AUSTIN, TX — At 10 minutes to midnight Tuesday evening, tempers in the Texas Senate finally boiled over. On the floor, Sen. Kirk Watson (D-Austin) was fighting with every parliamentary knife in Robert’s Rules of Order to both challenge the latest ruling from the chair and to buy time.
That’s when the gallery erupted in shouts and screams that drowned out all other noise. Time was of the essence for Republicans who favored some of the sharpest new restrictions on abortion in the nation, and for the handful of Democrats who opposed them—led by Sen. Wendy Davis (D-Ft. Worth), who had launched a grueling filibuster more than 12 hours earlier.
And for reporters, the battle to cover a fight over one of the nation’s most divisive issues was reaching its peak. But it turned out to be not so much a contest of one news outlet against one another (though there were some definite media standouts) as against the Senate itself. In an era when it’s reasonable to worry about government watching us through the eerie lens of social media, citizens and journalists used streaming video, live-blogging, and Twitter in a collaborative exercise to help each other watch what government was doing in the literal dead of night—and to ferret out what the hell had just happened.
So when Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, a Republican, tried to ram the bill through—claiming a roll call to pass the legislation came before constitutionally-mandated midnight deadline—the moment may not have been captured on cable news, but a state, and a nation, was watching. And when the official record on the legislature’s website was changed to show the vote getting in under the wire, screenshots flagging the alteration immediately began circulating on Twitter. Nearly three hours later, the galleries cleared, protesters still outside, Dewhurst would reverse himself. The bill, which would have outlawed abortion after 20 weeks and placed new regulatory restrictions on clinics that critics said would restrict the procedure to a handful of major facilities in big cities, died—for now.
A ‘dreadfully dull’ livestream is set ablaze
Texas is, in a way, home to both today’s constitutionally protected reproductive rights and the divisive controversy that continues to surround them. A Texas woman, Norma McCorvey, known under the legal pseudonym of Jane Roe, was the plaintiff against Dallas County Attorney Henry Wade in Roe v. Wade, decided by the Supreme Court in 1973. (McCorvey would later become an anti-abortion activist.)
Forty years later, the state’s conservative legislative majority is at the forefront of efforts to impose restrictions on abortion; proposals to do so had percolated in the House throughout this year’s legislative session. But pro-choice Democrats comprise just over a third of the Senate, which by custom gave them enough votes to keep a measure from coming to the floor in that chamber.
When Republican Gov. Rick Perry convened a special session and announced that the abortion bill was among his top priorities, however, confrontation hung in the air. As Texas Monthly’s Sonia Smith noted in a sharp June 19 story, at the start of the special session the Republican majority had scrapped the longstanding rule that allowed Democrats to have a say on what made it to a vote on the Senate floor. A few days later, after the measure cleared the House, her Monthly colleague Paul Burka observed that on this issue, there was no middle ground to be found: “What is true of abortion is true of all the social issues: They can’t be debated. They can only be argued and argued and argued.”
In fact, endless argument—a traditional marathon filibuster—was now the Democrats’ only weapon. In the US Senate, filibusters are routinely used to block legislation, but “talking filibusters” are so rare that when Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) launched one earlier this year to raise questions about the Obama administration’s use of drones for targeted killing, it became a social media sensation. When Wendy Davis rose to the Senate floor in Austin Tuesday, she had a very specific goal in mind: to run out the clock on the abortion bill. But she was also, like Paul, creating a media event.

The bill, which would have outlawed abortion after 20 weeks and placed new regulatory restrictions on clinics that critics said would restrict the procedure to a handful of major facilities in big cities, died—for now.
The second part of the sentence is interesting, most especially for the way you phrased it. "Restrict to a handful of major facilities in big cities" is one way to say it ... another, equally accurate and less ideological way to say it is the bill would require abortion clinics to conform to the same standards as any outpatient surgery center and doctors would have to hold privileges to admit patients to a nearby hospital.
I always hear pro-abortion types scream "safe and legal" but any attempt to increase the safety of the procedure is always met with resistance.
#1 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Thu 27 Jun 2013 at 02:17 PM
Also, if the Texas legislation is "restrictive", whats the metric used to make this determination. 20 weeks is late compared to Sweden, which has a limit of 18 weeks; France, Germany, Belgium and Spain, which have a limit of 14 weeks; Italy, which has a limit of 90 days and Portugal, which has a limit of 10 weeks.
The US abortion is really extreme, comparable only with China and the former USSR.
#2 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Thu 27 Jun 2013 at 06:43 PM
Mike, what are you doing on this issue? It's the woman's right to choose what happens on her property, her body.
