More than 2,300 people signed up to testify about proposed abortion restrictions before a Texas House committee on Tuesday, but rules imposed by the panel's top Republican mean no more than 100 members of the public would get a chance to speak.

State Rep. Byron Cook imposed an eight-hour limit on the hearing, with each person getting just three minutes before the committee, and he chose a room with only 67 seats. The restrictions come after a similar hearing two weeks ago turned into a 12-hour marathon when 700 protesters slowed the passage of the bill in the first special session. A Democratic filibuster and an angry crowd stopped the bill from becoming law a few days later leading GOP Gov. Rick Perry to call the Legislature back for a second special session.

With Republican majorities in both chambers of the Legislature, the most Democrats can hope to do is slow the bill and create a legislative record that could aid a lawsuit should the proposal become law. Houston Democratic Rep. Sylvester Turner asked permission to have a court reporter record the hearing's testimony, but Cook denied it.

Democrats questioned Cook about why he chose such a small room, more than a third of which was reserved for staff, lawmakers and media.

"We wanted to ensure the maximum security for every person who is here," the Corsicana Republican said. Cook also said he was limiting testimony because hundreds of people had already testified during the regular and first special sessions.

Reps. Jessica Farrar and Sylvester Turner, both Houston Democrats, asked Cook to schedule additional hearings to allow everyone a chance to speak, but Cook refused. After Democrats successfully ran out the clock of the first special session, Republicans appeared set on passing the measure as quickly as possible in the new 30-day special session.

Notice how all the people holding the signs in the picture look at their oldest 8? That implies it either requires a mind as simple as a child's to simply think "They shouldn't do that" or their parents are forcing them to.

>>2 I'm thinking the parents are forcing them

>>1 Do you have a source?

Supposedly republicans were stopping democrats from speaking, in some cases forming physical barriers.

>>4 how can you say their not supposed to be voted on when we have the right to vote? people voted to let you have right! All rights are subject to law, laws have to be voted on therefor we CAN vote for our rights dumbass!

>>7 We have fundamental rights as human beings. These rights are not subject to laws because every living thing has these rights. Just because you have "the right to vote" does not mean that you have the right to take away the rights of others, BFN.

>>8 btw >>7 is right.

All laws are subject to change and can be updated with amendments i,e some laws need to be updated to deal with more moden or specific problems.

Heck some old laws even get outdated and don't even apply anymore.

I hate the picture in the OP, that makes me think their parents are cramming "They're murdering babies!" down their throats. But that's just what it looks like.

>>9 I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Rights are rights. You don't decide that rights don't apply to someone because they're rights and they apply to everyone. Laws can infringe upon those rights, this does not make the right wrong, but rather the law wrong.

Laws are subject to change, but I'm not talking about laws.

>>10 Gotta agree with this one.

>>9 It depends what level of rights you are talking about. Rights can either be legal or philosophical; either count. For instance having control over ones life is generally considered a philosophical right. If we follow :'s (AKA BFN) logic it comes out to voting on things like having a vote on Black people's right to live. Instead there are some things people considered basic rights, such as choice of abortion.

You all toss 'rights' around like it's some god given thing.
Rights are based on laws, in normal situations. They can be changed, thus rights can be changed. Now if it's a good or bad thing is determined by the people these laws are changing.

>>13 But now you are getting into the realm of relativism and absolutism. Normally I am also a relativist, but we are talking within the constraints of modern society, so relativism is not an option. Rights such as freedom, learning, love are all suggested by most people's conscience; not because they were voted on. If we are being relative, we are being relative to Western society. In which case the right to control one's life is a right that has been pushed into majority not by legislative law, but rather by our grouped majority mindstate. That is why there are exceptions to that right, it can't be enforced.

Basically, Anubis is talking in a spiritual sense and BFN is talking in a legal sense.