Text of House Bill 896

Here is the text of House Bill 896:

86R6142 SCL-F
	By: Tinderholt	H.B. No. 896

	A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
	AN ACT
	relating to prohibiting abortion and protecting the rights of an
	unborn child.
	BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
	SECTION 1.  The heading to Section 151.002, Family Code, is
	amended to read as follows:
	Sec. 151.002.  RIGHTS OF A LIVING CHILD [AFTER AN ABORTION OR
	PREMATURE BIRTH].
	SECTION 2.  Section 151.002(a), Family Code, is amended to
	read as follows:
	(a)  A living human child, from the moment of fertilization
	on fusion of a human spermatozoon with a human ovum, [born alive
	after an abortion or premature birth] is entitled to the same
	rights, powers, and privileges as are secured or granted by the laws
	of this state to any other human child [born alive after the normal
	gestation period].
	SECTION 3.  Subchapter B, Chapter 402, Government Code, is
	amended by adding Section 402.0375 to read as follows:
	Sec. 402.0375.  ABORTION PROHIBITION ENFORCEMENT. The
	attorney general shall monitor this state's enforcement of Chapters
	19 and 22, Penal Code, in relation to abortion. The attorney
	general shall direct a state agency to enforce those laws,
	regardless of any contrary federal law, executive order, or court
	decision.
	SECTION 4.  The heading to Chapter 370, Local Government
	Code, is amended to read as follows:
	CHAPTER 370. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS RELATING TO [MUNICIPAL AND
	COUNTY] HEALTH AND PUBLIC SAFETY FOR MORE THAN ONE TYPE OF LOCAL
	GOVERNMENT
	SECTION 5.  Chapter 370, Local Government Code, is amended
	by adding Section 370.007 to read as follows:
	Sec. 370.007.  ABORTION PROHIBITION ENFORCEMENT. The
	governing body of a political subdivision of this state shall
	ensure that the political subdivision enforces Chapters 19 and 22,
	Penal Code, in relation to abortion, regardless of any contrary
	federal law, executive order, or court decision.
	SECTION 6.  Section 19.06, Penal Code, is amended to read as
	follows:
	Sec. 19.06.  APPLICABILITY TO CERTAIN CONDUCT.
	Notwithstanding any other law, this [This] chapter applies [does
	not apply] to the death of an unborn child, regardless of whether
	[if] the conduct charged is:
	(1)  conduct committed by the mother of the unborn
	child;
	(2)  a [lawful medical] procedure performed by a
	physician or other licensed health care provider, including [with
	the requisite consent, if the death of the unborn child was the
	intended result of the procedure;
	[(3)]  a [lawful medical] procedure performed [by a
	physician or other licensed health care provider with the requisite
	consent] as part of an assisted reproduction as defined by Section
	160.102, Family Code; or
	(3) [(4)]  the dispensation or administration of a drug
	[in accordance with law or administration of a drug prescribed in
	accordance with law].
	SECTION 7.  Section 22.12, Penal Code, is amended to read as
	follows:
	Sec. 22.12.  APPLICABILITY TO CERTAIN CONDUCT.
	Notwithstanding any other law, this [This] chapter applies [does
	not apply] to conduct charged as having been committed against an
	individual who is an unborn child, regardless of whether [if] the
	conduct is:
	(1)  committed by the mother of the unborn child;
	(2)  a [lawful medical] procedure performed by a
	physician or other health care provider, including [with the
	requisite consent;
	[(3)]  a [lawful medical] procedure performed [by a
	physician or other licensed health care provider with the requisite
	consent] as part of an assisted reproduction as defined by Section
	160.102, Family Code; or
	(3) [(4)]  the dispensation or administration of a drug
	[in accordance with law or administration of a drug prescribed in
	accordance with law].
	SECTION 8.  The following provisions are repealed:
	(1)  Section 71.003(c), Civil Practice and Remedies
	Code;
	(2)  Section 103.002(b), Occupations Code;
	(3)  Section 20.01(5), Penal Code; and
	(4)  Section 49.12, Penal Code.
	SECTION 9.  (a) The changes in law made by this Act apply
	only to conduct that occurs on or after the effective date of this
	Act. Conduct that occurs before the effective date of this Act is
	governed by the law in effect immediately before the effective date
	of this Act, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.
	(b)  The changes in law made by this Act apply only to an
	offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An
	offense committed before the effective date of this Act is governed
	by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former
	law is continued in effect for that purpose. For purposes of this
	section, an offense is committed before the effective date of this
	Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date.
	SECTION 10.  Any federal law, executive order, or court
	decision that purports to supersede, stay, or overrule this Act is
	in violation of the Texas Constitution and the United States
	Constitution and is therefore void. The State of Texas, a political
	subdivision of this state, and any agent of this state or a
	political subdivision of this state may, but is not required to,
	enter an appearance, special or otherwise, in any federal suit
	challenging this Act.
	SECTION 11.  This Act takes effect immediately if it
	receives a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each
	house, as provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution.
	If this Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate
	effect, this Act takes effect September 1, 2019.

