HomeGOP War on WomenAuthor of Texas Abortion Bill Once Argued Against Care For Pregnant Women Because Babies ‘Not Born Yet’

Author of Texas Abortion Bill Once Argued Against Care For Pregnant Women Because Babies ‘Not Born Yet’

If you heard a loud noise and felt a thud coming from the west coast today, it’s probably because I had just finished laughing myself out of my chair and onto the floor.  Why did I do this, you ask?  Because I just got done watching Texas State Representative Jodie Laubenberg declare in 2007 that unborn babies for the first three months of development did not require medical attention because “they’re not born yet.”  Now, I don’t normally find myself in a position to care about the words spoken by most state representatives, but what makes Rep. Laubenberg’s comment so great is that she’s been arguing until she’s blue in the face that her Draconian anti-abortion legislation should be passed into law because it protects the rights of, you guessed it, the unborn.

In case you’re bewildered by Laubenberg’s naked hypocrisy, let me clear it all up for you.  She’s a Republican.  No, I don’t mean that all Republicans are hypocrites. I mean that the bill that was being debated back in 2007 was about keeping poor pregnant women covered under Texas’ CHIP program, which provides access to health care for low-income families for their children and pregnant women. Laubenberg was entering an amendment to the bill funding CHIP that would make pregnant women wait three months to get benefits.  So you see, it wasn’t about the right to life for the unborn children back in 2007, it was about the almighty dollar, and even when stacked up against the health and well-being of an expectant mother and her unborn child, the dollar wins.

It’s the same song dance it always is with Republicans on the abortion issue.  They say it’s about sanctity of human life, and yet when the baby’s born they refuse to spend one dime making sure he or she has food, clothing, shelter and a good education.  Apparently for them it’s about the sanctity of life, not the quality of it.  They claim that they are only protecting the health of the mother when they write laws that end up closing down the clinics that low-income and uninsured women depend on for their health services.  They claim all life is precious and then cheer every time they execute a criminal in Texas.

It’s about control, nothing else.  By now the abortion process has been pretty well litigated.  We all agreed to make them safe, legal and rare.  We didn’t do so because we love infanticide.  We did so because it’s not worth sending women to be butchered in back-alley procedures. We did it because it doesn’t make sense to put the rights of a life form that is wholly and completely dependent on its host above that of its host.  It’s just nonsensical.  It’s not that we’re cold, heartless baby killers on the left, we just don’t see the sense in telling the world that a fetus that does not have any chance of survival outside the mother’s womb has the same rights as the woman without whom the fetus would die almost immediately.  It’s just science, it’s not personal.

Well, it’s personal to them. That’s why it’s easy for them to ignore the fetus when the issue at hand is government spending, but go completely off the rails when the issue is “at what point do the inherent rights of the host take precedent over the rights of the hosted?”  That may sound like a cold way to look at the abortion debate, but I refuse to get sucked into the vortex of histrionics about it anymore.  It’s a personal issue that should be left between a woman and her own heart and soul, full stop.  Anything else is just a distraction and attempt to subjugate a gender by any means possible.

I don’t mean to sound so callous about Rep. Laubenberg’s clearly transient morality when it comes to the “sanctity of life.”  It’s really a disgusting display of what her real priorities are; it’s just that I’m having a hard time being shocked by Republican hypocrisy on this issue anymore.  We all know the real reasons these abortion laws are being proposed — it’s about controlling the female gender.  No, that’s not a conspiracy theory; it’s the only non-theocratic, non-emotional reasoning I can find for them to still be writing this tripe in 2013.

Watch the hypocrisy from Rep. Laubenberg in the video below.  Her comment is at about 4:35:

Share on RedditShare on LinkedInDigg thisShare on StumbleUponPin on PinterestShare on TumblrShare on Google+Email this to someonePrint this page

About James Schlarmann

James is in his thirties and gets really passionately angry about politics. Sometimes that anger foments into diatribes, and sometimes those diatribes are comical. Other times, they are not. For more of James's work check out his blog, ThePoliticalGarbageChute.com.
  • Pingback: I’m not actually whittling down my long list of bookmarks this week— | Fraser Sherman's Blog()

  • ten

    Well, technically, it’s not only the female gender, it’s anyone with a uterus.

