Image 01 Image 03

Abbott Plans to Sign Bill Banning Abortion After Six Weeks

Abbott Plans to Sign Bill Banning Abortion After Six Weeks

The law forbids a physician from knowingly performing or inducing “an abortion or a pregnant woman.”

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said he plans to sign the Texas Heartbeat Act, which bans abortion after six weeks.

The bill states basic biology: “pregnancy begins with fertilization” and “occurs when the woman is carrying the developing human offspring.” The authors said pregnancy is also determined by the date of a female’s last period.

However, not every woman has a perfect 28-day cycle. I have a friend who did natural family planning, kept a chart of her cycle, and calculated her due date as November 25. The doctor went by the date of her last period and wrote the due date as November 10 or sometime around there. I wonder how Texas will deal with those situations.

(By the way, the six-week ultrasound proved my friend correct! Charting is awesome. She was able to tell which date she conceived her child, too. Pregnancy is a miracle!)


Also from the bill:

Sec. 171.202. LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS. The legislature finds, according to contemporary medical research, that:
(1) fetal heartbeat has become a key medical predictor that an unborn child will reach live birth;
(2) cardiac activity begins at a biologically identifiable moment in time, normally when the fetal heart is formed in the gestational sac;

The gestational sac is the “structure compromising the extraembryonic membranes that envelop the unborn child and that is typically visible by ultrasound after the fourth week of pregnancy.” It is not the placenta.

The law forbids a physician from knowingly performing or inducing “an abortion or a pregnant woman.”

The physician can perform or induce an abortion if “the physician has determined, in accordance with this section, whether the woman’s unborn child has a detectable fetal heartbeat.”

So the abortion can only happen in a medical emergency. Rape and incest do not count. The person who impregnated the woman “through rape or incest could not sue.”

The Texas Heartbeat Act allows private citizens to “bring a civil action against any person who”:

(1) performs or induces an abortion in violation of this chapter;
(2) 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, if the abortion is performed or induced in violation of this chapter, regardless of whether the person knew or should have known that the abortion would be performed or induced in violation of this chapter.

The person cannot “have a connection to an abortion provider or a person seeking an abortion.”

The pro-infanticide groups and people hate the bill. fOlLoW tHe ScIeNcE!!

Weird how they never want to follow the science when it comes to murdering unborn human beings. It’s so gross.

The people of Lubbock, TX, voted for the Sanctuary City for the Unborn ordinance on May 1. It wants “to make it illegal to perform an abortion inside city limits.”


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Unconstitutional bill that would be immediately struck down under Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833.

    Milwaukee in reply to paralegal. | May 14, 2021 at 7:19 pm

    Please feel free to explain your reasoning.

      Close The Fed in reply to Milwaukee. | May 14, 2021 at 8:07 pm

      If it’s unconstitutional, it’s because judges sat as an ongoing constitutional convention and declared it so.

      Ignore such law-itis.

      paralegal in reply to Milwaukee. | May 14, 2021 at 8:55 pm

      The unconstitutional Texas law is a pre-viability ban. The State’s right to regulate abortion does not begin until post viability. This junk law is dead on arrival.

      “It must be stated at the outset and with clarity that Roe’s essential holding, the holding we reaffirm, has three parts. First is a recognition of the right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State. Before viability, the State’s interests are not strong enough to support a prohibition of abortion or the imposition of a substantial obstacle to the woman’s effective right to elect the procedure. Second is a confirmation of the State’s power to restrict abortions after fetal viability, if the law contains exceptions for pregnancies which endanger the woman’s life or health. And third is the principle that the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child. These principles do not contradict one another; and we adhere to each.”

      Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992) 505 U.S. 833, 846

      “But these facts go only to the scheme of time limits on the realization of competing interests, and the divergences from the factual premises of 1973 have no bearing on the validity of Roe ‘s central holding, that viability marks the earliest point at which the State’s interest in fetal life is constitutionally adequate to justify a legislative ban on nontherapeutic abortions.” Id at 860.

