@confused@revelife - Some of the risks mentioned might very well be a myth – I’m no doctor, so I couldn’t say. They were listed, though, as possible risks (breast cancer, for example, as I’m sure you know).

However, I have met people who did not know all the risks. Doctors had not given them all the info. I’m glad, so glad, that your family member was given all the needed info (very sad that she had an abortion anyway), but it’s a foolish assumption to think women are always informed. If that were the case, this bill would be rather on the redundant side.

Similarly, there are women who have a great deal of emotional stress due to the fact that they do recognize their baby as a baby, yet face the fear and shame of unwed pregnancy. Depending on the woman, that stress can be quite monumental. Then there is the shame of having had an abortion at all for the same recognition. From the web site you sugggested, just by reading over the few entry lines, I see a lot of self-absorbed people who value their own choices (ie: sex before marriage) as more important than their own well being or the lives they hurt (or end, ie: the unborn baby). Truth be told, I have also met women who expressed great guilt over what they have done.

The fact remains that this bill is highly important. As a result, upwards of 95% of women who have gone in for abortions choose to keep their baby. When confronted with the reality of the child inside them, there is a real emotional and medical reality that they can’t ignore. Given that this number has increased since the bill was passed, it’s reasonable to speculate that there was some level of understanding that the women did not have before. All the bill does is ensure that that understanding is given. Since the number of cancel abortioned has gone up, I think it’s safe to say that it’s likely these doctors and abortion providors have not been so forthcoming as you’d like to believe.

@confused@revelife - Had she kept her baby, would you and/or your family helped her with her child? Given that you were there for her, I think it’s fair to say you would have helped…which is definitely good. Was adoption not an option? Could the baby not live with another family member who is more mature/capable than your family member in question? How interesting that abortion is the only option, or, so it seems.

I am glad that your experiences have proven that not all abortion providers have been so heartless and deceitful. This still doesn’t change the fact that there are places that fail, for whatever reason, to give all the needed info.

I do see self-absorbed women on that site. Women who unabashedly say they would have many more abortions in addition to the ones they’ve already had, disregarding the fact they are murdering new life. Women who are having sex before marriage with or without protection of any kind. “Self absorbed” and “murder” may be a strong terms to use, but they cover pretty much every attitude regarding their sexual activity and/or their choice to murder a child and lack of remorse.

There appears to be an underlying mentality that permeates the argument for pro-choice/abortion, and a good friend of mine sums it up quite nicely. He left this comment on my Facebook post of this same blog article:

“As I read this, I thought of how false and empty Ms Keenan’s argument really is, if you put it in another context. The sole point she stands on is simply, ‘anti-force’. Like this law is some kind of Gestapo, militant thing (even though it never revokes the right to choose). But if you consider it in light of drug companies that offer relief from certain ailments or problems, the argument backfires. Applied to them, Ms Keenan would seem to prefer that people suffering from something that a drug would potentially cure, should be able to get that drug, and not only get it, but should never be ‘troubled by the facts’ surrounding the use of that drug. She would have to argue that drug companies not be ‘forced’ to offer up label warnings because that would somehow be a horrible infringement on their freedom and the freedom of the people who want to use their drugs. Yes, I bet a lot of people would be willing to use approved drugs, even experimental drugs, because of the promise to get them out of pain. They might not want the info. But that doesn’t matter – the gov’t ‘forces’ drug companies to list the risks and side effects, so that no one who takes them isn’t well informed, while still not being denied the right to take them. I’m certain the situation is exactly the same for every medical procedure a doctor performs, from cancer treatment to all surgeries – again they are ‘forced’ to inform, and no one thinks this is some kind of police state measure - especially if the right to have the procedure is left untouched.”

In light of my friend’s example of medical info on the drug packaging, wouldn’t it seem reasonable to conclude that, were such info not provided, how likely is it that everyone seeking relief from pain through such drugs would seek the needed info and also find all the needed info? Some people just don’t know what to ask about or look for. I can tell you that, in my Biblical studies, I know there is something I’m trying to find, but I don’t have the slightest idea how to explain what I’m looking for. As a result, I’m left without much needed understanding on a topic. On the same token, it’s unreasonable to assume that leaving it all up to the woman seeking an abortion will thoughtfully ask all the right questions and have a full understanding of the risks. Even the most caring doctors might accidentally neglect to give all the information, like leaving out a detail or two that would be quite important. So, through this bill, such risks are drastically reduced, if not eliminated.

@lexi@revelife - One of the very first tenants of the bill states that Texas recognizes the unborn, developing child as a human being.
Seeing as the bill was spearheaded by pro-life advocates, I’m pretty sure that there is a strong feeling of murder done by abortion. However, the bill, itself, isn’t addressing the moral aspect of abortion so much as it is trying to offer a compromise. The idea is that if a woman is going to seek an abortion – to investigate it, at least – then she must be given all the information relavant to her potential choice. The bill isn’t designed to permit or oppose abortion; rather it’s meant to inform about abortion and the baby. Since abortion is still currently legal in many states (honestly, I’m not aware if abortion is a federally legal deal or not or if it’s on a per-state basis), and given the nature of this bill, it’s outside the context of this bill to say that this bill is permitting murder, but that, if abortion is legal, a woman must be given all the information about it. If abortion is illegal in Texas, then the passing of this bill would certainly raise a lot of ruckus.

Does that help clear things up?