Texas Legislators Fight Back With Pointed Amendments


In this era of fetuses being called to testify in court and anti-choicers trying to strip away funding for cancer screening and condoms, it does feel for pro-choicers like we’ve slipped down the rabbit hole, but instead of finding ourselves in a fun Wonderland, we’re instead in the madhouse of Wingnutland.  With that in mind, I have to tip my hat to the pro-choice members of the Texas legislature, who decided to fight absurdity with absurdity last Thursday during the debate over a law that will require  any woman who wants an abortion to get an ultrasound, go home to “think” about it, and only then come back for her abortion.  It’s unclear yet if she’ll be required to sit in her room and write, “I will not be a dirty slut,” 100 times over in her best handwriting and be denied her cartoons for a week.  Perhaps legislators will be holding on to that for the next legislative session.

Furious at the sexist paternalism and anti-choice nuttery behind this bill—but unable to do anything to stop it—pro-choice Texas legislators instead decided to engage in a bit of performance art to draw attention to the hostility towards women and short-sightedness inherent in these ultrasound bills that condescendingly masquerade as caring.  Houston state representative Harold Dutton got the most coverage for repeatedly making the point that “pro-lifers” drop all pretense of caring about life the second it can’t be used to punish sexually active women.  In rapid order, he introduced three amendments that were tabled by the majority, who really didn’t want to address the issue of the wellbeing of actual children when potential children matter so much more to them.  All three amendments addressed what should happen if a woman looks at a sonogram and decides not to have abortion.  The first amendment would have required the state to pay for the child’s college tuition, the second required the state to pay for the child’s health care until age 18, and the third required the state to pay for the child’s health care until age six. 

No one was surprised that the anti-choice coalition was able to successfully block these amendments, but Dutton’s point was amply made: anti-choice sentimentality about children is just a ruse to force childbirth to punish sexually active women, and they don’t care one whit about the care and feeding of actual children once they’re born and have served the woman-punishing purpose.

Dutton had allies in this move to use the amendment process to draw attention to the hypocrisy, sexism, and sadism of those who push anti-choice legislation.  Rep. Joaquin Castro of San Antonio also  neatly proved that anti-choicers don’t care about fetal life one bit, by offering an amendment that would require clinics providing abortion to offer medically accurate advice about contraception, with the aim of preventing future unwanted pregnancies and therefore abortions.  The supposed lovers of fetal life shot this amendment down, doing as anti-choicers generally do, and choosing woman-punishing over abortion-prevention. 

What makes this all even more hilarious is that most abortion clinics already provide medically accurate information about contraception.  The anti-choice coalition could have allowed Castro’s amendment without creating any material change on the ground.  But the hostility to even the appearance of endorsing health care for sexually active women drove the anti-choice coalition to vote this amendment down. 

Castro’s amendment requiring the state to expedite the Medicaid application process for women who get sonograms was unsurprisingly tabled by the pro-life-until-birth coalition. And as a last shot across the bow to demonstrate where anti-choice priorities lie, Castro offered an amendment that would require the state to protect abortion patients from stalking, harassment, and violence from anti-choice protesters.  People advocating ultrasound laws always strike a pose of concern for women, who they paint as too dumb to know what they’re doing when they get an abortion.  But that concern for women doesn’t extend to actually protecting women from actual harassment and violence, of course. 

But while all these amendments warmed my feminist heart, I had a special appreciation for the amendment offered by Rep. Marisa Marquez, representing District 77 in El Paso. Marquez chose to use her amendment to highlight the double standard of anti-choicers, who focus most to all of their attention on controlling the reproductive systems of women, and leave men—at least straight men—completely alone. 

Her amendment deserves to be quoted directly:

Sec.A171.057.AAMANDATORY VASECTOMY. On an application under Section 171.056, a court shall order a man to undergo a vasectomy if it is shown that:

(1) the man is the father of the pregnant woman’s child outside of marriage; and

(2) previous to the date of application, the man was a father to two or more other children by two or more other women outside of marriage.

In other words, the law would allow women that are forced by the state to undergo paternalistic, condescending, invasive procedures would allow women so violated to deliver a similar violation to the men that impregnated them.  Unsurprisingly, anti-choicers did not feel what was good for the goose was good for the gander, and the amendment was tabled. 

