Are abortions still legal in Texas?
828760
Abortions are legal in all 50 states, to varying degrees. That's because the right to choose is constitutionally protected.\n\nStates can set various limits, such as parental notification for minors, informed consent, short waiting periods, etc. But states cannot outlaw something that is protected by the US constitution.
685021
Yes, there are still states where this is nominally illegal. These are: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Georgia, North and South Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia and (wouldn't you know it) Washington D.C.\n\nDo note, however, that the U.S. Supreme Court in "Lawrence v. Texas" (J Kennedy writing for the majority) in 2003 struck down all anti-sodomy laws in the United States, declaring that such laws violated the liberty phrase of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Most anti-oral sex laws had not been enforced prior to this overturning.
521164
Official website: \nhttp://www.supremecourtus.gov/\n\nThese websites discuss the supreme court decisions on abortion:\nhttp://www.godandscience.org/abortion/sld019.html\nhttp://www.unitedforlife.org/court_decisions.htm\n\nThis website discusses the current situation:\nhttp://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jul/05072001.html
556764
In Ontario, I'm pretty sure at a clinic on Mount Pleasant allow abortions up to the third trimester which is covered by Ontario Health Care Insurance. I am not making a comment with respect to my feelings because I don't feel it is my business to comment when not asked.
1186688
Everyone's ones circumstances differ too much to find an answer to that question on here. You need to go talk to a lawyer in TX.
753467
Roe v. Wade legalized abortion.\n\nDid you know that "Jane Roe" was really named Norma McCorvey?  Some time after Roe v. Wade became law, Norma changed her mind and has for years been an ANTI-ABORTION activist.  What does that tell you about her view on the morality of abortion?  Look up her story on the Internet.
580996
It's not any different as long as your abortion is done by firing live amunition and hurling bombs up your snatchal area.\n\nDummy.\n\n\nSplooch!
702531
It is illegal to get a divorce in Texas while pregnant. Regardless who the baby's father is, she will have to wait until the baby is born and the court will want the husband and her to sign a paper saying he is not the father. If for some reason he doesn't want to sign it, then the court will order a DNA test. If the baby is not his, if I was here I would leave the "father" section on the Birth Certificate blank, until after the divorce and he either signs that paper or a DNA test is done. Then add whoever the father is then.
932763
No, if you're not a minor (requiring parental notification), second-trimester abortions are not restricted.\n\nhttp://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=39237\n\nhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3353873&dopt=Abstract
1008585
It is conceivable that the US Congress might try to pass a law outlawing abortion federally. \n\nWomen who have taken their reproductive freedom and personal privacy in this area should be aware that the shrill vocal minority who oppose freedom of choice are doing their best to deprive them of their rights.\n\nThe countervailiing position to the argument that a fetus is a human is that, so is the impregnated female. She is not an incubating machine who should have to bear the seed of a rapist or a relative to term just to satisfy the moral smugness of a minority of the populace.\n\nolderandwiser is right on. I am buying up stock in coat hangar factories right now.
598516
I believe the laws vary in different states.  I do recall reading about a 'would be" dad who fought the abortion his girlfriend was going to have and recall reading about another case where the "would be dad" fought the adoption the mother had planned immediately after birth.  In this case, the father won.  He had not been informed about the pregnancy at all.
618568
After the dragging death of a black man in Jasper Texas by three white racists, the Texas legislature passed a hate crimes bill.  Then “Governor” Bush refused to sign the bill into law and allowed the bill to expire on his desk.  You tell me.\n\nHis “fight” to legalize immigrants is strictly politics based on economics and votes. If you were from Texas you would understand this.
874754
Everyone I personally know who is pro-choice disapproves of abortion. But it's not an issue of whether they think abortion is good or not.\n\nIt's an issue of whether the majority has the right to force the decision as a matter of law, and take that decision away from the individual. The whole debate is about WHO gets to make the choice.\n\nDo you know why China can mandate abortions and force sterilizations? Because reproductive choice is not a guaranteed right. Abortion is legal in the US because the Supreme Court has determined that reproductive rights are fundamental, and thus constitutionally protected. \n\nIf the Supreme Court decides that reproductive rights are not fundamental rights, and that the government gets to choose regardless of what the individual wants, then the government makes all the decisions. Try to imagine what could happen, if all reproductive rights are now subject to govt control.\n\nNew York or Florida could pass a law saying that anyone making less than $30K per year cannot have children, and must abort any pregnancy, because they obviously cannot support them financially. No constitutional challenge, because reproductive rights are no longer protected. \n\nOr North Carolina or Texas decides that convicted felons should never have children, and starts imposing mandatory sterilization as part of criminal sentences. No constitutional challenge, because reproductive rights are no longer nationally protected. \n\nOnce the right to reproductive privacy is taken away by the court, it will be decades before it can be reestablished. Conservatives better start praying, if they get their wish, that during that time they don't become the minority under a legislation that decides to require abortions. Because, once that right to personal choice is lost, the government will always be able to decide whether you can have children or not.\n\nDo you really want to abdicate that much of your personal freedom and choice to a group of politicians? Do people really want to live in a country where state legislatures can decide who can be pregnant, and who cannot, and who must? Do people really have that much trust and faith in government that they think the legislature will always make the right choices? Because we'll be stuck with those decisions.\n\nThe concept of reproductive freedoms is not whether you agree with the individual choices being made. It's whether you think the government should have the right to take away and mandate those choices.\n\nWhy can't people understand that freedom of choice is not a minority value, even if the majority happens to disagree with the minority's choice?
980885
In Illinois, the US, & the World - Abortion
1011854
From what I've read, it's the unincorporated areas of Dallas county.  I don't know exactly where those areas are, but they said it was legal there.  Most counties around DFW have the bans, unless you travel a couple counties over.
202088
Before Roe V. Wade was decided on January 22, 1973, each state had it's own laws on abortion.  In states where it was illegal, the answer to your question is January 22, 1973.  In states where it was already legal, the answer will vary from state to state.
27767
If Roe v. Wade was overturned, and the federal government passed a bill outlawing abortion, then yes, it would be illegal to have an abortion in the United States.  In a federal system like ours, laws passed by the national Congress have supreme authority (in other words they override) any state law, so if a state did have laws making abortion legal, there would be a conflict and the federal ban would prevail.  However, being an avid watcher of the Supreme Court, I doubt that such a federal ban would be upheld as Constitutional.  Hope that helps.