I don't like what's going on with women's and children's healthcare in Texas.

So.  Yeah.  This may be a bit incoherent, because every discussion about abortion inevitably becomes incoherent.  With that caveat, here we go:

I doubt that there are many people who read this blog who are unaware that I live in Texas.  But just in case someone doesn't know that, I do.  I live in Texas.

You, friends and readers, may have heard or read about State Senator Wendy Davis's filibuster of a bill that would, in effect, close many women's clinics that provide abortions by requiring that they conform to the standards of ambulatory surgery centers.

The bill would also provide for, I think, a far less controversial (though still objectionable to many people) 20 week limitation on abortions in Texas.  (The current limit, as of the writing of this post, is 24 weeks.)  The bill has been reintroduced in a special session of the legislature, and it will pass.  People predict with some level of certainty that the passage of this bill will close down all but five abortion clinics in the state (one in Dallas, one in Austin, one in San Antonio, and two in Houston).

Texas women are already required to have a sonogram and wait 24 hours before an abortion procedure may be performed.

So here's the problem:  availability of abortions will, probably, be vastly diminished for vast swaths of lower income and rural women in the state.

And here's my fear:  that's not going to stop these women wanting to terminate their pregnancies.  They will seek other means that are far less safe than the non-ambulatory surgical centers that they currently visit today.

This is scary.

My personal feelings on the subject shouldn't matter that much, but for the sake of clarity, I return to former President Bill Clinton's comment that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare."  That is and always has been my position. (Also, I should note a fact:  I have been inside a Texas abortion clinic.  For the sake of the privacy of all parties concerned, I am not going to describe the circumstances of the visit.  But I want to say this:  It was fine.  It was not a happy place.  The protestors did not help and, were, in fact, ineffective.  People do not merrily skip up to a clinic to end a pregnancy.  People do this in great anxiety and sobriety.)

But back to the bill.  I said that abortions should be "safe."

So, yes, the bill is aimed, at some level, at safety, but I fear that the safety measures sought to be imposed are attempting to force the "rare" part of Mr. Clinton's equation by making abortions harder to get.  Making them harder to get does not mean that they won't happen.  It means that there will be far less safe abortions performed in the shadows.  They just will be.  Deal with it.  And women will be harmed; some may die.

So let's talk about how to make abortions more rare:  prevent the pregnancies from happening in the first place.  This means:  (a) better sex education for the people of Texas (including adults, through their doctors) and (b) more widely available contraceptives.  But Texas doesn't want to do that either.  (By the way, the sex education that I think should be provided really ought to contain a component of what pregnancy is and its awesome life-altering-ness.  Honestly, I never knew until I was 39 years old and pregnant for the first time.  That's awfully late in life to learn a fundamental fact about my sexuality.  Maybe the only way to learn it is to go through it, but I think maybe we could do a little better in trying to get that message across prior to the actual pregnancy.)

But I mentioned children's healthcare too in my title.  Right.  What did I mean?

I meant that Texas does not want to provide adequate healthcare for the children of poverty.  Indeed, the sponsor of the Texas House of Representatives version of the bill, Jodie Laubenberg, cannot maintain a coherent position on the status of that entity that grows in a woman's womb.

For the purposes of her present abortion restrictions bill, that entity is a human child deserving of protection.  For the purposes of funding prenatal care for expectant mothers under Texas's version of the CHIP program, Ms. Laubenberg argued that the mothers of in utero humans were undeserving of economic support for prenatal and perinatal care in the first three months of pregnancy under CHIP because their children "were not born yet."

So for the purposes of the abortion bill, these pre-born humans are deserving of utmost protection, but for the purposes of the CHIP program, they're not deserving of vital healthcare until the fourth month.  All of our Ob/Gyns tell us that we need to be getting prenatal care ASAP as it ensures the best outcomes for the pregnancy and the child it will produce.  So why deny it until the fourth month?  It's bizarre.

But it's not, if you think about how most people view abortion, which is through the lens of viability.  Most people hold their nose and turn the other way when you're talking about an abortion in the first three months of pregnancy.  Ms. Laubenberg was just betraying her own prejudices in that regard when she made that statement that they "were not born yet."  She holds her nose and turns the other way too in the first trimester.

And that's because we all understand at least that part of the science:  no embryo or fetus is viable at twelve weeks gestation.  At twelve weeks gestation or earlier, pregnancies are still potential.  But at 24 weeks?  Well, I know of at least two babies born that early who have lived.  So, yeah, at 24 weeks we're talking about at least a fighting chance at life outside the womb.

So, indeed, the 20 weeks limit proposed in the bill, while perhaps not based in sound science, is based in the sort of hunch we all have:  that somewhere between 12 and 24 weeks, potential becomes probability.  For me, it was when I felt my baby move for the first time -- 17 to 18 weeks -- that's when I began to see the future with a real baby.  But that, I admit, is purely arbitrary and should not be utilized as a standard by which one should pass a law.  (Still, it informs my opinions and personal prejudices.)

But the fundamental hypocrisy of wanting to prevent abortions, but not wanting to provide prenatal healthcare for the pregnant women, or provide contraceptive and gynecological services to the poor persists.

So to end my little tirade here's my prescription for a compromise:

1. Safe, legal, and rare abortions.
2. Adequate healthcare for the indigent women and children, including in utero children, of the State of Texas.
3. Comprehensive sex education for the people of Texas.
4. Affordable contraception so as to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

And what I do not want, but fear I may see in the near future:  Women being injured or, God forbid, dying in "back alley" clinics in poor and rural areas of Texas.  Babies being born into a system that will not ensure that they and their mothers have adequate healthcare and support.  It's not enough to prevent the abortion.  If you prevent the abortion and a child is born, we must ensure not just that she lives, but that she has the opportunity to thrive.

I think Texas is smart enough, I think Texas is good enough, to do that.