5] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/17/us/politics/supreme-court-roe-wade.html

[6] https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-great-northwest-hawaii-alaska-indiana-kentuck/press/idaho-supreme-court-blocks-idaho-abortion-ban-sb1309-from-going-into-effect-4-22.

[afroavocadowitch]

News reports & interesting posts on POS and POS Hardware.

Welcome to the 87th Legislative Session. Since the last session came to a close in June 2019, Texas has been hit by an unrestrained pandemic and a crippling economic crisis—and now the fallout from deadly blackouts. Under unprecedented circumstances, lawmakers are faced with a number of urgent challenges. The Texas Observer is following along every step of the way. 

Go here for last week’s dispatch from the state Capitol.

What We’re Following:

For all their harping about Governor Greg Abbott’s excessive use of power during the pandemic, the Legislature has all but ensured that he’ll have the final say on how Texas will use its huge share of federal aid and stimulus funds. Over the past month, a conference of House and Senate appropriators met behind closed doors to iron out their budget differences. It was more axe than iron. 

The most significant difference in the two chambers’ budget plans were two House provisions relating to how the state spends that federal money. The House budget mandated that the Legislature sign off on how the state uses its billions in federal COVID-19 relief and stimulus funds. At the urging of public school advocates, the House also added a provision requiring that federal funds earmarked for Texas schools go directly to local districts. Last summer, Abbott and top legislative leaders opted to use about $1.3 billion in federal aid funds to replace the state’s share of school spending, which translated to school districts getting next to no extra aid. 

But when the budget deal emerged on Wednesday, the two House provisions had been stripped, all but ensuring that Abbott—in concert with top legislative leaders— will once again determine how all that money is spent. Once a budget deal is struck, it typically sails through final votes in the House and Senate on its way to the governor’s desk. Abbott will be free to again use the roughly $6 billion in remaining federal school aid, meant to help students catch up, to offset the state’s own budget commitments.

Governor Greg Abbott delivers a speech to the Texas Senate on the opening day of the 86th Legislature.  Kolten Parker

The apparent power grab has some House members and education advocates feeling burned. “The disrespect shown will put us in a special session,” Representative Lyle Larson, a moderate Republican from San Antonio, tweeted. The Texas State Teachers Association issued a statement urging Abbott to use all the funds to supplement school districts’ budgets. “Every penny of the stimulus funds must be allocated to Texas’ public schools to keep classrooms safe, recoup financial losses from the pandemic, and help students recover from learning losses.” 

On Thursday evening, the Governor’s Office emailed lawmakers a statement from Abbott promising that the fall special session for redistricting will also include allocating those federal recovery funds, which means the state will sit on the aid for at least four more months. 

School leaders are also sounding the alarm about Republican Senator Larry Taylor’s last-minute push to put more restraints on school districts’ federal aid, capping the share of funds that they can spend over the next three years at 60 percent. The measure was tacked onto a school finance bill and would hit large urban school districts hard, wreaking havoc on their finances and disrupting their plans to help students catch up. Meanwhile, small rural districts would be exempted. Taylor says he merely wants schools to take more time and ensure they spend their extra allowance “wisely.” 

Republicans have already passed many of their top legislative priorities, including a draconian near-total ban on abortions, which Abbott signed into law Wednesday at a ceremony that press were blocked from, surrounded by dozens of gleeful Republican legislators and one Democrat, Brownsville Senator Eddie Lucio, Jr., who voted for the bill. 

But, with less than two weeks left, there’s still plenty of consequential legislation that lawmakers are trying to rush through—and much of this is happening behind closed doors. In the final days of session, House and Senate conference committees are negotiating major legislation in the backrooms of the Capitol. Out of the public eye, lawmakers, at the behest of powerful special interests and political factions, can make bad bills even worse, and gut, water-down, or maim good bills. 

Currently, the House and Senate are sorting out their respective omnibus voting restrictions bills, which feature some stark differences after Democrats successfully tempered some of the most harmful aspects of the House version, including provisions that further criminalized voting law violations. Same with the permitless carry legislation, as Republicans try to overcome disagreements over amendments—including barring permitless carry for people recently convicted of certain crimes—that were attached in the Senate. 

The House will soon vote on their compromise version of Senate Bill 3, which is the main package of electric grid reforms, before it heads to conference committee. The legislation is supposed to prevent future deadly blackouts similar to those that devastated Texas in February. But the oil and gas industry, which raked in billions of dollars during the crisis, has already succeeded in weakening proposed regulations, including mandatory weatherization standards. 