      Any attempt at a pre-viability ban is dead in the water at its inception.

        Sanddog in reply to paralegal. | May 14, 2021 at 11:26 pm

        I thought perhaps you’d quote congressional law or the constitution, not a “right” created by 7 robed thugs. You wont see trimesters mentioned in the 4th amendment because it wasn’t written to create the right to kill your child as long as it’s still in the womb. The reason why Roe v Wade is so contentious (other than that whole dismembering your child and murdering it part) is that it is an invented right imposed upon the country by judges, not a right that’s actually guaranteed. It’s not going to last forever, it will eventually go down with every other shitty court decision that veered away from the rule of law and entered the domain of the rule of judges.

        Ben Kent in reply to paralegal. | May 15, 2021 at 12:20 am

        I think they are defining viability as the point a fetus has a heartbeat.

        There is medical evidence that 99.9% of such fetus’ are viable.

        This may ultimately go to Supreme Court.

          Ben Kent: I think they are defining viability as the point a fetus has a heartbeat.

          The court is using the term to refer to when the fetus is “potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb”.

      Close The Fed in reply to Milwaukee. | May 14, 2021 at 9:47 pm

      I wouldn’t bother asking for his reasoning. We all know these pro-vivisection types are completely happy to ignore the constitution in order to implement their policy preferences, no matter how barbaric.

      You may as well as a musselman why does he want to kill infidels and crash planes into skyscrapers.

    n.n in reply to paralegal. | May 14, 2021 at 8:24 pm

    There are precedents to overturn precedents. The sustainable humanity and agency of the mother, and father, too, the humane treatment of the child, are a compelling, and, in fact, progressive interest for individuals, society, and human-kind, for the People and our Posterity under our Constitution.

    txvet2 in reply to paralegal. | May 14, 2021 at 8:51 pm

    Per which article or amendment to the Constitution?

      paralegal in reply to txvet2. | May 14, 2021 at 8:57 pm


      ” Constitutional protection of the woman’s decision to terminate her pregnancy derives from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992) 505 U.S. 833, 846

I’m glad

Fetal heart beat detected. Excellent.
Advances in medicine may continue to refine and improve on what ultrasounds offer.

    n.n in reply to Milwaukee. | May 14, 2021 at 8:28 pm

    Yes, evolution from conception, and with technical advances, observable and reproducible. A “burden”, perhaps, but women, and men, have four choices+six weeks. Still, a step in the right direction to reform and mitigate social progress.

Close The Fed | May 14, 2021 at 8:10 pm

As I recall hearing, perhaps in law school, perhaps afterwards, that if a state legislature would declare the unborn child a “person,” the supreme court would concede it could render abortion illegal.

Regardless, Texas is going in the right direction.

Dear Young Women:
Please be informed it is disadvantageous to your long-term prospects to accommodate men to whom you are not married, who wish to engage in sexual relations.

Your self-interest dictates forming an Unmarried Women’s Union, and treating as a scab all women who do so.


    Milwaukee in reply to Close The Fed. | May 14, 2021 at 10:18 pm

    Thank you. My recollection is no other than Sandra Day saying that states defining when life beings would crimp abortion right claims.

It’s always amazing to find people that think there’s nothing wrong with the murder of a tiny human being in the making. Big clue comes when this miracle is referred to as a “fetus” because it usually signals the attitude of rating he/she as a semi-dead creature instead of a tiny version of all of us, just remarkably more helpless without any defenses.

Does anyone remember photos of men with cubs barbarically slaughtering baby seals? Certainly stomach churning, but so many still have no regard for
human babies enduring considerably more horrific pain and torture.

This is acceptable HOW?

    paralegal in reply to Jmaquis. | May 14, 2021 at 8:59 pm

    Your error is in calling it murder. Murder is a legal conclusion for unlawful killings. Therapeutic abortion is legal in all 50 states and thus, by definition cannot be called murder.

