By Adriana Quevedo
Should the heartbeat act be repealed? Bill 27 was introduced by Mona Rosas and most of the delegates leaned towards the passing of this bill. The author of the bill started the opening statement by stating the current policy of heartbeat act. The heartbeat act is the abortion law in Texas that states that 6 weeks after conceiving a woman cannot abort the fetus. Then the delegate stated how she wanted to change the policy back to the original abortion law. The original abortion law declares that 24 weeks after conception a woman cannot get an abortion.
The questioning period was made up of multiple pro stances. One delegate asked if the author believes a person who has passed has more autonomy than a woman who wants to abort her child. The author said yes. A similar question asked was “Do you agree that a fetus that isn’t born yet has more autonomy than the person carrying the child?” The author responded with “no”. The answers to these two similar questions show the reality of how the author views the heartbeat act and what the heartbeat act enforces. I went and asked for an interview from a pro and con perspective. The questions were the same, but as I was asking the questions I realized the difference between the peoples standpoints.
The first question I had asked was how does the heartbeat act apply to them and/or others that they know. The Pro perspective responded explaining that being young and in a progressive generation it is looked down upon by traditionalists to abort and that younger generations need to make a change. She also stated that she believes that due to the heartbeat act being in place women could try to self-harm to get rid of their child. Due to this act of self-harm the woman with the child could end up hurting herself and the child if they both survive. This delegate responded answering my next question which was what is a solution to the controversy on this topic. The last question I had asked was “Should Pro-Life centers be able to say no to giving treatment?” At the current moment pro-life facilities are able to refuse abort the fetus. The Pro perspective presented that the way that in professional environments or the way that schools don’t allow teachers to express their personal beliefs is the way that doctors should be when presented with a woman who wants to abort their child.
The Con’s perspective to how the heartbeat act apply to them and/or people around them was that the heartbeat act draws a line well because it allows people their own freedom while also recognizing that fetus’ have a heartbeat and therefore are seperate entities. The Con perspective responded very strongly that if someone around them wanted an abortion they would tell them that their family would adopt the child after the person births the child. That is how the delegate would act upon the situation themselves. The last question “Should Pro-Life centers be able to say no to giving treatment?” very simply and straightforward. The delegate responded saying if a doctor who had gone to school for that job got their license revoked for refusing to give a treatment due to personal beliefs that is a different problem. The delegate also stated that the doctor that went to school for eight years should be able to make that decision of giving the treatment should be their own.
Although the opinions of the delegates varied, Bill 27 passed due to the majority of the delegates approving it.