A slew of right-wing priorities could also be rushed through during in the final days of session, including anti-trans bills, a ban on “taxpayer-funded” lobbyists, overhauling state bail law to keep more Texans in jail if they can’t afford to post cash bonds, an anti-social media censorship bill, a toothless bill to curb the pandemic powers of the governor and local officials, and a bill that would require professional sports teams to play the national anthem.  

A bitter, albeit brief, standoff between the Senate and House almost derailed many of those Thursday. Several state representatives accused Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick of stalling many of their bipartisan priority bills on criminal justice reform and health care. In retaliation, the House adjourned for two days, imperiling a handful of Patrick’s own priority legislation in the lower chamber. Within a few hours, the Senate Jurisprudence Committee—where many of the criminal justice bills were stuck—convened and began quickly working through a list of House bills. The House, in turn, scheduled three of Patrick’s prized base-pleaser bills for debate on Monday, including the Star Spangled Banner bill, the social media censorship bill, and the limit on “taxpayer-funded” lobbyists.

What We’re Reading

Greg Abbott signs extreme six-week abortion ban into law, puts enforcement in the hands of private citizens 

On Wedneday, Abbott signed into law one of the most extreme abortion bans in the U.S., amounting to a near-total prohibition. All despite strong opposition from the medical and legal communities, who warn the legislation could topple the state’s court system and already fragile reproductive health care network. / The Guardian 

‘Collective amnesia’: Texas politicians knowingly blew 3 chances to fix the failing power grid

In the wake of each power failure, or near-failure, over the past decade, Texas lawmakers have repeatedly stood at a fork in the road. In one direction lay government intervention that would strengthen the state’s power system. The other direction continued Texas’ hands-off regulatory approach, leaving it to the for-profit energy companies to decide how to protect the power grid. In each instance, lawmakers left the state’s lightly regulated energy markets alone, choosing cheap electricity over a more stable system. / Houston Chronicle

How House Democrats tempered a GOP bill that makes it harder to vote

While the House debated its main “election integrity” bill, three Democrats and five Republicans sat in a conference room off the floor negotiating substantial changes in the bill, including ones to lessen proposed criminal penalties for unintentional voter fraud and to protect caregivers of the disabled and elderly from being prosecuted for what otherwise would be the new crime of helping someone to vote. The Democrats knew they could not stop passage of Senate Bill 7, but felt they could make it “less bad.” / Texas Monthly 

‘This program is run amok’: Texas lawmakers criticize costly tax incentive program

Amid growing criticism and investigative exposés, Texas senators on the Natural Resources and Economic Development Committee called for wide-ranging reforms to the state’s largest corporate tax incentive program, which has ballooned in lifetime costs surpassing $10 billion and is set to expire at the end of 2022. (Read the Observer’s latest investigation into Chapter 313 here) / Houston Chronicle

Texas Senate overwhelmingly approves bill shielding trucking companies from lawsuits if their driver hits you 

The corporate-backed tort reform lobby’s top legislative priority is on its way to the governor’s desk after receiving unanimous support—including all 13 Democrats—in the Texas Senate. After the unanimous vote, Houston’s Democratic Senator Borris Miles changed his vote to ‘No.’ / KXAN

All Hat, No Cattle

The Texas Legislature is known for its outlandish members, ludicrous antics, and right-wing flare-ups. Here’s your weekly dose.

Earlier this week, Dan Patrick reportedly refused to advance any House bills until the House advanced one of his pet bills, the “Star Spangled Banner Protection Act,” which would require professional sports teams that have state contracts to play the national anthem before every game. Patrick made the measure one of his top priorities for this session after Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban briefly considered ending the team’s pre-game performance of the national anthem. 

It’s my understanding Dan Patrick is blocking many, many House Bills because the House hasn’t yet moved the Star Spangled Banner Act. Look for Patrick to start referring more HBs after the Star Spangled Act, covered in glory, moves out of House State Affairs #txlege https://t.co/XOIJN5s3vK

— Scott Braddock (@scottbraddock) May 18, 2021

In response to Patrick’s hostage act, the House state affairs committee promptly held a hearing on and approved the measure. Even then, House bills—like extending Medicaid coverage for new mothers from two months to one year after birth—still didn’t move in the Senate. Only after the House threatened to kill Patrick’s government-mandated patriotism recital—among his other pet bills—did the Senate start moving popular House bills in committee. 

