Introduction
It has long been noticed that particular title choices of legislative documents can significantly affect the minds of citizens and, thus, be used as a marketing tool. For instance, Doctor maintains that lawmakers spend substantial time formulating catchy names and acronyms for their bills, such as the USA PATRIOT Act. Although using this strategy to promote one’s views does not contradict the moral or legal foundations of U.S. society, the abusive application of legislative titles as acts of propaganda should be condemned. In this regard, the current essay seeks to analyze the bill HB16 introduced in Texas State Legislature. It is argued that this document primarily intends to discredit abortion among the citizens rather than to serve as law and, therefore, is sexist in nature.
The Bill Summary
The bill HB16 was filed by the Republican Jeff Leach on March 7, 2019, and became a law on September 1, 2019. Titled as “Texas Born-Alive Infant Protection Act,” the document seeks to protect the rights for the life of children that survived the abortion. It states that a “physician-patient relationship is established between a child born alive after an abortion and the physician who…attempted to perform the abortion” (Texas Born-Alive Infant Protection Act 2019 (TX), sub-s. (c)). Therefore, according to the bill if a medical professional fails to take the necessary steps to ensure the life and safety of a newborn, he/she should bear the legal consequences. The latter includes imprisonment and a civil penalty of no less than $100,000 (Born-Alive Infant Protection Act 2019 (TX)). On the other hand, mothers that attempted abortion are not liable to any punishment under this document.
The Bill’s Real Purpose
In my opinion, the bill HB16 may have a far-reaching negative impact on the local society. It is not only sexist as it further stigmatizes abortion and alienates women from their rights but also intensifies the conflict between people of opposite views. Moreover, the existence of such laws indicates that Texas should have more female lawmakers to represent the demands and rights of both sexes adequately.
At first glance, the bill HB16 can be considered practical and beneficial. Indeed, many people would agree that if a baby is born alive due to a failed abortion attempt, he/she should be granted similar protections as any other human being. However, the deeper analysis reveals zero reported cases of children that survived the abortion attempt (Mekelburg). Also, Novack argues that federal laws already ensure the protection of any newborn regardless of how and when the baby was born. Therefore, the necessity of such a bill as HB16 is at least questionable.
Next, to further clarify the real purpose of the aforementioned document, it is suggested to discuss the Texas legal background. The Lone Star State is considered to have one of the most restrictive measures of abortion in the country (Liptak et al.). Such a condition is explained partly by the local culture and partly by the significant numerical dominance of men both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. Moreover, the interviews conducted by Messer reveal that most of the women in the State Capitol were the objects of sexist comments and/or jokes. Therefore, it is maintained that Texas State Legislature fails to adequately and equally include the views of both sexes.
Conclusion
Summarizing all the evidence, it can be argued that the bill HB16 is primarily oriented to propagate anti-abortion ideas and increase social stigma towards this action through misinformation. Indeed, the analysis revealed that this legislative act does not benefit the body of law as there were no reported instances of a child born alive after the abortion attempt. Furthermore, the federal law already protects all newborns, including those who survived the pregnancy termination. Additionally, the prevalence of men and numerous examples of sexism in the Texas State Legislature suggests that this institute may deliver non-inclusive decisions. As a result, it can be concluded that the only reason for the bill HB16 to appear is to disregard anti-abortionists as extremists who support infanticide.
Works Cited
Doctor, Vikram. Catchy Acronyms & Their Masters: How PM Modi Communicates. The Economic Times, 2019.
Liptak, Adam, et al. Supreme Court, Breaking Silence, Won’t Block Texas Abortion Law. The New York Times, 2021.
Mekelburg, Madlin. Fact-Check: Have Any Infants In Texas Been ‘Born Alive’ After An Abortion? Statesman, 2019.
Messer, Olivia. The Texas Legislature’s Sexist Little Secret. Texas Observer, 2013.
Novack, Sophie.‘Lies Into Laws’: Texas House Passes ‘Born Alive’ Anti-Abortion Bill Despite Protest. Texas Observer, 2019.