Obviously, the ultrasound measure was passed, and just as obviously, without any of these amendments attached.  In an ideal world, a law whose purpose is merely to harass women who get abortions wouldn’t pass at all, but without the benefit of being able to block it, pro-choicers have to take the next step, and that’s expose laws like these for what they are.  Ultrasound laws are invariably defended as somehow being good for the victims of them, and anti-choicers invariably pose as people concerned about children and women.  These amendments demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that the anti-choicers offering this bill don’t care about women, children, or even fetuses really.  Once stripped of their excuses, all that’s left is the unvarnished truth: anti-choice legislators are wasting the taxpayer’s money and everyone’s time with laws solely designed to harass women making private sexual health choices they disapprove of for reasons of sexism and anti-sex hysteria.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Follow Amanda Marcotte on twitter: @amandamarcotte

  • julie-watkins

    hostility to even the appearance of endorsing health care for sexually active women drove the anti-choice coalition to vote this amendment down. 

    Ha!

  • princess-jourdan

    “It’s unclear yet if she’ll be required to sit in her room and write, “I will not be a dirty slut,” 100 times over in her best handwriting and be denied her cartoons for a week. “

     

    LOVE IT!!!! Hahaha!!

  • suburbangrrrl

    Maddow’s show.

     

    Finally, I’m glad the opposition is calling a spade a spade and going on the offensive. Great public education.

  • beenthere72

    anti-choice legislators are wasting the taxpayer’s money and everyone’s time with laws solely designed to harass women making private sexual health choices they disapprove of for reasons of sexism and anti-sex hysteria.

     

    I hope someone is keeping a tally on how much tax-payer money is being wasted on all this proposed legislation legislation?  Just like the NYC National Debt Clock?

     

    I’m sure we’ll get another good Jon Stewart clip out of this.

  • freetobe

    any of our pro-choice Senators will come up with really good ammendments like these? It is about time!

    The ERA comes up this month although I am sure it will be flushed down the toilet but if it ever had a chance to pass women would be freed from all this garbage being thrown at them by the rightie, wrongies.

    So they should make an ultimatum pass the ERA or make ALL women tax exempt. I mean why should women who will have no rights at all in this country have to pay taxes for anything especially since we will not be able to afford to take care of not only our children but ourselves and since we obviously cannot be considered even human since we have no rights.( I mean dogs don’t pay taxes niether do horses. )Why should us non-human women have to either?

  • datasnake

    We NEED to make this a big issue. I think there needs to be some kind of “women’s union”. Think about it: women are a majority in this country. If all women voted the same way, they would pretty much get to set policy. Of course, there will inevitably be Bachmann/Palin/Schlafly type fucktards, but I think you could find enough genuinely good men to make up the difference several times over. The Big Fear™ (to be played up by the Fox Populi) if such a bloc was mobilized would, naturally, be the possibility of “tyranny of the majority”, i.e. a totally matriarchal society with men as a repressed underclass. But there are four reasons such a situation would never arise, all simple enough that even a Fox viewer could probably get it:

    1. Women have consciences (OK, there are a FEW female sociopaths, but you get what I mean).

    2. Most women have men they know and care about personally: fathers, brothers, husbands, sons, and just plain friends. It’s a lot harder to oppress someone when you see them as a human being.

    3. The power of the women’s bloc would depend on a near-unanimous position within the group. Unless ALL women decided to go nuts at the same time, they would be fragmented enough that men’s swing vote could easily prevent anything drastic.

    4. The ERA is, as written, actually completely gender neutral. If ratified, it would guarantee that even if women somehow made up 90 percent of the populace, the remaining 10 percent would be protected.

    Actually, that last point may be just what you need to convince the gynophobes and MRAs that they, too would benefit from the ERA’s passage.

  • kater7

    @DataSnake:

    I’ve often thought about that: if all women could figure out a way to go on strike for a week to show just how much power we have. The world could not run without us and I’m sure there a lot of men who know that and would also go on strike for support. The problem is a plan and a way to connect everyone or enough women/men to make it work without the ‘opposition’ catching on and giving some concessions to make it stop.

     But I’m on board if anyone starts a women’s union!