If you want to make the define the exercise of ownership rights by how they affect others, be my freaking guest. The conservative argument, however, should be pro-choice, pro-market, and anti-regulation.
You guys and your ideology always seems to get a little weird when it comes to someone else's vagina.
Again, you have no problem caring about a developing individual so long as it's in a womb that's none of your business, but once it's born do you care about it? Do you ensure it has a good diet and access to good education? Do you ensure the people and factories around it are not poisoning the air, water, and land around where that child must live?
Why are you guys such liberals until around the 39th week?
"equally accurate and less ideological way to say it is the bill would require abortion clinics to conform to the same standards as any outpatient surgery center and doctors would have to hold privileges to admit patients to a nearby hospital."
Except that description would be stenography. It would not assess the intent of the regulatory push.
The facts are that TRAP laws (Targeted Regulation Of Abortion Providers) are designed to restrict abortion under the guise of women's health. They are not designed to actually improve women's health, nor are they based on any metrics or research to show they would improve women's health. They fence off abortion, period.
Like in, for instance, Virginia:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/09/virginia-abortion-building-rules
These are clinics, like cosmetic surgery centers, which have facilities which are targeted to the procedure they specialize in. Should they be regulated laxly like those cosmetic facilities which can often delegate procedures to non accredited staff and the like?
Maybe, maybe not. But let's instead ask why it might be hard for a doctor at a these clinics to get admitting privileges at a local hospital.
The fact is that many of these procedures in red states have to be provided by out of state doctors because local doctors are pressured NOT to do these procedures.
The hospitals are under pressure to NOT let out of state doctors have admitting privileges for a variety of reasons.
By forcing clinics to have physicians who do procedures that local docs won't do, to have privileges only local docs have, you stop the procedures. That's the goal. That's the way the story should be reported. Reporting it your way just reflects ALEC's anti-abortion inbred cousin
http://www.aul.org/2013/04/aul-salutes-alabama-for-securing-greater-protections-for-women-and-girls-in-abortion-clinics/
"a state has “a legitimate interest in seeing to it that abortion, like any other medical procedure, is performed under circumstances that ensure maximum safety for the patient.”... “The health and very lives of women and girls are at stake, requiring that abortion clinics be held to the same standards as other outpatient surgical facilities.”"
If you copy that crap verbatium and dare try and label it as accurate, you're as ideological as they come.
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 27 Jun 2013 at 07:11 PM
"any attempt to increase the safety of the procedure is always met with resistance."
Yes, the prolife movement only cares about safety and health:
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/25/caught_on_tape_crisis_pregnancy_centers_false_dangerous_advice/
"Stop focusing on the zealotry and terrorism of the past, we're just about safety and health these days. Why are you looking all suspicious? Don't you trust us?"
No.
#4 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 28 Jun 2013 at 03:07 AM
A) Texas, larger than France, will only have 5 facilities in 4 cities to serve the whole population
B) There is no medical reason, none as any doctor can attest, to require full hospital services for abortion
C) Most, nearly all, abortions are not surgery
D) Let make it clear that this bill like many other similar ones are not passed because they care about womens health htey are pass to restrict or ban their reproductive rights.
#5 Posted by Kurt Makie, CJR on Sat 29 Jun 2013 at 08:58 AM
As I mentioned earlier, conservatives and libertarians get a little weird when it comes to someone else's vagina. Why is that?
An old post by Corey Robin does the esplainin'
http://coreyrobin.com/2012/02/15/love-for-sale-birth-control-from-marx-to-mises/
"Here’s Mises describing the socialist program of “free love”:
Free love is the socialists’ radical solution for sexual problems. The socialistic society abolishes the economic dependence of woman which results from the fact that woman is dependent on the income of her husband. ... Thus the relations between the sexes are no longer influenced by social and economic conditions….The family disappears and society is confronted with separate individuals only. Choice in love becomes completely free.
Sounds like a libertarian paradise, right? Society is dissolved into atomistic individuals, obstacles to our free choices are removed, everyone has the same rights and duties. But Mises is not celebrating this ideal; he’s criticizing it. Not because it makes people unfree but because it makes people—specifically, women—free. The problem with liberating women from the constraints of “social and economic conditions” is that…women are liberated from the constraints of social and economic conditions."
And that won't do because, as a societal model, that's anarchy to a conservative. Conservatives want social order to be established by the allocation of economic power, an allocation which benefits men, white men in particular.
Birth control, protected voting rights, free education, labor unions, social programs, etc.. therefore threaten the social order. They must be confronted in the conservative mind.
