Texas Freedom Caucus Warns of Illegality for Companies Funding Employee Abortion

https://texasscorecard.com/state/texas-house-freedom-caucus-warns-of-illegality-for-companies-funding-employee-abortions/

by b0sk • 4 years ago

22 53 4 years ago

texasscorecard.com

jleyank• 4 years ago

Either stay and take the staffing and hiring hits or boogie. How much are those tax breaks worth? We might see ob-gyn docs relocating which will screw everybody if it happens. If they can’t get liability insurance or clear guidance on what they’re allowed to do they’re crazy to stay.

andsoitis2• 4 years ago

to murder their unborn children

It seems to me that if you truly believe that an abortion is murdering a human, then the penalty should be the same as the murder of a human who is already born. In other words, a very long prison sentence or the death penalty (depending on locale).

However, if you think that penalty is too severe, then do you really believe it is murder when you have an abortion?

Georgelemental• 4 years ago

There is another position: that in principle the penalties should be the same, but that in practice the culture doesn't yet see the lives of the unborn as as valuable as the lives of the born, and that putting the punishment too far in front of where the median voter stands is counterproductive to the cause. As the rights of the unborn gain more universal acceptance, the penalties for violating them should be increased.

trasz5• 4 years ago

That assumes that the fringe theory of “pro-life” will gain popularity.

atoav2• 4 years ago

Well and more important: all the rules that kick in when someone is born should kick in at day one of the personhood. Tax breaks, social support, etc.

But it is not about personhood, it is not about murder — this is about sex and giving the state the power to enforce prude religious ideas. Which is why there are open discussions about banning contraception as well.

The idea: Sex should only be had for the purpose of generating offspring. It should never be enjoyed. This is the believe, and anyone has to follow it, so it needs to become law.

rayiner7• 4 years ago

That doesn’t follow. The law applies differing treatment at different stages of life in many contexts. We have different social programs that kick in for young people versus old people, for example. And we do have social programs specifically for pregnant women.

As to the sex argument, do you really find it persuasive? Because it makes no sense to me. Religious conservatives view babies as a blessing, not a punishment—for having sex or anything else. What they reject is the premise that destroying a human life must be legal to maintain the fiction that sex is without consequences. (Note that the vast majority of republicans support legalized contraception, at about the same rate as democrats: https://news.yahoo.com/poll-most-americans-will-balk-if-cons...)

DeathArrow4• 4 years ago

But it is not about personhood, it is not about murder

It's about taking an innocent life.

rayiner7• 4 years ago

That doesn’t follow at all. The law recognizes numerous degrees of culpability even for intentional killing of another human (e.g. premeditated versus not). In Texas, second degree murder carries a penalty of 2 to 20 years.

andsoitis2• 4 years ago

In most states, first-degree murder is defined as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated.

So, it comes back to my first argument - if you really think that an abortion is the murder of a human, then it is in the first degree, right? And if so, the penalty would be pretty high. Are you OK with that?

cratermoon• 4 years ago

Ask people who think that a pregnant woman is carrying around an unborn human if they agree that all the other laws that apply to humans and children should apply to these "unborn humans".

DeathArrow4• 4 years ago

It seems to me that if you truly believe that an abortion is murdering a human, then the penalty should be the same as the murder of a human who is already born.

I fully agree with it. The punishments for murdering unborn children are too mild. They should be more severe.

trasz5• 4 years ago

Yet another victim of Catholic hate preaching.

david38• 4 years ago

The penalty for murder is highly variable. Murder of small child is often a pittance compared to an adult.

There are other arguments involved. Was the murder brutal? Did people depend on the victim? Children have no dependents, though this is offset by the vulnerability and future life of the victim.

threatofrain• 4 years ago

Moreover, if abortion is murder, then there ought be no exception for rape, as killing children for psychological relief ought be a repugnant exchange.

And the insurance companies, doctors, and medical groups involved are basically in an industry of assembly line baby murder for money. The culpability of doctors cannot be the same.

josephcsible8• 4 years ago

Pro-choice people seem to want it both ways when it comes to exceptions for rape. If there is an exception for rape, they say the pro-life law is bad because "see, it's not really about the lives of the children, it's just to control women's sexual choices". And if there's not an exception for rape, they say the pro-life law is bad because "look at all these really young rape victims who will now be forced to bear their rapists' children".

skyzyx• 4 years ago

American conservatives are utterly hypocritical and self-inconsistent. The things they believe don’t even pass the sniff test with their own rhetoric.

It’s not based on logic. It’s based on emotion. America was founded by the Puritans.

It’s not about life, it’s about control.

ivraatiems• 4 years ago

I'm looking forward to the lawsuits challenging this. I'm not 100% sure how they'll turn out, but it'll be nice to have big corporations spending their money on protecting something I agree should be protected, for a change.

inetsee• 4 years ago

I am wondering about the implications if an organization (charitable or otherwise) located in a state that allows abortions provides travel expenses to someone coming from Texas (or other states banning abortion) into a state that allows abortions? What if an organization provides relocation assistance (including travel, moving expenses, help with job hunting, etc) to someone relocating to a state that allows abortions? Can Texas charge someone who did not have an abortion in Texas, or someone who has stopped being a resident of Texas?

Justsignedup• 4 years ago

That's the attempt which actually breaks states' autonomy rights, so a state say... NY will be able to charge the seller of a gun if that gun was ever used in NY if it didn't meet the strict NY background check requirement, even in the case of a gun show.

That can't make sense otherwise any state can make laws for other states. Effectively allowing each state to be a federal-level lawmaker.

This is clearly unconstitutional, but of course, it all depends on the insanity of the current SCOTUS.

rayiner7• 4 years ago

It’s well established that sovereign entities have the right to regulate the conduct of their citizens even abroad. For example the FCPA which makes Americans liable for bribery that occurs in foreign countries. Or American federal income taxes which are based on citizenship.

That changes when someone relinquishes their citizenship, however. As to American states, relinquishing citizenship is as easy as relocating to another state and taking steps indicating intent to change your residence permanently, such as changing your driver’s license or voter registration.

Thus providing relocation assistance is on different legal footing than paying for abortions out of state.

beebmam• 4 years ago

How ironic it is that the "Freedom Caucus" is using the power of the government to limit the freedom of it's constituents.

I remember the day when libertarians were vehemently pro-choice. What happened?

jnwatson• 4 years ago

The libertarian movement got co-opted just like the Republican Party. They got brainwashed by Ailes and company.

pstuart• 4 years ago

Libertarians are just republicans that want to smoke pot.

yokem55• 4 years ago

It may come down to companies offering a more generic 'medical travel benefits'. Something like, "If a medical service is not available locally, employee can recieve $xxxx in travel benefits per year to obtain that service." At that point, the company can disclaim knowlege of what medical services have been obtained, and then it is soley up to the employee.

DeathArrow4• 4 years ago

So big corporations are using taxpayers money to pay for breaking the law.

I hope they get punished.

Texas Freedom Caucus Warns of Illegality for Companies Funding Employee Abortion

Related Stories