    A transwoman won’t personally be affected by this bill… but being trans in Texas has got to be horrible enough in its own right.

    /GQ pedant.

  • Storie

    Who are all the people walking around and arguing with eachother infront of the podium? No wonder these laws get passed! NO ONE IS PAYING ANY REAL ATTENTION!

  • http://www.facebook.com/rick.white.58323 Rick White

    Legislating that the unborn be protected only when the mother is ‘good’ is an act of treason.

  • Shelly

    Superb, blunt take on the real issue: the blatant hypocrisy and mind-boggling stupidity of the flavored drink mix partakers.

  • http://www.facebook.com/stephanie.r.payne Stephanie Rae Payne-Gritton

    This ludicrous! Geez we’d be better off with Jim Bob as a representative. I’m so sorry Texas…

  • Richard D. Cameron

    Okay, so who’s surprised that Jodie Laubenberg is a hypocritical moron?!

  • Judy Chonak

    I think, this woman and her cronies are insane, and are screaming this sickening and offensive s**t to draw attention and to prevent the forcing of votes and action on issues that will take their money and reduce their power.

  • Annie

    Actually, I’m laughing because the ad directly under the title is for “Bella Births — Women’s Health and Birth Care Birth Center, Home and Water Birth.” That having been said, I agree that Jodie (shouldn’t he have shed that name by the time he was about 7?) is a putz. Repugs do not care about the baby once it is born. But you need to seriously check who is doing your product placement …JS

    • AATTP

      Unfortunately, we next to zero control over that. Google picks based on keywords and sometimes, clearly, they pick very, very wrong.

      • mysticsigil

        and sometimes they are downright hilarious!

    • MelissaJane

      Jodie Laubenberg is a woman, and her name is no more ridiculous for an adult than, say, Annie.

      I don’t know about the conclusion that “We all know the real reasons these abortion laws are being proposed — it’s about controlling the female gender.” That may be true, but it seems both facile as an accusation and incomplete as reasoning. And some of these crazy people, like Laubenberg, are women themselves. I don’t understand the thinking behind the attempt to deny health care to women or to control reproduction, but I don’t think that “the attempt to control women” is a sufficient explanation. I wish I DID know what motivated these people, because it’s opaque to me.

  • http://gravatar.com/iamjoeychan iamjoeychan

    I feel ashamed of living in Texas.

    • james

      as much as men who ram the draconian measures through of anti abortion atleast they are honest about being sexist. its people like her that are the worst. she is a traitor to her sex trying to clear the way of any obstacles to ensure womens rights are railroaded. one would think to stand up for her sex but instead she chooses not to lift a finger in thier plight which again makes her a traitor and a coward.

  • acktroll

    That about sums it all up so perfectly that further comments are redundant!

  • Bob Cull

    The one thing about these people that is more amazing than their blindness to their own hypocrisy is the depth of their hypocrisy. How can this woman say with one breath that these are children no different than those who are already born and with the next claims that they are not yet children and therefore need no health care. Unlike James I didn’t laugh I just stared at the screen feeling my jaw drop lower and lower as I listened to this poor excuse for humanity rail against spending money “unnecessarily” on “children that are not yet born.” I guess, now that I have said it that way, it really isn’t such hypocrisy since they don’t want to spend anything on the children that have been born either, they are only interested in the unborn.

    • AATTP

      We laugh becasue, as mired as we are in this lunacy all day, every day, we’d have lost our minds by now if we didn’t. ;)

    • Janet

      Isn’t she the same dimwit who said that rape kits…”clean the woman out” and that abortion wouldn’t be necessary because of the rape kits???? OMG!!!

      • AATTP

        Yes, ma’am.

Scroll To Top
website security Website Security Test