DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Ohio Senate passes ‘heartbeat’ abortion ban

Ohio Senate passes ‘heartbeat’ abortion ban

Updated Mar 14, 6:14 AM; Posted Mar 13, 2019

The Ohio Senate passed largely along party lines a bill that bans abortion when a fetal heartbeat is detected.

By Laura Hancock, cleveland.com

COLUMBUS, Ohio- The Ohio Senate passed a bill Wednesday afternoon that would ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected -- which would be one of the nation’s strictest bans on the procedure.

Senate Bill 23 -- sponsored by Sen. Kristina Roegner, a Hudson Republican – passed the chamber largely along party lines, 19 to 13.

HB 23 now heads to the House.

Reogner, in her remarks to Senate colleagues, alluded to the goal of abortion opponents to overturn the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade.

Reogner said that courts, guided by standards created in Roe v. Wade, restrict abortion based on the viability of a fetus. But she said viability is a “moving target” because it varies based on the part of the world where a pregnant woman lives or the point in time when advancements in medical technology occurred.

“And we need a new standard," she said. "The heartbeat bill provides a sensible solution.”

Abortions could be banned as soon as six weeks into a pregnancy, when heartbeats are sometimes detected. That’s before some women know they’re pregnant.

People would violate SB 23 if they performed an abortion when a fetal heartbeat has been detected or if they performed an abortion without determining whether there is a heartbeat. They could be charged with a fifth-degree felony, which can carry a penalty of six to 12 months behind bars and a $2,500 fine.

Physicians and other medical providers can additionally face civil lawsuits and sanctions on their licenses by the State Medical Board of Ohio.

There are exceptions if a woman is at risk of dying or could sustain an “irreversible impairment of a major bodily function” – which bill opponents called too burdensome.

Cases of rape and incest

There are no exceptions if a pregnancy is the result of a rape or incest.

“How a human is conceived doesn’t make it any more or less human," said Roegner, the sponsor.

Sen. Nickie Antonio, a Lakewood Democrat, sponsored an amendment allowing exceptions in the cases of rape, incest or mental health of the woman. It failed.

Sen. Sandra Williams, a Cleveland Democrat, sponsored an amendment requiring mandatory health insurance coverage for maternity services. If a woman is forced to carry a child by Ohio, she should get maternity care. That also failed.

Before voting against the bill, Sen. John Eklund, a Republican from Geauga County, said there was no way he could support it because it lacked exceptions for rape and incest.

“I continue to believe all abortion is wrong, wrong because in every case the victim is innocent," Eklund said. “But in cases of rape or incest, certainly there is more than one victim. The mother is in a very real sense a victim. And I believe that mother ... faces...a deeply, deeply moral dilemma that I’m not altogether sure the legislature should be making for that mother.”

Republicans joining Eklund in opposing the bill were Sens. Matt Dolan of Chagrin Falls, Nathan Manning of North Ridgeville, and Stephanie Kunze, of Columbus suburb Hilliard.

Legislation’s history

Former Gov. John Kasich twice vetoed heartbeat bills that the Ohio General Assembly sent to his desk. He said that he didn’t think they would be upheld in the courts. Ohio, as the losing party, would have to pay the attorneys’ fees of the prevailing parties, he said.

Ohio Right to Life, the state’s leading anti-abortion group, opposed or was neutral on past Ohio heartbeat legislation, saying that it would be struck down and a setback for its cause. But with new members on the U.S. Supreme Court, it now supports HB 23.

But Gov. Mike DeWine promised during his campaign that he would sign a heartbeat bill.

That could set Ohio up for a legal battle that abortion opponents hope could end up before the U.S. Supreme Court, where Roe v. Wade could get tossed.

Ohio Senate President Larry Obhof said a lot of thought was put into the bill, and it could go to the high court.

“I think if you shy away from things just because there might be litigation we would not have seen the re-prioritization of the funds that we did a number of years ago that the 6th Circuit upheld yesterday," he said.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday upheld a state law that would defund Planned Parenthood.

Non-binding resolution

The Ohio Senate also unanimously passed a non-binding measure, Senate Resolution 41, urging Congress to pass the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. The federal legislation, sponsored by Nebraska Republican Sen. Ben Sasse, prohibits doctors and others from failing to exercise “the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion.”

Ohio Senate Democrats called a recess and left the chamber for several minutes. They returned and joined Republicans in voting for it.

During a Tuesday committee meeting, Democrats argued the Ohio bill was not necessary because protections already exist in federal law.

https://www.cleveland.com/open/2019/03/ohio-senate-passes-heartbeat-abortion-ban.html

What a damn shame. People that can afford it and want an abortion will go out of state. Poor women, victims of rape, and victims of incest will just have to go back into the shadows for abortions or be forced by the right to have children they don't want.

The supreme court should strike this down if it becomes law, we'll see if they do.

