I very much appreciate what they’re saying, but let’s be honest, their words will have no effect.
The newly reported deaths of two pregnant Texans sparked a renewed plea from Texas OB/GYNs, including dozens in the Houston-area, for lawmakers to change the state’s abortion laws.
More than 60 Houston-area OB/GYNs were among 111 of their colleagues across the state who signed a letter saying that the “heartbreaking” deaths of the two women — Josseli Barnica, of Houston, and Nevaeh Crain, of Vidor — “will continue to echo throughout our state and our nation.” The deaths were first reported last week by ProPublica.
“Texas needs a change,” the letter states. “A change in laws. A change in how we legislate medical decisions that should be between a patient, their family and their doctor.”
Texans cannot vote on abortion laws on Election Day, though the laws have been a central issue in key races, including U.S. Rep. Colin Allred’s bid to unseat U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz. Allred has cast Cruz as a defender of Texas’s abortion ban and, during the October debate, invoked the names of pregnant Texans who have been forced to flee the state for care. Cruz has accused Allred of voting to allow abortions in the third trimester but has largely avoided the issue on the campaign trail.
Both Barnica and Crain experienced delays when they sought care for miscarriage treatment, and experts said their deaths may have been preventable, according to ProPublica. Physicians had warned for months of the possibility that delays could lead to deaths in Texas, but no such stories had been publicly documented until now.
Doctors and patients have criticized the abortion bans since they took effect in September 2021, saying they go beyond banning elective abortions. The vague exceptions in the law, combined with strict penalties that include life imprisonment for physicians, disrupt the standard process for treating pregnancy complications, they have said in court filings and news reports.
Dr. R. Todd Ivey, a Houston OB/GYN and district officer of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said the group of physicians felt they needed to send the letter after reading the “gut-wrenching” stories. Ivey, who spearheaded the effort, posted the letter to social media on Sunday.
“These laws are not clear, and they’re not allowing women to get the life-saving care they need,” he said. “We need to change this, and we need to decriminalize this.”
See here and here for some background. The reason nothing will happen is because the fanatics who imposed this law on us already think it’s perfectly clear and that all of the problems we’ve experienced so far – the deaths, the bleeding out in parking lots, the unplanned trips to other states, that sort of thing – is the fault of the doctors who refuse to risk jailtime and their licenses and the pro-abortion activists who keep bringing this stuff up. I know I don’t need to tell you again what the solution to all this is, but I’m going to tell you again what the solution to all this is: Voting the bastards who passed these laws out. That feels a lot more daunting now, I know. But that’s what needs to be done regardless.
“(T)he fanatics who imposed this law on us already think it’s perfectly clear and that all of the problems … is the fault of the doctors … and the pro-abortion activists …”
Maybe, but I think that many of those fanatics who imposed this law, and hundreds of thousands of Texans who support it, think that if a few women die, that’s acceptable collateral damage in their cause to ban all abortions. They consciously prioritize the life of the fetus above that of the mother.
ME TOO?
It’s natural to rage in the face of frustration and defeat, not to mention rejection. Letting off steam in writing, to put it metaphorically, can and often does provide relief. It can be cathartic, like hugging the toilet and puking after overindulging and feeling sick. “Ah, now I feel better!”
Whether doing it in public is a good idea is an entirely different question. The effusions happen a lot on YouTube, of course, and it’s even more visceral there, what with the moving visuals.
But there is the question of choice of words and semantics in text-only online discourse also.
LET’S TALK ABOUT BASTARDY
Bastard has a definition in Black’s Law Dictionary and it’s factual: it’s based on the state or status of being born out of wedlock or having been sired by a man other than the mother’s husband (adulterine bastard, a sub-category). I don’t have the dictionary ready right now, so I am paraphrasing, but you can verify it in the law library.