Of course, good things rarely come when the Texas Senate jumps into action. GOP Senator Lois Kolkhorst, who chairs the Health and Human Services Committee, announced changes to the House Medicaid bill, cutting the expanded coverage for moms down to six months.

This post was first provided on this site.

I hope that you found the above of help and/or interesting. Similar content can be found on our blog: southtxpointofsale.com Let me have your feedback below in the comments section. Let us know which topics we should write about for you in the future.

[polixy]

Do state laws on abortion reflect public opinion?

Do state laws on abortion reflect public opinion?;

In 2019, lawmakers in seven states enacted laws that could, if they withstand legal challenges, ban the vast majority of abortions in those states. A new analysis by Pew Research Center shows that in these seven states, as well as others that have enacted various other restrictions on abortion, public opinion tends to run much more against legal abortion than in states that have not passed these laws.

A review of public opinion data shows that majorities of adults in four of the seven states that enacted stringent new laws in 2019 – Mississippi (59%), Alabama (58%), Kentucky (57%) and Louisiana (57%) – say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. Opposition to abortion falls short of a majority opinion in the other three states – Missouri (50%), Georgia (49%) and Ohio (47%) – but anti-abortion sentiment in these states is still higher than the national average (39%).

A majority of Americans (61%) believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, and consistent with those views, a Pew Research Center survey conducted in summer 2019 found that 59% of the public say their greater concern is that some states are making it too difficult to get an abortion, while 39% are more concerned that some states make it too easy.

Forty-seven years ago this month, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade for a constitutional right to abortion at least in the first trimester of pregnancy, though subsequent decisions by the high court have allowed states to impose restrictions such as a 24-hour waiting period. The laws enacted in 2019 have been challenged in court and could give the Supreme Court an opportunity to revisit Roe.

How we did this

This analysis examines the degree to which abortion laws in each U.S. state reflect broader public opinion on abortion in that state.

The state-level public opinion data comes from our latest Religious Landscape Study (RLS), a nationally representative telephone survey conducted in the summer of 2014 among 35,000 respondents, including a minimum of 300 respondents from every state and the District of Columbia. The survey is estimated to cover 97% of the non-institutionalized U.S. adult population.

The question we used for this analysis asked people if they believe abortion should be “legal in all cases,” “legal in most cases,” “illegal in most cases” or “illegal in all cases.” We were comfortable using survey data from 2014 because public opinion on abortion in the United States has been relatively stable in recent decades. Additional information about the RLS survey methodology can be found here. Full details on question wording can be found in the topline questionnaire (which also includes other questions asked in the survey.)

For the data on laws, we reviewed statutory language available on states’ legislative websites. Laws were included if they have been enacted by state lawmakers. Therefore, even laws that are not being enforced due to court challenges are included in our analysis.

Our state-by-state public opinion data comes from the 2014 Religious Landscape Study (RLS), which asked 35,000 U.S. adults across all 50 states how they generally feel about abortion laws – whether abortion should be “legal in all cases,” “legal in most cases,” “illegal in most cases” or “illegal in all cases.” Given that public opinion on abortion has been relatively stable in recent decades, and that the RLS sample size was large enough to allow state-by-state analysis, we have used data from that 2014 survey to compare views on abortion in each state with parts of that state’s legislative record on abortion.

Specifically, we reviewed whether each state has enacted one or more of five different laws:

Bans on abortion in the first trimester of a pregnancy, or portions of the first trimester, such as when a fetal heartbeat can be detected (sometimes called “heartbeat bills”) or when the person has been pregnant for eight weeks or more.

The requirement that abortion providers at clinics have “admitting privileges” at a nearby hospital. (Louisiana’s “admitting privileges” law is currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.)

A requirement of pre-abortion counseling (either in person or over the phone), such as being told of the father’s legal responsibility to assist in supporting the child or the possibility of medical assistance benefits for prenatal, childbirth and neonatal care.

A mandated waiting period after that counseling (or after an ultrasound), prior to getting an abortion.

The requirement that an ultrasound be performed prior to an abortion. (While it is generally standard medical procedure to do an ultrasound before an abortion, the mandates are often coupled with other requirements, including that the provider ask if the patient wants to see and discuss the results. Some states do not require an ultrasound before an abortion but do have rules for when an ultrasound is done.)