Maybe someone can help me out.

I don't have a hard line on abortion - I don't believe there is life at conception. I think late stage abortion is wrong. I had a quick google and see that a heartbeat can be detected in an embryo at 6 weeks - which is before some/many would even know they were even pregnant. So the "heartbeat" legislation to all intents and purposes is a back door way to banning virtually all abortion. This can ONLY be a law based on religious belief.

My understanding is that there is supposed to be a separation of Church and State. . . . are there other laws that are founded solely on religious ideology? If so what are they?

Welcome back to 1950 Ohio.
I hope the women that seek such services are able to afford to cross state lines and not have to resort to backroom, back alley doctors.
I also hope they show up to the voting booth with their men in tow and turn the lights back on in Ohio’s senate. It’s obviously the dark ages again.

To all single Ohio men, go get snipped. It’s easy. It’s fast. It’s relatively painless and totally worth the discomfort in trade for the peace of mind.
To single or ‘hooked up’ Ohio women. Close your legs to conservative men. Or dabble with the fairer sex. Cut out the worry.

Great News!

I am praying for a victory of good over evil.

It's not. This isn't tied to one religion. Many religions find abortion wrong. Many non-religious scientists find this wrong. Separation of Church and State was always meant to avoid a situation like England, where the Church of England basically dictated what everyone else had to do. It wasn't meant to nullify the political opinions of anybody attached to a religion and just go with whatever atheists felt was right.

There is no good and evil, just have and have not.

Only if you worship at the altar of the almighty dollar.

And here I thought you were PURE republican. Those who would impose their religious ideology based political will on others are truly evil.

I was impressed recently when I visited a sick friend at Pennsylvania Hospital in Philly.

At the street level entrance, just inside the first set of doors, was a baby bassinet with a sign above it that read...

IF YOU CAN'T KEEP YOUR BABY
PLEASE LEAVE THE CHILD IN THE BASKET.
WE WILL TAKE IT FROM HERE, NO QUESTIONS ASKED.

It later dawned on me the basket was empty while the dumpsters fill up.

I don't worship at any altar, but I do tithe at the cash register.

One day we will find out the maker of the morning after is heavily invested in these laws. Are those safe for frequent use without adverse side effects?

The world could do worse than having atheist make laws. Much worse, we've seen it time and time again. And the church of England was established by Henry VIII to denounce the Vatican because they would not approve his dissolution from Catherine of Aragon so he could marry Anne Boleyn. The separation of church and state came about to keep the church (all of them) out of political power, period. Back in the day Kings still answered to the Pope on most matters of state. That was an issue.

Even an Atheist will recognize there are plenty of opportunities for responsible adults to not have to stoop to killing to solve a problem.

I love how you try to set anyone who supports choice to be alright with 'baby killing'. That's rich coming from the fear everything war mongering right. I don't see you crying for hungry kids, kids separated from their parents at the border and locked in cages, or making sure unwanted kids have good lives. I think it would be better if you stayed out of it and let the mother decide what was best for her.

Religious conservatives keeping their pants on and their mouths shut would solve a lot of problems too, but I don't see you advocating that.

Fair point, those kinds of generalizations of groups you support are bad...



Fair point, those kinds of generalizations of groups you don't like are good...

Only problem in your thinking is that I don't feel that conservatives should shut up and not breed, I was just thumping 40. We are at our best when we have varying ideas and work together to move forward. We are not doing that these days.

This is not meant to be sarcasm.. but whose fault is that?

Well Trump is doing a really great job of attacking anyone and everyone that criticizes him and he is calling the free media the enemy of the people .... so in answer to your question I guess you were referring to Trump?

The same bill passed here in Tennessee. Both will be held up in the courts forever.

I don't know what everyone is waiting for. Weren't we told that once Trump stacked the SCOTUS with conservatives that Roe vs Wade would be overturned?

Well just do it already and quit trying to step all over current laws to get your way.

It's sad that it is easier to kill a baby than it is to give a murderer the death penalty.

Both are sad as I don't agree with the death penalty either

Well the SCOTUS is now stacked with conservative judges. So what's the hold up in overturning Roe vs Wade?

Just do it already.

How can something based upon objective, observable, scientific observation like a heart beat be solely a religious belief?

Also, everyone would agree that a heartbeat is necessary for the survival of the fetus. For something to survive, doesn't it have to be a life form?

Sure then take the blob of cells with a ‘heart beat’ out and leave it on a table. See how ‘alive’ it is after an hour.

Yet if that same blob of cells was discovered on Mars, you would be screaming "PROOF OF LIFE!"

I've always thought about it in terms of being sentient - feeling pain, having brainwaves that process something/anything. As I said before I am not hard-line one way or the other.

And in answer to previous comment - yes - the idea that any and all abortion is evil and must be outlawed is based on religion.

