Policy Analysis: The Texas Heartbeat Act

Policy Analysis: The Texas Heartbeat Act

Student Full Name

Institutional Affiliation

Course Full Name

Instructor Full Name

Due Date    

Policy Analysis: The Texas Heartbeat Act

1.0  Introduction

1.1 Overview

The sexual and reproductive health of women is related to multiple human rights, including the right to be free from torture, the right to life, privacy, the prohibition of discrimination, and the right to education. The woman body has almost thrice as many policies and regulations seeking to control it compared to their male counterparts. Looking at history, however, this phenomenon should not come as a surprise. Historically, women's sexuality and fertility have been subjected to obsessive control by individual men, the family, and even the state. Therefore, the most recent Texas Heartbeat Bill is nothing new under the sun. Indeed, the bill is part of abortion restriction laws that have emerged recently – since 2018 – in the United States. States such as Ohio, Georgia, Missouri, Alabama, Kentucky, and South Carolina have passed similar bills, with Texas' being the latest. The Texas Heartbeat Act (or Bill) has received both support and backlash in the same breath leading to a divided public opinion. In reaction to these differences, the current paper presents a policy analysis of the new Texas legislation through a critical analysis of underlying issues and their implications to key stakeholders: the public.

1.2 The Texas Heartbeat Bill

            The Texas Heartbeat Bill illegalizes abortion once fetal cardiac activity is detected. Typically, fetal cardiac activity can be detected six weeks after menstruation, a stage at which most women know they are pregnant. Further, the law allows private citizens to sue abortion providers or women who get abortions beyond six weeks. The law promises private citizens $10,000 if they successfully sue those who violate the act's provisions. In other words, a relative or any other private citizen can sue a woman for getting an abortion for pregnancies older than six weeks or the abortion service provider, including institutions, facilities, individuals, and private care providers. The law bans anyone who impregnates a woman through incest or rape from filing a lawsuit while limiting the ability of abortion services providers from suing the state to stop restrictive abortion laws from taking effect. Women with pregnancies resulting from rape or incest are not exempted. Beyond the six weeks, they are banned from seeking abortion services while providers are banned from providing the same. The only exception in the bill involves medical emergencies; when the life of either the fetus or the mother or both are in danger.

1.3 Paper Structure

            The obsession over women's bodies has become known as body politics. Body politics refers to the policies and practices through which societal powers exert control over the bodily decisions of individuals (Brown & Gershon, 2017). In recent years, scholars are increasingly using the body politics concept to analyze how state policies create or limit space for women’s agency. Many double standards and layers insist that women cannot have autonomy over their bodies. According to Ghosh (2019), bodies are tools that allow the social construction of differences to be mapped among people. Thus, subjecting the body to control by the government ensures that the bodies behave in a politically and socially manner.

            Therefore, by taking the approach of body politics, the current paper will provide a comprehensive overview of the Texas Heartbeat bill by looking at the underlying intentions and problems and assessing the social and economic benefits of either. However, despite the perceived benefits of the bill, what will stand out is that it may have a far-reaching negative impact on women, particularly those from minority groups. The following section looks at the bill's key characteristics, including its intention, opponents & proponents, and underlying problems that have led to fierce opposition.

2.0 Key Characteristics of the Bill

            The Heartbeat Bill is a controversial topic because of the public divide on the issue. As such, it is vital to understand the reasoning behind the bill, through the bill's intention(s), and similarly, scrutinize the fundamental problems causing the bill to receive public outrage and outroar in the dame measure. Therefore, the critical characteristics of the bill include the intentions, supporters, opponents, and potential problems, including the possible victims of these problems.

