Much Needed, Yet Relatively Weak Opposition to a Bill Assisted "By the Hand of God"

        The editorial board at the Dallas Morning News has published an article in opposition of the abortion bill being fast-tracked through the state's houses.
        The article is obviously intended at those in the state frustrated by the state's intrusion into the lives of many citizens, who are in the process of making such a tough decision. These folks are most likely women, Democrats, and a small group of true Libertarians.
        The Morning News mentions their support of a woman's right to an abortion, only as a last resort and after all options have been examined. A brief look into their archives proves this to be true as they have supported adoption among other alternatives in the past.
        Getting to the meat of their argument, the editorial board is fairly soft and conservative with their opposition to the bill. They really only cite Roe vs. Wade as a reason to oppose the new restrictions. I can see how they feel this might be a necessity to maintain their readership in a conservative state. In my opinion, just citing a court case doesn't do enough to support or oppose a new law or procedure. It might satisfy a stance, but it doesn't personalize an issue and create interesting dialogue.While I support everything they say in the article, they don't go far enough. The rest of this critique will contain a couple arguments that would have been refreshing to read.
        The more pressing issue behind this bill, in my opinion, is the fact that the people who are opposed to aborting a single baby are the ones who are also denying their mother's and eventually the children themselves any government assistance. Promoting life in every instance creates an unsustainable growth rate. Not only that, many of the fetuses that would have been aborted, now will grow up in poverty, with an unprepared mother, and will naturally demand more state funds, when the state could have supported an informed decision to abort.
        Although abortion can have positive effects on welfare reform and population control, it is a mentally and emotionally draining decision to make. This bill tries to guilt trip a woman already burdened with the trauma of letting go of another life inside her. Making a woman listen to a heart beat and having a doctor describe body parts as a means to save an unprepared for life is morally corrupt and government interference at its worst. Guilt tripping an overwhelmed and under prepared mother into keeping a child is a great way to create a stable mother for a child. It's nauseating to see this government interference based solely on a religious view. If we took god away from the argument, greater moral arguments can be made for the woman's right to choose and even abortion itself, than bringing children into this world that cannot be supported.
        While I'm encouraged to see a paper stand up against this interference, I sorely wish there were newspapers willing to stand up against the religious zealots who influence all of our state's decisions.