Many of these state laws have been challenged in the courts, and a good number are not being enforced due to court rulings. But all of these laws that were passed by state legislatures and signed into law by governors were included in this analysis, which aims to measure the degree to which legislation reflects public opinion at the state level. State codes also include numerous other laws concerning abortion, such as limitations or bans on the procedure after fetal viability or closer to the end of a pregnancy. However, since the vast majority of abortions (roughly nine-in-ten) in the U.S. occur during the first trimester, and the wording of our survey question asks people about abortion in “all” or “most” cases, this analysis focuses on selected regulations that can affect people seeking an abortion at any stage of a pregnancy.

  There are seven states where majorities say abortion should generally be illegal. Our analysis shows that four of them – Alabama, Kentucky, Louisiana and Mississippi – have passed laws with all or all but one of these requirements: an in-person or telephone counseling session, a waiting period, a mandated ultrasound, admitting privileges, and a ban on abortion extending to all or parts of the first trimester. Another of the states, Tennessee, has enacted all of these requirements other than the mandate for an ultrasound and a ban on abortions that extends to the first trimester. And Arkansas has enacted all of these laws other than the mandates for an ultrasound and hospital-admittance privileges.

In the 20 states where majorities say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, these five types of laws are far less common. Indeed, 16 of the 20 states have not passed any of them. (Some of these states, including New York, have recently passed legislation to protect, rather than restrict, abortion rights.) In the other four states, lawmakers have passed at least one of the five types of restrictions. For example, Virginia mandates an ultrasound, has a 24-hour waiting period and requires counseling either in-person or by telephone, while Florida mandates an ultrasound.

The pattern is less clear in the 23 states where there is no majority view on abortion one way or the other. Most of these states (20) have passed laws requiring a waiting period for an abortion. Fewer require in-person or telephone counseling (12). Eleven have enacted laws mandating ultrasounds prior to an abortion, while six require hospital-admitting privileges for abortion providers. And six out of these 23 (Georgia, Iowa, Ohio, Missouri, North Dakota and South Dakota) have passed “heartbeat bills” or similar bans on abortion that extend to all or parts of the first trimester.

Six of these 23 states – Georgia, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas and Wisconsin – have all of these types of abortion restrictions or all but one, while only two states in this category (New Mexico and Delaware) have enacted none of the five types of laws.

It’s worth noting that, for people who oppose (or support) legal abortion in “most,” rather than “all,” cases, our survey did not ask specifically about which cases the respondent had in mind; the question is designed to measure attitudes toward abortion broadly (and not toward any specific law). That said, none of the state laws that have passed would ban abortion in all cases; for example, Alabama’s law, considered the most restrictive, would ban abortion in nearly all cases, with exceptions when the health of the pregnant person is at risk or when the fetus had a “lethal anomaly” that would cause it to die.

Public opinion on abortion, and abortion laws enacted in each state

State % who say abortion should be illegal in all/most cases % who say abortion should be legal in all/most cases Bans during 1st trimester Hospital admitting-privileges required Mandated abortion counseling (X: in person; o: in person or by phone) Mandated waiting-period after counseling or ultrasound (in hours) Ultrasound (X: mandated; o: no mandate but other rules) Arkansas 60 38 X* X 72 o Mississippi 59 36 X* X* X 24 X Alabama 58 37 X* X* 48 X West Virginia 58 35 o 24 o Louisiana 57 39 X* X* X 72* X Kentucky 57 36 X* X 24 X Tennessee 55 40 X* X 48 o South Carolina 52 42 24 o Indiana 51 43 X 18 X North Dakota 51 47 X* X 24 X# Utah 51 47 X 72 o Texas 50 45 X* X^ 24 X Missouri 50 45 X* X X 72 o South Dakota 50 48 X* X 72 o Wyoming 49 48 o Idaho 49 45 24 o Georgia 49 48 X* o 24 X# Kansas 49 49 X* 24 X Ohio 47 48 X* 24 X# Arizona 46 49 X 24 X Iowa 46 52 X* 72* X Nebraska 46 50 o 24 o North Carolina 45 49 o 72 X* Oklahoma 45 51 X* o 72 X* Minnesota 45 52 o 24 New Mexico 45 51 Wisconsin 45 53 X* X 24 X Pennsylvania 44 51 24 Michigan 42 54 24 o Virginia 42 55 o 24 X** Illinois 41 56 Florida 39 56 24* X California 38 57 Delaware 38 55 Montana 38 56 24* Colorado 36 59 Washington 36 60 New Jersey 35 61 Nevada 34 62 Alaska 34 63 Oregon 34 63 Maine 33 64 Maryland 33 64 New York 32 64 Rhode Island 31 63 Hawaii 29 66 New Hampshire 29 66 Connecticut 28 67 Vermont 26 70 Massachusetts 22 74 24*