2.1 Bill Intention

            During the bill signing ceremony, Texas Governor Abbott stated, "Our creator endowed us with the right to life and yet millions of children lose their right to life every year because of abortion" (Kelly, 2021). From the governor’s words, the ultimate intention of the bill is to ensure that an unborn child who has a heartbeat should not lose their life. The bill will achieve this by banning abortions on pregnancies older than six weeks, allowing private citizens to sue people or organizations that violate the law, and ensuring that no party can be sue to stop abortion legislation from taking effect. Opponents of the bill have argued that the bill seeks to undo Roe vs. Wade's outcomes; a 1973 Supreme Court Decision which implied that the US constitution protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose abortion without excessive restrictions from the government or society. On the other hand, proponents insist that the state has the mandate to protect the life of an unborn child unless a medical emergency is involved.

            Only the red states have passed the bill. In other words, the proponents of the bill are mainly Republicans. At the same time, Democrats have appeared to oppose it, joining forces with anti-abortion laws foundations and organizations across the United States. Essentially, conservatives have shown more support for the bill than other political groupings based on ideologies. Liberal, therefore, would be the outright opponents of the bill. While this is the case, it should be noted that even anti-abortion groups have been divided on whether to support the bill or not.

2.2 Emerging Problems with the Bill

            On the surface, opponents of the bill have argued that the bill seeks to reverse Roe v Wade; that the government's intentions to control a woman's autonomy over her body violate women's rights. While this is the central argument, other underlying issues have been raised in the public domain. Firstly, the idea that fetal cardiac activity can be detected six weeks after conception remains a point of disagreement among scientists. More importantly, however, arguments have been raised suggesting that many women did not know they were pregnant until well beyond the six weeks stipulated in the bill. Additionally, the bill allows private citizens to sue anyone who violates the bill's stipulations with no exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. It is akin to saying that a wealthy private citizen (with access to information) can sue a rape victim for violating abortion laws and get paid $10,000 by the taxpayer. The bill also limits the ability of abortion providers to sue the state to stop abortion laws from taking effect. In other words, the bill opens the door for further restrictions and control over a woman's body. Lastly, the bill seems to be motivated by religious ideologies and does not necessarily sympathize with women’s need to have autonomy over decisions involving their bodies. These critical problems in the bill are discussed in length in the following sections. In the next sub-section, however, a combination of the intentions and problems of the bill are what shape public opinion on the topic.

2.3 Public Opinion on the Heartbeat Bill

            Since the bill is a contentious topic, different organizations have researched to gather public opinion. A majority of Americans (61%), according to Diamant and Sandstrom (2019), think that abortion should be legal. However, in states where restrictive abortion laws have passed, most adults favor abortion being illegal. In most cases, the states in which such legislations are in effect are Republicans supporting the conclusion that Republicans are the key proponents of the bill debunking the inherent reference to bipartidism by bill proponents. In a different survey conducted by Monmouth University regarding the Texas bill, it was established that 54% of the public disagreed with the Supreme Court's decision to allow the Texas law to take effect (Monmouth, 2021). Across the political spectrum, most democrats (73%) disagree with the court's decision, while most Republicans (61%) agree with the decision. In essence, while the American public is mainly pro-choice, political affiliation is the trait of both opponents and proponents, further emphasizing the concept of body politics.

            On a more detailed level, there are two core areas of the bill that are broadly opposed by the public, regardless of political affiliation. For instance, 81% of Americans oppose the idea that private citizens can sue people who violate abortion laws (Monmouth, 2021). Critical areas of contention include the woman's privacy, which raises the question of the privacy of medical records against third parties like private citizens seeking to sue women who have undergone an abortion. Further, most American adults oppose the $10,000 reward to private citizens who successfully sue a person or organization for violating abortion laws. Among Republicans, however, there is a slight difference between those who approve (46%) or disapprove (41%) involvement of private citizens in enforcing the law while a majority (67%) oppose the $10,000 payment aspect.

3.0 Potential Social Problems of the Bill

            The controversy around the bill only means that those who oppose it have foreseen potentially negative social repercussions on American society. While there are many critical areas in which opponents have poked holes in the bill, five stand out. However, the biggest fear is that the bill seeks to undo the developments triggered by Roe v Wade. While proponents have argued that this is not the case, opponents have insisted that undoing Roe v Wade brings more problems to American women (Ginsberg & Shulman, 2021) and the American economy (La...