    That is without getting into the scientific illiteracy of the pro-life movement,

      Close The Fed in reply to paralegal. | May 14, 2021 at 9:42 pm

      We got this law-itis addict here.

      As a lawyer, I condemn law-itis.

      Milwaukee in reply to paralegal. | May 14, 2021 at 10:25 pm

      Viability is one line of reasoning. Personhood is another. Once legally defined as a person, the unborn acquires loads of benefits. Of course, the viability line suggests reasons to support euthanasia and or withholding care and nutrition from the infirm and ill. Do you want to go down that road? I don’t.

      Ironclaw in reply to paralegal. | May 15, 2021 at 12:01 am

      It’s one person ending the life of another, that’s murder.

      UserP in reply to paralegal. | May 15, 2021 at 10:26 am

      “…the scientific illiteracy of the pro-life movement,”

      Are you a parascientist too?

        Ironclaw in reply to UserP. | May 16, 2021 at 10:36 am

        As opposed to the pro-death people who can’t tell the difference between a boy and a girl? That kind of scientific illiteracy?

        mark311 in reply to UserP. | May 16, 2021 at 10:41 am

        Paralegal is pointing out that the pro life movement has a history of issues when it comes to the science. There are notorious instances where the pro lifers have made stats up to make claims like abortion causes X issue.

      Lucifer Morningstar in reply to paralegal. | May 15, 2021 at 3:33 pm

      If it’s an error to call it murder then why are abortion advocates so desperate to dehumanize the unborn child by calling it a “fetus” or better yet “the product of conception”. If it’ not murder as you claim why not simply call them “unborn child” and acknowledge that the court sanctions their murder.

      Also, if it’s not murder as you claim how do you explain the states that have enhanced charges for those that kill a pregnant woman and their unborn child. If it’s not murder to abort the unborn child then why is it considered an additional crime if you murder a pregnant woman and as a result kill the unborn child.

      Awaiting your answers. Thanks.

        It’s a women’s choice to share her body with a fetus no one else’s. The federal law regarding double homicide for a pregnant women specifically discounts abortion. As a law it was quite controversial for precisely the reason you allude too. It’s an over reach in terms of how government defines a person.

        It’s not a dehumanising term it’s a scientific term. A fetus doesn’t have all the prerequisites of a person but its a complex discussion.

Sorry, not “cubs” clubs!

It would seem that the justices will not have the liberal ease of hiding in darkness, under the veil of the Twilight Amendment (so-called penumbras and emanations). The fifth choice, the wicked solution, the Pro-Choice religion, the Progressive Church etc., Planned Parent/hood corporation etc, are on notice. The nervous system develops around 4 months. 6 weeks following conception is more than enough time to abort a child for elective causes. This is a major step to mitigate social progress, and restore the humanity and agency of both women and men.

That said, Pro-Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, without diversity, sexism, ageism, etc., for the People and our Posterity.

    Close The Fed in reply to n.n. | May 14, 2021 at 9:43 pm

    Don’t really understand why you say “mitigate social progress.”

    More accurately, reversing social disintegration.

      JusticeDelivered in reply to Close The Fed. | May 15, 2021 at 8:06 pm

      There is a very high sponatious abortion rate, a rate which dwarfs induced abortions. Also, both sperm and eggs are alive, just waiting for an opportunity to continue to their next stage of life. 🙂

      Life is one continous process, of which conception is nothing more than the next stage.

    n.n: 6 weeks following conception is more than enough time to abort a child for elective causes.

    That is incorrect. Many women do not even know they are pregnant within six weeks of gestation. Then there has to be time to discuss with family members or clergy, then time to make an appointment.

      Close The Fed in reply to Zachriel. | May 15, 2021 at 1:28 pm

      Blah, blah, blah. If we didn’t have this rampant social disintegration, this “problem” would be a tiny fraction of the barbarity currently practiced.