*Enacted law is not enforced or is not in effect due to court rulings, ongoing legal challenges or referendums. **In Virginia, if gestational age cannot be determined via transabdominal ultrasound, other ultrasound imaging must be offered but can be refused by the patient. #Statutes in Ohio, Georgia and North Dakota do not explicitly require an ultrasound but do require testing for a fetal heartbeat or gestational age. ^In Texas, pregnant people living 100 miles away from the nearest licensed abortion provider can receive counseling by phone instead of in person. Note: In all states, requirements generally do not apply in cases of medical emergencies. States are marked as having mandated counseling if abortion providers are required to supply the pregnant person with information such as child support rights or the availability of medical assistance benefits for prenatal care, childbirth and neonatal care. Requirements that an abortion provider describe the procedure and the risks do not, by themselves, get a state marked as having mandated counseling. Bolded percentages indicate that the state has a “majority” who believe abortion should be either legal or illegal. States are considered to have a “majority” when the share of adults who believe abortion should be either legal or illegal exceeds 50% by more than the margin of sampling error for that state. If either estimate in a state is greater than 50%, but by less than the margin of error, it is considered to have “no majority.” Source: Survey data from 2014 U.S. Religious Landscape Study, conducted June 4-Sept. 30, 2014. Information on laws from state legislative websites.

; Blog – Pew Research Center; https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/01/21/do-state-laws-on-abortion-reflect-public-opinion/; https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/FT_20.01.17_AbortionStatesfeatured.png; January 21, 2020 at 01:19PM

[minnesotaprelawland]

Recent Abortions Laws

Stephanie Franco, St. Catherine University Class of 2019

May 18, 2019

A recent abortion law in Alabama has sparked a lot of controversies, but Alabama is not the only state that has been pushing for more restrictions on abortion. Although these new laws on abortion may not be enforceable because of the Supreme court's decision in Roe v Wade, opposers of abortion are hoping that these legal challenges will work to help overturn Roe v Wade [1]. States, have been introducing complete abortion bans since 2011, but these bans have not been passed. For example, Florida has been trying to pass a ban on abortion every year up until 2016 but was not successful in doing so [2]. In 2016, Oklahoma succeeded in passing a complete ban on abortion, but the ban got vetoed by the governor [2]. Other states attempted to get bans in 2017 and 2018, but they were not successful, such as Missouri, Colorado, and Minnesota [2]. Apart from complete bans, states have also tried to introduce six-week abortion bans. For a consecutive eight years, Ohio has introduced a six-week abortion ban, but it has not passed [2]. In 2013, North Dakota introduced the bill and it passed but was eventually struck down in court. Similarly, in 2018, Iowa passed a ban, but it was ultimately struck down [2]. It was not until recently that these bans advanced. It is important to note that some states introduce more than one ban in a given year. For example, Missouri introduced a complete ban and a six-week ban from 2017-2019 [2].

Some say that the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh has tipped the scales in favor of those who oppose abortions and encouraged them to pass more restrictive bills [2] since Kavanaugh adds another conservative vote. With that said, a couple of days ago, Alabama passed the first outright ban on abortion [2]. The new legislation banned abortions at every stage of the pregnancy and the procedure is criminalized for doctors, meaning they could be charged with felonies and face up to 99 years in prison [3]. This has especially caused some anger in people because a rapist could serve less time than doctors who perform an abortion. For example, rape in the first degree in Alabama is no less than ten years and no more than 99 years or life and second degree is no less than two years and no more than twenty years [4]. Although it is unlikely that a doctor will serve life in prison because of the prosecutor's discretion, people find this punishment too harsh. Adding to the public's disdain, the new law includes an exception for the mother's safety but does not include an exception for those who were victims of rape or incest [3]. Democrats introduced an amendment to the bill to exempt victims of incest and rape but the motion failed with an 11-21 vote [5]. Moreover, since, the House approved the measure, the legislation now moves to the governor, who has not publicly committed to signing the legislation, but many expect her support [3]. The governor has six days to sign the bill, but it will not go into effect until six months after becoming a law [5]. Eric Johnson who drafted the Alabama bill, says he does not support the legislation that others state have enacted because they restrict abortion after a heartbeat is detected, he says they should go all the way [3]. Regarding the incest and rape exception, Johnson says that "regardless of how the conception takes place, the product is a child and so we're saying that that unborn child is a person entitled to protection of law. So if be it a rape or incest conception, then it would be impossible to ask a judge which of these is protected by law and which is not" [5].Those who oppose the new law say that it would drive the procedure underground, endangering the lives of women and girls [3]. Supporters of abortions say that abortions should be legal because they are going to happen anyways [3].