As for finding cells on Mars - yes that would be extraordinary. With or without sentient thought - with or without a pulse .... how that becomes and argument for anti abortion activists ..idk.

Take a three day old infant and leave it on a table for two weeks, then see how alive it is.

Sure, take anybody unable to care for themselves and the same would happen. But none of those life forms would be without a ‘pulse’ in a matter of minutes like the cell clump. Apples to oranges.

j/c

It's funny how people don't seem to object to it being perfectly legal to pull the plug to end a life based on brain activity even if a heartbeat is strong.

Until you change the subject to abortion.

I would say use the same means that you use to charge someone with a double homicide when they murder a pregnant woman. I mean that fetus is protected by law when someone murders a woman who is pregnant so what measurement do they use to say the killer killed two people instead of one? There is none because even if the woman didn't know she was pregnant if she is killed then the killer has murdered two people instead of one. PERIOD.

By that same means of measurement abortion is murder because that same protected life is the same life no matter who murders it. It was a human life the moment it was conceived according to the law that punishes for double homicides. It's hypocritical to say it's murder by one but not the other. If you say it's not a life then get rid of the double homicide laws and rulings.

This argument has nothing to do with religion either but simple logic based on existing laws. You can't have a law that treats the same fetus as life in one case and then turn around and have it not treated as life in another and have it make any sense.

Well there's always that pesky Roe vs Wade decision that stands in the way.

So I still haven't gotten an answer to my question. If this is all so cut and dry and the only thing that needed to be done was for Trump to stack the SCOTUS. What the hell is the hold up now?

The states are very busy passing all kinds of laws that would limit a woman’s right to choose. It’s those things that will go before the Supremes soon enough.

Will they be a chance to start gutting Row or a chance to overturn Row? Depends on the case.

I don't know that it's cut and dry because while the baby's life is precious the woman is risking her life to bring it into the world and her life is also just a precious. That is why to me you can't force a woman who has been raped or a child who is a victem of incest to bear a child to full term because that seems like cruel and unusual punishment and further victimization.

However, I don't think an unborn child should be murdered just because it was conceived by two idiots who couldn't keep their pants on and forgot to use a contraceptive. To me if you don't protect children unborn or alive then your society is a failure because you fail to value human life and treat the taking of it too casually.

Neither side is going to get what they want. I think a safe compromise is to make it 9-10 weeks. That allows a woman to miss her period twice and go OH CHIT and make her choice but after that I think we have to protect the child's life and right to live. I also think that the double homicide rule of law should match that definition because if it's a life that is not in protected status by the law then it should not count towards punishment and vice versa.

Like I say, I don't think it's easy to say it's cut and dry. It's a complicated cultural and scientific issue. I just hope that life and children win in the end because I value them the most in this world.

This is a very important point. If any other deliberate act that renders a fetus lifeless is considered murder, how can abortion not be?

It's really not as complicated as people think it is if they look at the laws and try to use reason and logic to go along with those same laws.

Those heartbeat bills will never stand up in court and will be overturned because it will not stand up for two different reasons. Some laws are contradictions within themselves and some not as much as people make it sound. As with considering a mother who is pregnant the murder of both the mother and the child I think it gives the mother the exact same choice as it does with abortion. Mothers have a choice whether they get an abortion or not. As such it gives the mother the choice to see their pregnancy as an unborn child or a fetus that can not sustain life on its own and therefore not a child.

While we may agree or disagree with the right to have an abortion, there is no doubt the law allows for it under this contingency. As such it's treated that way in murder cases.

Then we have to look at what legally constitutes life. A heartbeat most certainly does not define life by any legal standard. This is why something called "The Heartbeat Bill" will not stand up in court.

At any point in time when a person, whether a small child or elderly adult can not sustain life without the help of machines, (which is exactly what would happen with an unborn fetus), brain activity is the only measure of life that's considered. A person can have a perfectly healthy, fully developed heart that is operating well. Yet that is not the measure that is used to measure whether they are alive or not.

What is used to determine if a human is alive or not is their brain function. When and if it's determined their brain no longer has any activity the choice of whether to pull the plug to end their life is given to the family. This sets the legal precedent of what constitutes human life.

I know that isn't a popular solution to either side. It goes against the right to choose and it goes against those who feel that life begins with conception or with a heartbeat.

But you aren't going to get courts to agree that life begins with a heartbeat or at conception when the entire country can pull the plug on a fully developed human being once brain function stops when their heart is working just fine. Courts work based on legal precedent not on feelings and beliefs.

We have an established basis that we can set for when life is actually viable. It's brain activity.

Until such time as Roe vs Wade is overturned, this is the only logical stepping off point.

Murder, by definition, is the taking of an already existing life, though. Using your definition of life, if a fetus without brain activity is killed by another, I don't see how it could be considered murder because the mother has a choice to carry the fetus to term. Certainly she's being deprived of that right, but it's not murder if brain activity is the deciding factor of life.