First, he restores scientific and medical discipline to handling Covid-19. Now, he restores scientific and medical discipline to caring for “our Posterity”, a baby, who is not merely a “fetus”, a technical term of art used to social distance technicians and abortionists. Abbott makes one right choice after another.

    Close The Fed in reply to n.n. | May 14, 2021 at 9:44 pm

    For the most part agree re: Abbott. But he was TOTALLY WRONG ABOUT http://WWW.GAB.COM

    gonzotx in reply to n.n. | May 14, 2021 at 9:50 pm

    Abbott for the most part is a RINO, he wants higher office but he doesn’t have the cajones of DeSantis, he’s always a day late and a penny short

      texansamurai in reply to gonzotx. | May 16, 2021 at 9:50 am

      abbott is many things but would not characterize him as a rino–he did commendable work as our ag and has done commendable work as governor–believe he has, for the most part, the best interests of texans and our state in mind–believe he has a clear sense of who we are and where we are in history–most of all, he is a true texan, born in duncanville if memory serves–unlike some moron like davis(born in RI?) or even W(CT wasn’t it?)–he and paxton have worked consistently to preserve/protect our rights as individuals and as a state

    n.n: a baby, who is not merely a “fetus”, a technical term of art used to social distance technicians and abortionists.

    The term in English dates to the 14th century, from the Latin, as are many scientific terms.

      gonzotx in reply to Zachriel. | May 15, 2021 at 10:46 am

      It’s used however to de humanize the human growing in our uterus

        mark311 in reply to gonzotx. | May 15, 2021 at 11:51 am

        No it’s used to describe a stage in development. A fetus is quite different from a baby.

          Ironclaw in reply to mark311. | May 16, 2021 at 10:40 am

          That’s like trying to say that a child is different from an adult. The person’s DNA does not change and they’ve developed according to those instructions since their conception. They may be different, but they are still the same person.

          Ironclaw: That’s like trying to say that a child is different from an adult.

          This sub-thread concerned the term “fetus.”

          To address your point, it’s a question of valuation. Most people place a very high value on people, and most people also place a very high value on a fetus, which is seen as the promise of a baby. However, few people place such a high value on a zygote. There is also the question of limiting the power of government. Forcing women to carry babies to term against their will is to give government very great power over the individual.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | May 16, 2021 at 2:20 pm


          A child is different from an adult in terms of development. Likewise a fetus is different from a baby in terms of development, and fundamentally so. If something is only potentially a person that logic creates massive issues in terms of personhood. If you say a fetus is a person irrespective of any developmental conditions then you have to extend that logic further back to the moment of conception and further still. Under that logic a sperm or egg is a person because it’s only the potential for personhood that qualifies as the deciding criteria. Which clearly has problems. This clearly creates a difficult moral problem under that theory.

      Close The Fed in reply to Zachriel. | May 15, 2021 at 1:29 pm

      In Latin, “fetus” means baby.

        Close the Fed: In Latin, “fetus” means baby.

        Closer to hatching or bearing of offspring, though sometimes used to refer to the new offspring itself. However, scientists have typically adopted Latin words for nomenclature because Latin is a dead language and was the language of scholarship.

        Fetus means the stage of development of an animal from the embryonic stage, when the major structures have developed, to birth.

Good, we should not be so easily allowing the murder of babies for simple convenience.

henrybowman | May 15, 2021 at 5:22 am

“The law forbids a physician from knowingly performing or inducing “an abortion or a pregnant woman.”

That’s ON, not OR. You did that twice.

henrybowman | May 15, 2021 at 5:29 am

I’m real confused by the conditions here. This is yet another law that seems to criminalize activities that the accused may have had no idea violated the law.

For example, according to the “knowingly engages in” clause, a baby daddy who pays for his squeeze’s abortion under the impression that he knocked her up at their booty call last month instead of the one two months ago can be guilty of something.

