Anti-women? Of course not...
Gee, trying to eliminate choice can't be taken as being anti-women, can it? Oh, wait, yes it can.
The Texas legislative branch about pass a law that would restrict almost all abortions and shut down most clinics. Perry, of course, will sign it. Of course they're against women. However, that's not the only problem with the law.
First, they are passing a law tougher than laws passed in other states, laws which were found by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional. They claim to be fiscal conservatives, but they know they will waste millions of Texan tax dollars to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court knowing it's most likely going to lose. They're wasting money to make a political point.
Then there's an interesting part of the article: "The only way Democrats could block a vote when it goes to the Senate is if one senator filibusters it by running out the clock on the special session. Under the rules, the senator would have to speak non-stop, remain standing, restrain from bathroom breaks or even lean on anything." Notice this is what people call the "nuclear option" in the US Senate. Republicans decry that as supposedly going against democracy by limiting filibusters to only rare instances rather than allow filibusters on everything. However, you won't hear them demanding the Texas legislature change their filibuster rule to match the Senate. Of course not. That would be consistent.
The Texas legislative branch about pass a law that would restrict almost all abortions and shut down most clinics. Perry, of course, will sign it. Of course they're against women. However, that's not the only problem with the law.
First, they are passing a law tougher than laws passed in other states, laws which were found by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional. They claim to be fiscal conservatives, but they know they will waste millions of Texan tax dollars to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court knowing it's most likely going to lose. They're wasting money to make a political point.
Then there's an interesting part of the article: "The only way Democrats could block a vote when it goes to the Senate is if one senator filibusters it by running out the clock on the special session. Under the rules, the senator would have to speak non-stop, remain standing, restrain from bathroom breaks or even lean on anything." Notice this is what people call the "nuclear option" in the US Senate. Republicans decry that as supposedly going against democracy by limiting filibusters to only rare instances rather than allow filibusters on everything. However, you won't hear them demanding the Texas legislature change their filibuster rule to match the Senate. Of course not. That would be consistent.