Apart from Alabama, Missouri, Texas, and Oklahoma have complete abortion ban laws that are pending [2]. Georgia, Indiana, Mississippi, and Washington introduced complete bans of abortions, but they were not passed. Instead of introducing complete bans, states have introduced six-week bans or heartbeat bills. Georgia, Mississippi, Kentucky, and Ohio passed a six-week ban [2]. Mississippi and Kentucky both passed their six-week bans in March of this year [1]. Kentucky also passed the heartbeat bill, but a federal judge stopped it from being enforced [1]. Governor Mike DeWine of Ohio signed a heartbeat bill in April [1]. While Georgia is the most recent state signing a bill, with Governor Brian Kemp signing the bill this month [1]. The current law in Georgia says that women can get abortions up to the 20th week of their pregnancy, but the new law bans abortions after the six-week mark when a heartbeat can be detected, which will take effect in January 2020 [1]. The exceptions for this law are to prevent death or serious harm to the woman, and in cases of rape or incest in which a police report has been filed [6]. Other states have introduced this heartbeat bill, but it is still pending. Those states are Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, and Texas [2]. While Florida, Illinois, Maryland, South Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia have introduced a six-week ban, but it has not been passed [2]. The opposition of the six-week bans is that most women do not even know they are pregnant at six weeks when a heartbeat can be detected, therefore by the time do realize they are pregnant they no longer have a choice. Those who are pro-life argue that God is creating life, and no one has the right to extinguish that life.   No matter the times, abortion will be a controversial topic, and there will be a debate over whether abortion should be legal or illegal. There are several opinions from both those who are pro-life and those who are pro-choice. First off, those who are pro-life believe that abortion is murder [7]. The federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act states that those who intentionally kill an unborn child should be punished [7]. On the other hand, the US Supreme Court has declared abortion as a fundamental right in the decision of Roe v Wade. Another pro-life opinion is that life begins at conception, meaning that unborn children are human beings with a right to life [7]. Once an egg is fertilized, the embryo has a unique genetic makeup that does not change throughout life; therefore they have a right to life. Those who are pro-choice respond that the choice over when or if to have children is central to a woman's independence [7]. Moreover, pro-lifers argue that fetuses feel pain during the abortion processes because the most primitive response to pain, the spinal reflex is developed by eight weeks [7]. Pro-choicers say that embryos and fetuses are not independent or self-determining; therefore, an abortion is the ending of a pregnancy, not a baby [7]. A person's age is also calculated from the day of the birth, not at conception and fetuses are not counted in the census [7]. Lastly, pro-lifers make the argument that if women become pregnant, they should accept responsibility [7]. Women should accept the consequences; having sexual intercourse comes with a risk of getting pregnant, and the unborn child should not be punished for the mistake made by the parents [7]. While pro-choicers say that abortion protects women from financial disadvantages and that a baby should not come into the world unwanted [7].

All in all, these new restrictions on abortions have created turmoil throughout the United States. Alabama is the first state to pass an outright ban on abortions. But Alabama is not the only state that has been trying to place restrictions on abortions. Others have introduced complete bans but the bills have not been passed. States are also trying to pass six-week bans or heartbeat bans, that make it illegal to get an abortion after a heartbeat is detected. Most of these bills only have exceptions for the health of the mother, but not for incest or rape, which is where most of the controversy is spurring from. There are also many opinions on whether or not women should be able to get abortions. The most common for those who are pro-life is that abortion is murder, while those who are pro-choice say that the choice to get an abortion or not is the fundamental right of women.    

________________________________________________________________

[1]https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/05/16/politics/states-abortion-laws/index.html

[2]https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/us/abortion-laws-states.html

[3]https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/14/us/abortion-law-alabama.html

[4]https://www.ageofconsent.net/laws/alabama/rape-first-degree

[5]https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/14/politics/alabama-senate-abortion/index.html

[6]https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/05/07/us/heartbeat-bill-georgia.amp.html

[7] https://abortion.procon.org

Photo Credit: DXR