Okay, now to my contrary nature. I hate to cast aspersions on all conservative states because of this one woman's ignorant comments. While I think the politics of abortions has gotten out of hand, these are representatives of the people from their states. If the populace overwhelmingly supports limits on abortion, I do not see this as an issue as long as it remains Constitutional. I say this, knowing full well I am about to get slammed, because I am a huge proponent of each state doing what is in their best interest.
Seriously, I've met plenty of pro-lifers (being Southern and all). There are many of them that are genuine with their beliefs that life begins at conception. Perhaps the representatives are doing this at the people's will? Isn't that what they were elected to do?
No, and here's why:
Each state is a part of the nation governed at the federal level and ruled by the national Constitution. In all cases of conflict, federal law trumps state law. Federal law, as stated in the US Constitution, mandates equal protection under the law for all persons within US jurisdiction. Because of this, states do not have the right to discriminate against certain groups or curtail the rights of any one group without demonstrable compelling need, even if the majority of the state's voters desire such discrimination.
This is why federal power was used to end segregation even though the majority of southern voters wanted it (and it should be noted that majority of voters existed only because a significant number of residents within segregationist states had their voting rights violated as well).
State anti-abortion laws increasingly attack the civil and human rights of women, exclusive of men, and they do so increasingly obviously. These laws are unconstitutional, and the will of the majority is irrelevant to that.
Although, as rugcat points out below, the will of the majority has nothing to do with it in the first place. This is a minority viewpoint being imposed on the majority by political chicanery.
It's absolutely the issue. Your contention that the duly elected representatives reflect the will of the people does not hold water if those representatives gain power through cleverly (and in some cases, illegally) rearranging districts. They are no longer reflecting the wishes of the people they serve.
Plus, you haven't addressed the point that the will of the people in this case is squarely against what the legislators are doing -- so the idea that they are simply reflecting the wishes of their constituents is not true.
Not to mention that the Governor Perry called a
special session to enact these laws. Far from it being a reflection of the will of citizens of the state, this legislation is a pet project of the right wing political forces determined to impose their own particular agenda of the people whether they want it or not.
This cannot be highlighted too much.
Trying to stay on topic here but Texas must have preclearance for voting district changes due to the Voting Rights Act. Thus, any gerrymandering would have to pass muster at the DOJ first.
...
Which is exactly why Tom Delay was convicted of felony crimes for political corruption connected to the wholesale gerrymandering of Texas he oversaw.
[ETA: CORRECTION: He was convicted of money laundering for illegal campaign finance shenanigans, but the gerrymandering thing was one of the crimes the DoJ wanted to go after him for. However, they made a case on the campaign money, and that's why he's not in government anymore. /ETA.] Of course, however, the existence of the law didn't stop him from doing it, and his conviction for doing it did not erase the illegal redistricting of the state. So no, gerrymandering does not have to pass muster at the DoJ first. Very few people who are intent on breaking the law stop first to check with law enforcement about whether they can get away with it.
Also, I'm not sure the Voting Rights Act covers gerrymandering because redistricting is not a change in the manner of conducting elections. However, someone better versed in election law should probably chime in on this.
Of course, it's moot now, since as of this morning, the Voting Rights Act doesn't cover much of anything, it seems.
Is that the same act that conservatives are hoping the SCOTUS will overturn? The one Judge Scalia termed "racial entitlement?" Texas has been throwing up new plans for the last ten years.
...
They just did overturn it. Heard it on the news just a few minutes ago. I invite all here to imagine the torrent of obscenities and curses exploding in my skull right now.