Facebook Posts

I have written three Facebook posts that I want to share on this blog.  This first one was in reference to an article on Iowa's Fetal Heartbeat Bill that was signed into law this past spring and then struck down by a court not long after:

Why are we pro-life? I mean seriously, why do we believe the way we do about abortion? Is it to prevent women from escaping the consequences of past actions? No, of course not. It is because we believe that unborn children possess the right to life that all born persons possess, from the moment of conception on. We need a law that recognizes this.

I read the Iowa bill, and it does not recognize the right to life of unborn children. It was also fairly obvious that it was going to get struck down and will continue getting struck down in appellate courts. It treats abortions as simple medical procedures to be regulated. There were exceptions for medical emergencies, and those medical emergencies included cases of rape (I could imagine men being falsely accused of rape by a mother intent on having her child killed). The administration of the new regulation was left to the Iowa Board of Health, not law enforcement. And it also assigned no civil or criminal liability to a woman upon whom an abortion was performed in violation of the new law. In other words, it wasn't much different from the Texas law that was struck down by Roe v. Wade. These next two paragraphs are taken directly from the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade...

When Texas urges that a fetus is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection as a person, it faces a dilemma. Neither in Texas nor in any other State are all abortions prohibited. Despite broad proscription, an exception always exists. The exception contained [410 U.S. 113, 158] in Art. 1196, for an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, is typical. But if the fetus is a person who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law, and if the mother's condition is the sole determinant, does not the Texas exception appear to be out of line with the Amendment's command?

There are other inconsistencies between Fourteenth Amendment status and the typical abortion statute. It has already been pointed out, n. 49, supra, that in Texas the woman is not a principal or an accomplice with respect to an abortion upon her. If the fetus is a person, why is the woman not a principal or an accomplice? Further, the penalty for criminal abortion specified by Art. 1195 is significantly less than the maximum penalty for murder prescribed by Art. 1257 of the Texas Penal Code. If the fetus is a person, may the penalties be different?

The Iowa fetal heartbeat bill didn't address any of these counters to the arguments made in Roe v. Wade 46 years ago. I'm sure that some of the legislators in Iowa had good intentions. But I'm also sure that a lot of them knew this bill would be struck down in court even before they passed it. So why did they even bother? I suspect that it was so they could claim to be making progress in the fight against abortion when they come up for re-election. "We passed the bill," they will say. "Re-elect me so I can try again." I'm tired of the lives of these unborn children being used as a political tool.

Texas HB896 is a much different kind of bill, removing all abortion regulations and exceptions and leaving the current legal definition of a person in the Texas Penal Code (which includes children from fertilization onward) and would treat an abortion as a homicide case.

____________________________________________________________________

This one was posted mainly so I could tag the Texas legislators on my Facebook friends list...

Texas House Bill 896 would eliminate all regulations on abortion while also removing the exceptions for abortion in the Texas Penal Code regarding homicides. It would, in effect, enable a prosecution for murder for anyone who commits an abortion.

The Texas Prenatal Protection Act of 2003 set the definition of a person as "a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth." (Texas Penal Code 1.07 (26) and (38)). That act has been upheld in court several times since then, meaning that the courts regard that definition as Constitutional. Removing the exceptions for abortion, besides being the Constitutional, moral, and right thing to do, would put the courts in the awkward position of either saying that not all persons possess the right to life (which is what they said in regards to slavery in the Dred Scott case which was superseded by the 14th Amendment) or that Texas's definition of a person is not Constitutional even though they have already claimed that it is. We just need legislators (Matthew Krause, Bill Zedler, Jonathan Stickland, Phil King, Stephanie Klick, Kelly Hancock) to have the will and the courage to pass HB 896.

______________________________________________________________________

And I wrote and posted this one last night after watching the Netflix documentary on Ted Bundy:

We live in murderous times. My wife and I watched the new Ted Bundy documentary on Netflix this past weekend, and I had thought about posting a sarcastic comment that the show was about how the State of Florida punished Bundy for exercising his right to choose. While I thought it would get a point across in a few words (people seem to read the shorter posts a lot more often than long ones like this one), I decided it was in bad taste. What Ted Bundy did was evil, monstrous, and repugnant. Killing a child in the womb is also all of those things.

