Talk:Texas House Bill 2

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sunwoo.kim98.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
13 Hour Filibuster The major new sources claim that Wendy Davis’ filibuster went 10-11 hours.

This is because they filed their stories before Midnight Texas time and went to bed.

Had they stayed up and done their fucking jobs, they would have seen the Parliamentary Inquiries. Not just a delaying tactic, but a way to inform the viewing public what they can expect.

And Wendy Davis’ Filibuster did not end with the third sustained point of order, but with a vote of the body to end her filibuster.

That vote did not happen during the 13 hours. That vote was most likely one of the 4 fictitious votes that happened past midnight.

Therefore Wendy Davis’ filibuster went the full 13 hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by an unspecified IP address


 * From what I remember, she was ruled to have broken procedure five times, with two being thrown out and three of them being sustained. The last sustained point of order was eleven hours in. Then, there was a debate on the rules that took up most of the remaining two hours, which was followed by the breech in order between the senators and the noise from the gallery. --Super Goku V (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes. They never voted to end the filibuster before midnight so Wendy Davis needs to get credit for the full 13 hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.38.157.89 (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

If she was not performing the action of filibustering, and if the sources collectively cite that she was not, to say otherwise would be counter-wiki standards. However, if the sources point to the opposite, then the 13 hour mark must be used. Wikipedia is not journalism, though, and cannot behave as an investigative periodical, but as a reflection of what properly vetted sources attest to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.196.90.169 (talk) 04:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Why
Why is this even an article? None of this article discusses the actual bill. It would appear to be only about the fillibuster. Arzel (talk) 19:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you would like, you can help expand this section. --204.106.251.214 (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Title, House Bill 2, unconstitutionality
The new abortion restrictions in Texas have just been found unconstitutional, but I'm having trouble determining, from a quick look, if House Bill 2 is the same as Senate Bill 5, and if it would be appropriate to use a "law" title rather than a "bill" title (as these were signed into law even if they did not take effect due to being unconstitutional). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Title
It seems this bill was originally called Senate Bill 5 but is now called House Bill 2, so I think it should be moved. What do others think? Everymorning (talk) 01:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I support moving to Texas House Bill 2, ASAP since it's breaking news. KinkyLipids (talk) 15:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)