By the way your next sentence, with “cannot” in red, makes this doubly confusing, because it is incorrect. What the law actually says is that people bringing civil suits under this law NEED not have any relationship to a provider or a patient, not cannot.

Unless a woman is comatose, she knows whether she’s had sex or been raped. If the sex was consensual, then she and her partner should already know if they’re willing to raise a child that might come from that sex. Let’s all put our big girl panties on before we take them off, and plan ahead instead of using abortions to clean up after our mistakes. If a woman has been raped, she can prevent the pregnancy from continuing immediately. Of all of the things we fail at teaching, how to exercise self-control and delay gratification (of any kind) until we’ve planned for what we want to do is the one that matters most. It affects more than just creating children we then just discard. Instant gratification is hurting our kids.

    mark311 in reply to elliesmom. | May 16, 2021 at 7:36 am

    That’s pretty stupid, having sex doesn’t automatically equal a consent to a baby. Contraception isn’t 100% effective so that argument doesn’t really work either. Even in your rape example this law doesn’t allow an abortion after 6 weeks. You are assuming that the women’s state of mind is such that she will be thinking rationally after what could well be the most traumatic event in her life.

    How does abortion hurt a kid? Given it’s a fetus, or at the stage it’s being banned by this law an embryo. It’s not even technically got a heart at this stage which makes the laws ‘science’ basis pretty meaningless. In fact from a scientific basis it bares no resemblance to reality. It’s a dark ages law criminalising something that shouldn’t be in the States purview at such an early stage.

      Ironclaw in reply to mark311. | May 16, 2021 at 10:42 am

      So your argument is that most women are too stupid to know that babies come from sexual intercourse?

        mark311 in reply to Ironclaw. | May 16, 2021 at 2:09 pm

        How on earth did you reach that conclusion? I said that having sex doesn’t automatically entail consenting to pregnancy. It’s a women’s right to have bodily autonomy. The claim made both others is that it’s somehow the women’s fault if they have sex and then want an abortion later down the line in the event of an accidental pregnancy. Most women use contraception or the man uses a condom so it’s not unreasonable to say that pregnancy isn’t consented too.

        mark311 in reply to Ironclaw. | May 16, 2021 at 2:11 pm

        Also you seem to have missed the part about personhood or the lack of scientific content to the argument for abortion.

agree will be struck down, creates arbitrary red line which would not satisfy either side. Why have pro-life been arguing life begins at conception and then changing to “heartbeat”?

RandomCrank | May 16, 2021 at 7:14 pm

This will be downvoted because I am not a purist, but rather an American with mixed feelings. Oddly enough, it’s not the only issue about which I have mixed feelings. Shoot me now, purists?

I remember when Roe v Wade came down. I was 15 or 16 years old at the time, and approved of the logic but thought it was premature. At that time, I thought the Supremes took the case too soon and should have let more time pass. But they didn’t, so what about the logic?

What I approved of then, and still do, was the “trimester” framework: No regulation in the first trimester; safety regs in the second; states can prohibit in the third unless the life or health of the mother was endangered.

Then, and now, I thought it was a well-crafted compromise between those who were (and are) “pro-choice,” while acknowledging the moral qualms of the “pro-life” group. To me, the “progressives” have provoked all of this by obliterating the third trimester bans, which are all but dead.

To put it differently, I regard abortion as distasteful, and as birth control has become cheaper, more reliable, and universally accessible, I also see it as a de facto I.Q. test. With some exceptions, only a moron-ette gets pregnant by mistake or surprise. But guess what? By definition, half the population is below average, and this reality much be acknowledged and accommodated when possible.

While I am “pro choice,” I am fine with third trimeter prohibition, with the exceptions mentioned in Roe. The recent “progressive” laws that allow abortion right smack up to the delivery are objectionable, even grotesque. To me, if the “progressives” had stuck with Roe, this issue would be far on the back burner.

As for the TX law, all it will do is raise the birth rate among the stupid. Really, is that a good idea? I don’t think it is.