So, to set up a hypothetical, if you call Hirczy de Mino a bastard because you suspect that his is of the pro-life persuasion, and it doesn’t comport with the biological fact regarding the role of his father in making him, aren’t you engaging in defamation? — Arguably so. At the minimum, it’s an insult based on an ascribed characteristic over which the insulted person had no control (assuming arguendo it’s true). And that’s the crux of the judicial rationale for ending discrimination against illegitimate children under equal protection principles (in the USA).
Note that being called “queer” used to be actionable, but usage and social attitudes have evolved (not to mention the judicial “repeal” of sodomy laws) and now it’s an honor to be queer, at least on the left side of the spectrum.
In Head v. Newton, 596 S.W.2d 209 (Tex.Civ.App. — Houston 1980), the court held it was still “slanderous per se” to call someone a “queer,” because “it imputes the crime of sodomy” under § 21.06. But that was then. In the Reagan era.
By contrast, the term bastard remains pejorative and it has an empirical definition. It’s also a status that’ can easily be proven false with reasonable confidence with evidence of a marriage license and a DNA test.
Having pointed that out, let’s agree — for purposes of a proper election post-mortem –that it’s now acceptable to call voters political animals and voters bastards and not mean it literally. What then?
ALL THOSE BASTARDS
If the legislators that enacted a disfavored law (it could be any other law that arouses the passions of party hacks and foot soldiers alike) are acceptably labeled bastards, then that label would be appropriate for those who voted for them likewise. Needless to elaborate, that gives you an awful lot of bastards all over the state and that makes for a problem if you want them to vote for you.
How are you going to get new “customers” by offending them? Calling them names? And then there is the question of what product you are offering. Do they want it? Can they be persuaded to want it?
The premise, of course, is that all these people (the “bastards”) – are actually single-issue voters. Is that a reasonable assumption? I’d say it’s not, because many of them would have voted Republican anyhow. So, the focus and pitch of any outreach and marketing efforts would necessarily have to be on those that were potentially available to make a sale to.
ALL THOSE FRIENDS OF FETICIDE
It’s indisputable that the Dems campaigned heavily on feticide. (Looking at the Tex-Dems website, I see only stories about abortion (100%) leaving aside the post-election announcement of head honcho Hinojosa’s retirement.).
But does the 2024 election outcome compel the conclusion that abortion was the overriding issue for “all those bastards” to vote for Trump and lower-ballot Republicans? – Hardly.
The fact is that the Dems didn’t win except in some districts (and that the overall performance was worse than expected). And it is also indisputable that the Dems focused their campaign on feticide.
How does it not follow logically that the chosen campaign strategy failed?
You can, of course, ignore reality when it’s uncomfortable. At your peril.
CONCLUSION
In 2024, Dems offered feticide at the ballot box (dressed up as “reproductive rights” of course) and voters just weren’t buying. Not in sufficient numbers that is.
WHEN AT FIRST YOU DON’T SUCCEED …. BLAME THE BASTARDS
Texas Dems should have learned a lesson 10 year ago when Wendy Davis was “crushed” by the family man in the wheelchair. See Texas Tribune 11/4/2014: “Exit polls posted on CNN’s website show Abbott beat Davis by lopsided margins with white voters (72-27), men (65-34) and women (52-47). Davis beat Abbott among Latinos (57-42) and African-Americans (93-7).”
PRESCRIPTION
If you want to win, don’t be a single-issue party. And stay away from a divisive issue that is not majority capable.
DISCLOSURE
Hirczy de Mino is a political scientist and occasional commentator who published a comparative study on nonmarital childbearing and its legal treatment titled “From Bastardy to Equality” some time ago. Therein he dared to refer to male parents as fathers and operated on the normative premise that men and male parents have rights too.
The point remains important: Males of the species homo sapiens have a legitimate interest in human reproduction and their involvement in child-rearing is socially desirable if not altogether indispensable as a matter of sustainable societal welfare.
Alas, that’s a taboo topic for Dems these days. It needs to be shattered if they want to do better at the ballot box.
Do you think the current Texas law is fair and reasonable?