Civic Issues Blog 2: The Texas Heartbeat Act

Posted on by

Abortion has been one of the most highly debated political focuses in the United States for decades. Though Roe v. Wade (1973) protects a woman’s right to have an abortion, there have been countless attempts to create legislation to counteract this right. Many states, typically red states, have tried to enforce laws and policies that make it impossible, or at least more difficult, for women to get abortions. One of the more recent and controversial attempts to essentially reverse Roe v. Wade was The Texas Heartbeat Act.

Under The Texas Heartbeat Act, women cannot have an abortion in Texas after a heartbeat can be detected in the fetus; this usually happens at around 6 weeks, which is before most women even find out they are pregnant. What makes The Texas Heartbeat Act different from other legislation that has been attempted in the past is that it calls on citizens to report one another (for a potential payout of $10,000), rather than having government intervene. Because government is not interfering, The Texas Heartbeat Act is hard to counteract. Texas lawmakers have essentially found a loophole in the system that allows them to restrict women’s rights. Texan physicians that continue to perform these procedures will be seen as criminals rather than medical professionals and could face serious repercussions, even in cases in which it is medically necessary for the health of the mother and/or fetus.

Since this act affects women so early in their pregnancy, they are left with very few options, and they have a limited amount of time to make decisions. If they find out they are pregnant after the six-week mark, which many of them do, they either must carry the baby to term, leave Texas to get an abortion, or attempt dangerous at-home methods. The bottom line is that for the most part, women that want abortions are still going to find ways to get them, so creating such harsh restrictions to abortion laws is only putting these women at risk. If the women are really set on having an abortion, they may be forced to go to sketchy places that do not carry physicians with the proper training, equipment, sanitation measures, etc. Several things could go wrong.

This also disproportionately affects lower class individuals because they may not be able to support a pregnancy or take new measures to safely get an abortion now that their access is restricted. For people that live in the middle or lower regions of Texas, driving to another state to have an abortion performed may not be an option. This can be a long drive and some individuals may not be able to leave their job or families for a day or couple of days to get the abortion. This is furthering the disparity between socio-economic classes.

Other than leaving the state to get an abortion, more and more women are turning to “self-management” techniques to get an abortion. Some of these methods include using coat hangers or drinking cleaning product to terminate the pregnancy. Both methods are highly dangerous for the health of all individuals involved. Some families have turned to getting vasectomies earlier than expected because they are not willing to risk getting pregnant. Though they will likely be able to reverse the vasectomy later, families are worried that they are not making the right decision for them and that they are just being forced into this.

Many states have attempted to replicate this type of anti-abortion law, but none have been successful yet. Recently, Idaho rejected policies similar to those of The Texas Heartbeat Act in a 4-4 vote. Though the split vote was not enough for the act to be put in place, it is concerning to see that there are just as many lawmakers that want to restrict women’s rights as there are lawmakers that want to preserve these rights. It will be scary to see if other states are successful in replicating Texas’ restrictions on abortion. If more states were to enact similar laws, I think that women would be in danger for their health and safety.

I hope that The Texas Heartbeat Act is reversed or found to be unconstitutional for the sake of Texan women. For those who argue that these women do not need to become parents to the children they birth and that they can give them up for adoption, I would argue that abortion and adoption are not opposite courses of action for the same thing. Abortion addresses pregnancy, while adoption addresses parenthood. Pregnancy in and of itself can be draining for those who are not ready for it. For those who are not financially, mentally, or emotionally ready to be pregnant these restrictions can be terrifying and put women even more at risk. This is not even taking into consideration the flaws in our foster care system and how there are already so many children in the system that are not being properly cared for.

I think that the wellbeing of the woman should be in consideration when these laws are being created. Rather than focusing solely on the potential wellbeing of the fetus, the women who are expected to give birth should be given more concern. I think that Roe v. Wade should be valued and that policymakers should not be involved in a woman’s reproductive health. In my opinion, The Texas Heartbeat Act completely opposes the Roe v. Wade decision and makes the pregnancy progress significantly more intimidating and dangerous for women. With lawmakers discovering these loopholes in the system, it is a frightening time for women. I am nervous to see how this progresses, both in Texas and other states that are attempting to replicate these restrictions.

Sources:

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Skip to toolbar