Why did the fetus cross the road?

I have just learned that Austin State Representatives filed a bill to try and make abortions illegal as soon as five weeks into a pregnancy. Their reasoning behind this is to ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat can be detected. Not "will be detected," but "CAN be." And on occassion, that can be as early as five weeks.
I have many problems with this bill. Once again, it shows Pro-lifers trying to force their ideas on other women and their bodies.
I am pro-choice, yes, and even I still believe every baby should have the chance to live. Yes, I believe it's unfair to the child, and yes, I believe it's unfair to the father who wants to keep the baby... but it's still the woman's decision! You don't know her situation or what she's going through in her life. Maybe she was raped, maybe she's not at a place right now where having a kid is an option, maybe her birth control failed... You just don't know. And if she does get an abortion, how does that affect anyone else but herself? No one will have to deal the decision but her.

I agree that life should technically start when the embryo/baby has developed life-sustaining organs, like a brain or a heartbeat, but prohibiting an abortion before the woman may even know she's pregnant is ridiculous. It's absurd and may actually be unconstitutional.
Some women don't know that they're pregnant until they're at least 5-6 weeks when they realize they've missed their period. It can actually of some women not knowing until they were 3 months along because their periods are normally irregular.

Also, a child with a fetal defect will not show for way longer than 5 weeks. For instance, the child has to at least have developed a spinal cord to know if it has spinal bifida! That could take nearly 20 weeks to find out.
According to Fox 7 News, Representative Harold Dutton stated, "I was under no illusion that the bill would pass but what I was trying to do is prick the conscience."
I hate that Pro-lifers see us Pro-choice people as though we're without a conscience. They think we believe it's okay to "murder" our children and that we don't value a fetus's life.
That isn't true. We just don't see everything in black and white. Quality of life should be a factor in the abortion debate and that's what we realize. Is it better for a child to suffer with a horrible or fatal abnormality than be aborted? You may think so, but I don't.

The whole abortion debate is very ironic. The Senate passes SB1 to prevent people from receiving birth control (because abortion clinics do provide free birth control), but then they try to ban abortions for the babies they're making us have. And yet, the Senate won't offer any assistance to the women who are forced to have those babies and Senate won't play any part in raising it.

Honestly, most of the people I see nowadays protesting abortions are men, who have never and will never get pregnant in their entire lives. Men don't have to feel the fear of finding out you're pregnant, experience carrying it to full term, or deal with the risk of complications during childbirth. In the most unfortunate cases, when the man decides he doesn't want to deal with the situation, the woman gets left alone with the child, and that'll take a toll on her physically, emotionally, and financially. If men got pregnant, they would definitely be pro-choice and there would be abortions in convenience stores and in local gas stations. Beef-jerky flavored.

"Unsanitary" Behavior

The article Señor Abbot was written by Eileen Smith, the creator of the blog In The Pink. In her article, Smith first touches on how Governor Rick Perry made an announcement of a statewide ban of any feminine products that may be thrown at or used to harm state officials. When Senate Bill 5 was passed, a bill that bans abortions after 20 weeks and places more restrictions on abortion providers, women became angry and began to toss miscellaneous purse items at the state officials (e.g. pads and tampons). As a result, tampons and pads were confiscated from women who would attend the House proceedings. Her point is that Perry is making Texas a "national laughingstock." Smith uses humorous sarcasm to make fun of the situation that I agree is ridiculous. Who bans pads and tampons but still allows guns?

Smith then goes on to talk about Greg Abbot's raid of the Texas French Bread company. Abbot and multiple ICE agents barged into the deli and arrested 5 illegal immigrants. In a later interview, Abbot proclaimed that he was not necessarily concerned with attracting Hispanic voters and in an attempt to not seem racist, he mentioned that his wife was Hispanic. "His wife is Hispanic so apparently that cancels everything out," Smith says, once again being sarcastic, "I used to end all my offensive statements with, "But I can say that because my husband's Hispanic!""

Smith's target audience is Texas women against SB5 and Texans who find Greg Abbot's recent actions to be quite silly. By joking with the audience, Eileen Smith is able to talk about serious or controversial issues while making light of the subject. It makes the situation a funny discussion instead of inciting a heated debate.

Eileen Smith may be a blogger, but she is a funny and credible writer. When she makes a statement, she'll hyperlink her words to the specific article in order to defend her claim or to prove her point.

In this article overall, Smith wants to inform her audience of the absurd actions by our state representatives and believes that they should behave better.

Secessionists, what are you doing? Stahp.

The article "Exploring The Secessionist Impulse in Texas" is written by Cindy Casares and is posted on the Texas Observer website. Cindy Casares talks about the Secession movement, which has been started by Governor Rick Perry and past US Senator Candidate Larry Kilgore. In her article, Casares appeals to all Texans, especially those opposed to secession. The basic argument of the article is that Texans who push the idea of secession aren't actually aware of the consequences of seeing it through. Casares insists that the majority of secessionists are white, conservative, southern men who argue for "racist nativism", where Caucasian Texans are favored over immigrants and the minority races. What they don't realize, she states, is that once Texas secedes from the Union, Texas will become a nation where minority races are the majority. She proves this fact with evidence from the 2010 census.

In her article, Casares also mentions that The White House claimed that it will respond to any petition that receives 25,000 signatures in 30 days. However, even though the secession petition got well over 100,000 signatures before the 30 days were up, Rick Perry himself chooses to ignore the petition and states that the Texas would not be seceding from such a great Union. That should prove by itself that secession is not the best move.

Casares wants secessionists to realize that seceding from the Union will not solve any problems. I have to say that I agree with her. I believe Texans would face the same problems upon leaving the US: financial issues, having to deal with immigration, fixing the education system, healthcare, ect. Although Casares establishes her points and shows her credibility with evidence, her argument may not be very successful in the long run. The last few paragraphs of her article become slightly patronizing to Texans who do support the idea of secession. Her word usage, such as "those poor secessionists", would only lead to resentment and cause secessionists to tune out what Casares is trying to say.

Overall, Cindy Casares made her article both informative and amusing. And even though her article may not convince secessionists to change their opinion, it helps on-the-fence Texans to chose a side and gives liberal Texans an entertaining read.

Who the heck is Greg Abbott?

On Monday, July 15th, Texas Monthly published an article about Greg Abbott, the Attorney General now running for Texas Governor. I think this article is worth reading because it informs us what is going on in our government. Normally, I would have skipped past reading this article for an article about a car accident or something more scandalous. But after our supplemental reading this past week that explained how America can name the entire Simpsons family but not recognize past Presidents, I'm beginning to think it's important to be somewhat informed about governmental changes.

According to the article, Greg Abbot introduces his life and discusses his political beliefs. He is pro-life, committed to low taxes, and believes "our schools must do better". Abbot also explains how he plans to solve some of Texas's problems and speaks of how he overcame a tragic accident that left him paralyzed from the waist down. I realize now that I need to read articles like this, because I need to know which candidates have my interests in mind. Also, even being slightly informed can help to avoid electing someone who will ultimately hurt our state (or country), instead of making it better.

So far, Greg Abbot is the frontrunner for the Republican nomination. The question now is whether or not there's a point to a Democratic candidate running against Abbott since a Democrat hasn't won statewide office since 1994.