Update June 26 4:00 a.m. So I couldn't stay away from the Senate floor. The Texas Observer press pass in my purse was too much of a golden ticket for me to pass up. I just got home after witnessing the death of Senate Bill 5. Check out my contribution to the Observer's live blog on the filibuster for more details. The post below is in no way affiliated with the Texas Observer, all opinions are my own.
Original post:
I am a journalist, but I am a woman first.
So today, as Texas Senator Wendy Davis plans to filibuster until midnight on the omnibus abortion bill on the last day of the first called special session, I wear these two hats: I am a woman and I am a journalist. This bill, Senate Bill 5, would essentially kill Roe v. Wade in Texas.
The 1973 landmark case Roe v. Wade, and its companion case Doe v. Bolton, banned many state and federal restrictions on abortion under a "right to privacy" clause in the 14th amendment. The decision asked that the right for a woman to decide to have an abortion should be balanced with state regulations that would protect women's health and prenatal life, which still stands today even though federal abortion laws have undergone a few transformations since then. For example, there have been changes in when abortions may be performed: instead of abortions being tied to the first trimester, a woman has a right to an abortion until viability - or ability of the fetus to live independently outside of the womb.
Today, a woman has the right to an abortion in Texas until viability, but the legislature has approved numerous laws that limit abortion care. In 1976 the Texas Lege prohibited federal Medicaid funding to cover abortions, except in the case of rape or the endangerment of the mother's life. In 2011, last session, the Legislature required physicians to give women information about adoption, the developmental stages of a fetus and the medical risks of abortion. Last session the Lege also passed the sonogram law, which mandates that a physician provide a sonogram and verbally detail to the mother what the fetus looks like before performing an abortion.
Now, SB5 seeks to ban abortions at 20 weeks of gestation, using pseudoscience as an argument that fetuses are developed enough at this point to feel pain. The bill would also require all clinics providing abortions upgrade their standards to those of ambulatory surgical centers. Doctors who perform abortions would need to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital and must administer the abortion-inducing drug, RU-486 in person.
At this moment, all that stands between the passage of this bill in the Senate, and the subsequent act of the Governor signing the bill in to law, is Senator Wendy Davis and her pink tennis shoes.
If SB5 is going to die tonight, Davis cannot eat, drink, break for the restroom, sit down or lean against the desk until after midnight tonight. She also must spend the entire time speaking to topics that are "germane" to the bill at hand, like reading testimony from medical groups and individuals. The rules of a filibuster are strict and the Republicans are going to try to call her on as many rule violations, or point of orders, as possible to get her to stop talking.
KUT's Veronica Zaragovia reports that if this bill passes, 37 of Texas' 42 abortion clinic would close. Or, if we do the math, five clinics in all of Texas would remain open because any clinic that doesn't meet the SB5's requirements for ambulatory surgical centers, because they can't afford to upgrade, would have to close by September 2014.
According to Planned Parenthood, one in three women have abortions by the age of 45. The American
Community Survey estimates there were nearly 13 million women living in Texas in 2011. That is a whole lot of female reproductive systems to control.
As a woman, I am outraged. This bill not only passed the Senate the first time, but passed the House with even more restrictions and got kicked back to the Senate. I am outraged, but I'm not shocked. In fact, I anticipated it. In this ridiculously conservative state, it is heart-breaking that I downright expect a continuous battle for women's rights.
As a relatively young, 26-year-old woman who may or may not have pregnancy in my future (I have a common syndrome which could prevent me from being able to bear children), I am frightened. I love my body, and although I'm not always proud of the decisions I make for my body, they are my decisions to make. I will never be prepared to lose the control and responsibility of maintaining one certain part of my body - my reproductive system. And it's a tricky system to maintain, without the added burden of unwanted, invading legislation.
But as a conventional journalist, if I want to say anything, I am expected to only report with "fairness" and a level of "neutrality" befitting a mouthpiece for other people's stories. I am expected to get all sides of the story and present them with a certain level of professionalism. I am expected to keep my opinions to the editorial pages and otherwise keep quiet. I'm expected to abstain from testifying.
Because of this, when friends and family pressure me to act, to sign that petition or this, I am hesitant. I don't want to put my name - a name that will hopefully become synonymous with "trustworthy," "honest" and "transparent" - to something that could hurt my career.
But I've been giving it some thought. Thankfully, I am not a conventional journalist. I am a radical, 21st century, throw-conventional-media-out-the-window journalist, and I believe I can speak truth to power, stand up for what I know is right and be fair and transparent while doing so. In fact, I believe it is my job to do so. As a journalist, I want my readers to know that I believe in women's choice, and that despite this belief, or maybe because of it, I am be able to report accurately, fairly and with transparency on this topic in the future.
I do understand where the pro-life advocates are coming from: they are basing their decision to support SB 5 on their faith, on their upbringing, on their family values and on the way that they see the world. I may be a journalist, but my very ability to be a journalist comes from those very same places, but it also comes from science, facts and my ability to synthesize massive amounts of information into digestible sentences for my readers.
But if it is still dangerous for me to speak my mind on this subject, having covered abortion law and women's right in the past, and planning to do so in the future, then so be it.
Today I am watching at home as I multi-task, and I will watch from the Gallery later as a citizen if I can get a seat. To me, a woman whose rights are at stake, it is more important to possibly turn off future employers that to not say anything.
So I say: I am a woman and a journalist and I am hoping with every fibre of my being that SB5 does not pass.