But as I thought more about it, a line from the movie "Unforgiven" wouldn't leave my mind. Clint Eastwood is standing in a field talking to a young kid. They had just killed a man who had a bounty for mutilating a young prostitute, and the young kid was feeling regretful. Clint looks off into the distance and says, "It's a hell of a thing killing a man. Take away all he's got and all he's ever going to have." It is one of my favorite movie lines of all time, and it summed up the theme of "Unforgiven" so succinctly.

Ted Bundy's victims were females, usually around 20 years of age. When he murdered them, he robbed them of all of the years they would have lived after that. Children killed in abortion are robbed of even more. They don't even get the 20 years that the young women did.

A lot cold cases are currently being solved with new technology that is being used to examine DNA evidence. No one really knows how many people Ted Bundy killed, but investigators are pretty sure that many of his victims have never been found. Somewhere out there in the mountains of Washington, Utah, and Colorado, trace evidence of those bodies remains. If they are ever found, their DNA can be extracted from those remains. DNA is a complex signature, proof that a human being, a person, lived on this earth. That unique DNA comes into being at fertilization, that incredible, magical, miraculous union between a sperm and an egg. The remains, the bodies, of children killed in abortion all contain DNA unique to each individual, evidence that that child lived on this earth. He or she existed before an abortionist ripped him or her from the womb.

Those who claim to be "pro-choice" will tell us that those children didn't live at all, that they were just blobs of tissue. They ignore the fact that all other "blobs of tissue" in a woman's body contain that woman's DNA signature. That embryo, fetus, baby has his or her own DNA. The science is irrefutable, which makes what the state of New York did this past week even more repugnant.

Complacency

I must ask forgiveness for my complacency in my defense of the pre-born.  Over the past couple of years, we have seen the abortion president leave office, hundreds of thousands of well-meaning people attending the March for Life each year, and the filing of House Bill 948 in the 2017 session of the Texas Legislature.  It seemed like we were making progress toward ending abortion.

And then, on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the State of New York passed the despicable Reproductive Health Act which, among other things, made abortions up to nine months legal.  It also made abortions performed by non-doctors legal (so much for the so-called "safe" abortions touted by those who favor this heinous practice).  So, I am awake now.

I am happy to report that State Representative Tony Tinderholt, who filed House Bill 948 two years ago, has filed House Bill 896 this year.  The text of that bill is here:  https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/86R/billtext/html/HB00896I.htm  As you will see, this bill gives full personhood status to every human being from fertilization to natural death and removes all exceptions for abortions from the Penal Code.  It also wipes out all of the regulations for abortions, most of which were put into place by supposed pro-life bills.

I am urging everyone who sees legalized abortion for the evil it really is to write your state representative and state senator.  If you don't know who they are, go here to find out:  https://www.house.texas.gov/members/find-your-representative/  I will also be writing both the Governor and Lieutenant Governor of Texas.

I am writing my state representative today, and below is the letter I am sending.  As you can see, he and I have a history.


Dear Matt:
I am happy to report that as of February 2018 I am a resident of House District 93.  I am also happy to see that you are now in your fourth term in the Texas House of Representatives.  As you will recall, I was one of your earliest campaign volunteers during your unsuccessful effort to win the Republican nomination over Charlie Geren when we both lived in District 99.

I am writing today to ask you to both support and sponsor House Bill 896 as authored by Representative Tony Tinderholt.  Most "pro-life" bills effectively end with some version of "...and then you can kill the baby".  HB896 does not.

You will, of course, notice the language in the bill that states: "Any federal law, executive order, or court decision that purports to supersede, stay, or overrule this Act is in violation of the Texas Constitution and the United States Constitution and is therefore void."  It is bold language in a time when boldness is needed, especially in wake of the passage of New York's despicable "Reproductive Health Act".

Our framers made the process of amending the United States Constitution extremely arduous and difficult.  They wisely saw the danger in making that amendment process easy.  Over the past 46 years, all branches of our federal and state governments have given Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton the effective force of a Constitutional Amendment, a power the United States Supreme Court does not have, nor should it ever.  It is a greatly unjust opinion (not even a law), and as such, needs to be defied.  Yes, openly defying the Federal court system is a grave act, but this isn't some appropriation bill or nice social program or anything applying to the state budget.  This is literally life and death.
I know that in considering this bill legislators might be asking themselves: COULD we really do this?  You instead need to be asking yourself: SHOULD we really do this? When considering the over sixty million dead children over the past 46 years, that answer is an emphatic YES.