By: Mia Baltierra
STARR COUNTY, TEXAS – On April 10, 2022 charges were dropped against Lizelle Herrera, a 26-year-old from Texas, who was originally arrested in March for a self-induced abortion. While there was initial confusion as to the basis of the arrest, it is now clear that Texas officials were operating under the precedent of the so-called “heartbeat ban” instituted last year.
The law, known as SB 8, bans abortion after the detection of a fetal heartbeat which is around six weeks— well before most pregnant people would know they are with child. This law also allows individuals to sue abortion providers or anyone associated with aiding in the abortion. Those who successfully tip off such activities are promised at least $10,000. This ban needs to be overturned by politicians in Texas as it violates the human right to terminate a pregnancy and is an attack against women’s control of their bodies.
In the arrest of Ms. Herrera, the charge was murder. Currently, however, Texas law does not allow for the persecution for this charge concerning abortion if the person who caused it was the pregnant person themselves. However, it seems only a matter of time until we hear about doctors being imprisoned for providing this basic right to pregnant people. As Cathy Torres, the organizing manager for the Frontera Fund stated, “This is only setting a precedent for other cases. She’s [Ms.Herrera] not the first. She won’t be the last.”
It might seem like someone who finds themselves with an unwanted pregnancy would have no issue getting an abortion in our modern age, but this case is proving that we are going backwards in time as a society, not forwards. This ban makes it virtually impossible for a woman to get an abortion and would put in prison those who perform them. This type of law is pushing the narrative that an abortion is immoral and that women should not be allowed to receive one, regardless of the circumstance. We must fight against this kind of reasoning and give women the basic human right to control what happens to their own bodies. If laws like the one in Texas continue to be instituted, we will only be reversing all the hard work women have put forth fighting for the right to have domain over their bodies.
The Texas ban has brought forth fears amongst the public that the ruling of Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade might soon be overturned. Those who oppose the ruling argue that they want a safer world for children and women, but it is laws like the one in Texas that are causing pregnant people to self-induce their abortions and risk their health. If abortion politics continue to follow the path they are on, it will not lead to less abortions, but more unsafe ones. This is why politicians must do more to protect reproductive rights of women and all those who might find themselves pregnant. Those with power need to make a stand against the Texas ban and protect the rights of anyone who would be pregnant.
The Texas Right to Life organization claims that this ban is not “against the women,” but it is abundantly clear that criminalizing those who give abortions is an act against women. It eliminates their right to a choice and politicians must make sure this does not continue to happen.
Aren’t “politicians” the ones who approved SB 8 in the first place?
They “must” I tell you…
They probably just don’t know that, yet. Nor do they know that they “need” to.
But after reading this, I’m sure they’ll realize it. Sometimes, all it takes is a student opinion from someone in California, to change their minds in Texas.
It could be that they just hadn’t thought of this, before. Or, weren’t already aware of the controversy. 🙂
My guess is that they’ll come to their senses, now.
For that matter, I’m planning to let the politicians in Texas know what I think of their car-dependent sprawl surrounding Houston, Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, etc.
But I’m trying to start with Davis, at least.
The politicians that can take action on this would be the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. They can pass a law to codify Roe v Wade in all the states, thereby overriding all of these attempts at outlawing abortion. The House passed a law which would do that on Sept 24, but it is considered unlikely to pass in the current Senate.
Hadn’t realized that, but I suspect that the two senators from California would support it.
Texas, maybe not.
In the meantime, it seems that hopes rest on the Supreme Court’s interpretation of existing law. Legislating from the bench in regard to laws that cannot be passed. (I can think of other examples of laws that should be changed or enacted, but also apparently have no chance.)
And for those seeking abortion, I guess they’ll have to travel to a different state. I suspect that there are organizations which would help them do so.
Eventually, places like Texas will change (e.g., as more Californians move there). (Of course, we like to think of ourselves as the “enlightened” ones, bringing our values to those “backward” places – in our view at least.)
Just happened across this:
https://calmatters.org/explainers/abortion-in-california-laws/
https://calmatters.org/newsletters/whatmatters/2021/12/california-abortion-newsom/
“Hundreds of thousands”? Really?
And we have a “California Future of Abortion Council”?
No comment, just wasn’t aware of all of this. Certainly more interesting than a student opinion article.
Interesting cites… thx…
the $64 k question… where do you stand on abortion, or is your only problem about how it is paid for as in taxpayer, insurance rates?
I seriously doubt you will seriously answer… your M.O.
There are two (three?) kinds of abortions… medically performed, spontaneous, and self-induced… the laws ignore the second two of those… which of those do you oppose medical benefits for, particularly taxpayer dollars for? “I wonder”…
Seriously? You think I’m reluctant to share my opinion?
Overall, my opinion is that I’m pretty comfortable with the procedure (from what I know about it, which isn’t a lot) up until the point that he, she, or “they” (if you prefer) are viable outside of the womb. In other words, up until the point that they start looking like a human being, at which point I get more queasy about it.
Yeah – I think it should be covered as part of health plans, at least up until that point.
How about you?