In order for some to be free, others must be made into slaves. This is the 'cheap labor conservative' mission.
http://sideshow.me.uk/annex/defeattherightin3minutes.htm
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 29 Jun 2013 at 03:01 PM
It's all about women's health you know, in Ohio:
http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/BillText130/130_HB_59_EN_N.html
"(4) "Public hospital" means a hospital registered with the department of health under section 3701.07 of the Revised Code that is owned, leased, or controlled by this state or any agency, institution, instrumentality, or political subdivision of this state. "Public hospital" includes any state university hospital, state medical college hospital, joint hospital, or public hospital agency.
(5) "Written transfer agreement" means an agreement described in section 3702.303 of the Revised Code.
(B) No public hospital shall do either of the following:
(1) Enter into a written transfer agreement with an ambulatory surgical facility in which nontherapeutic abortions are performed or induced;
(2) Authorize a physician who has been granted staff membership or professional privileges at the public hospital to use that membership or those privileges as a substitution for, or alternative to, a written transfer agreement for purposes of a variance application described in section 3702.304 of the Revised Code that is submitted to the director of health by an ambulatory surgical facility in which nontherapeutic abortions are performed or induced."
Banning access to public hospitals when there's an abortion complication at a facility? Women's health.
Section 5101.803. which transfers TANF funds to right wing church clinics like the one in the Salon article above?
Women's health.
That's all the AUL cares about, you know - not that they ask many actual women before hand.
What a con.
#7 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 4 Jul 2013 at 03:15 PM
And yes, it's a trend:
http://www.wral.com/nc-s-new-abortion-bill-follows-other-states/12621641/
"The anti-abortion omnibus bill that emerged without warning late Tuesday, House Bill 695, has much in common with anti-abortion laws and proposals in other states, including the bill in Texas that has mobilized thousands to protest in Austin last week.
Senate Republicans passed the legislation Tuesday evening after only 90 minutes' public notice. The revamped bill, which started as a Sharia Law ban sent over from the House, wasn't even available to the public online until just before the floor debate started."
'Just because we act like the taliban, doesn't mean we like the taliban!'
"A bill filed earlier this session, Senate Bill 308, would have required abortion providers to have admitting privileges at local hospitals. That lets hospitals decide whether to extend those privileges.
Being sensitive to protests and political pressures over funding, hospitals often decide not to enter into those agreements with abortion providers. With no privileges, the doctor can't provide abortions, so the clinic closes.
That strategy has been used to try to close down the last clinic in Mississippi, although that case is now in federal court. The proposal in Texas also requires admitting privileges.
The latest version of the North Carolina proposal requires clinics to have "transfer agreements" with hospitals, a similar strategy. Hospitals can be pressured to not to enter into those agreements. That strategy has resulted in the closure of at least two clinics in Ohio.
Ohio's latest bill, signed into law Monday by Republican Gov. John Kasich, bans public hospitals from entering into transfer agreements.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, an abortion rights advocacy group, seven other states also have "transfer agreement" requirements, including Virginia and Tennessee.
Proponents of the requirement say it ensures speedy treatment for a patient who suffers complications, but opponents say hospitals are required to accept emergency patients with or without an agreement.
Another commonly used "TRAP" provision is to require all abortion clinics to meet the same standards as ambulatory surgical centers. Proponents say the aim is to ensure the safety of patients, but the licensing and engineering requirements for surgical centers, governing everything from hallway width to parking spaces, are far more stringent than most existing abortion clinics can meet.
Pennsylvania and Ohio have similar laws, and the provision is included in the Texas proposal as well.
The North Carolina proposal would require the physician to remain present with the patient throughout the procedure, whether surgical or medical (drug-induced). Melissa Reed with Planned Parenthood of North Carolina says about half of all abortions are medical."
Jeez, wouldn't it be nice if these folks could get as 'Big Government' on exploding fertilizer plants as they do on other fertile matters.
These guys however, can't be expected to regulate cosmetic surgery which is primarily performed on women:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/perfi/basics/story/2011-12-27/state-regulations-cosmetic-plastic-surgery-offices/52247588/1
But yeah, let's all buy into the story that this is about women's health and that invasive sonogram procedures are about 'informing the consumer'.
#8 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 4 Jul 2013 at 03:28 PM
And let's ignore the fact that republican governors who are crafting these 'women's health' laws are rejecting the expansion of health care coverage for reasons that are sociopathic:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/25/us/states-policies-on-health-care-exclude-poorest.html
http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/06/06/2944030/nc-needs-to-look-again-at-medicaid.html
It's not about women's health, it's about power. White male power.
#9 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 4 Jul 2013 at 03:37 PM