Ohio’s daring Heartbeat Bill
I’ll be one of several pro-lifers speaking this Tuesday, September 20, at a rally at the Ohio State House Atrium in support of remarkable legislation known as the “Heartbeat Bill.”
House Bill 125 states no abortion can be committed in the State of Ohio if a baby has a “detectable heartbeat,” except “to prevent the death of a pregnant woman or to prevent a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.”
If the Heartbeat Bill is signed into law, almost every preborn baby in Ohio as young as 18 days old – six weeks old – which is the earliest the fetal heart starts beating can be detected on ultrasound – will be protected from abortion.
And the Heartbeat Bill is almost there. On June 28, it passed the Republican-controlled House by a vote of 54-43 and is now headed to the Senate, where Republicans dominate Democrats 23-10. If 17 of Ohio’s 33 state senators vote for HB 125, it will go to pro-life Republican Gov. John Kasich for his signature and then become the most protective pro-life law in the nation.
The Heartbeat Bill has accumulated an impressive list of supporters, including Dr. James Dobson, although there are pro-life groups in opposition.
Those include Ohio Right to Life, National Right to Life’s state affiliate (although many of its county right to life groups have defected) and many in the Personhood movement, including the American Life League and Dr. Alan Keyes.
Those in Ohio Right to Life’s camp think the heartbeat bill will ultimately fail in court and may do more harm than good, and those in the Personhood camp disavow it because it doesn’t seek to protect all preborn babies.
Heartbeat Bill supporters like me disagree with both those factions. On the former point, as Cleveland State University Law Professor David Forte testified on behalf of HB125:
Now, some say that we should not pass a bill that a court might disallow, that we should only pass bills that we are sure will be upheld. Frankly, I must say that this is a strange way of protecting the unborn. It surrenders to the status quo. There is no victory in allowing the vast majority of unborn humans to remain totally at risk.
Besides, such a stand-pat strategy flies in the face of history. Courts never change their minds unless they are invited to.
In 1995, the Ohio General Assembly passed a bill banning partial birth abortions. It was the first in the nation. The law was struck down by a federal court. But Nebraska did not stand pat. It passed its own bill prohibiting partial birth abortions. In the year 2000, the Supreme Court voided the Nebraska statute outlawing partial birth abortion. But Congress did not stand pat. In 2003, Congress passed a federal ban on partial birth abortions and invited the Court to change its mind. The Court did, and now Gonzales v. Carhart is the law of the land and partial birth abortions are against the law.
On the latter point I say we should try to save as many babies as we can when we can, not wait until the elusive day when they can all be saved.
I’d love to see you at the Heartbeat Bill Rally, which runs from 11a to 2p.
You can help by:
- Attending the Heartbeat Bill Rally on Tuesday, Sept. 20 at the Ohio State House Atrium in Columbus from 11a -2p
- Wear RED to show your support for the Heartbeat Bill
- Hear speakers including Joe Scheidler, Dr. Jack Willke, Pastor Dutch Sheets, Wendy Wright, Troy Newman, me, and many more.
You can also sign the Heartbeat Bill petition and purchase one or more heart balloons (scroll down), which will be delivered to state senators after the rally.
(Pictured right is Janet Porter of Faith2Action, the admirable and relentless driving force behind the Heartbeat Bill.)
[Top graphic via KeepLifeLegal.com]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Those in Ohio Right to Life’s camp think the heartbeat bill will ultimately fail in court and may do more harm than good, and those in the Personhood camp disavow it because it doesn’t seek to protect all preborn babies
This is some strange thinking. Partial-birth abortion bans and sex-selective abortion bans do not protect all babies, but I have never heard of pro-life groups opposing them. After almost 40 years of legalized abortion I wish that they would realize that the all or nothing approach is not a smart option for us.
Also, the Supreme Court is the ultimate decider and it is still right leaning. And who is not to say that we get rid of Obama next year (Did you see that a pro-life republican won Weiner’s old seat??? hmm. I think the tide is turning and America is trending right). If we get a republican president for the next several years then this would change the face of the entire judiciary including the Supreme Court.
“I say we should try to save as many babies as we can when we can, not wait until the elusive day when they can all be saved.”
Amen.
It would seem that this bill would eliminate the vast majority if not all surgical abortions, due to the fact that most women probably do not even realize that they are pregnant until well after 18 days have passed. I may be wrong, but it would seem that the only remaining abortions would be via “emergency – morning after pills?” I say, “hooray” for this bill! One victory at a time!
Come on, Jill. You’re smarter than this. The personhood camp doesn’t oppose this bill because it fails to protect all babies. We oppose it because it falsely suggests that life begins with a heartbeat and explicitly makes legal pre-heartbeat abortions. So, for example, Ella would be explicitly legalized by this bill.
I like these bills (this one and the fetal pain law) because it forces the fetus into the debate. And a lot of soft abortion supporters don’t like to think about the fetus (hence all the euphemisms). It brings the debate into winning territory. This is the kind of thing that can sway people in the middle.
Steve, can you explain further? This bill doesn’t legalize anything that is currently illegal, does it? Are you saying that if this bill becomes law, Ella and pre-heartbeat abortions cannot become illegal in the future?
Hey Steve,
Where specifically does HB125 suggest life begins when the heart starts beating?
And are you saying Ella is currently illegal in Ohio?
I am going to try my best to make it to the rally! I hope I get to meet you because when I first heard your story I thought you were so brave! Thank you for being such a strong voice and testimony to life! :)
“The personhood camp doesn’t oppose this bill because it fails to protect all babies. We oppose it because it falsely suggests that life begins with a heartbeat…”
No, it doesn’t. It asserts heartbeat as legitimate test for viability.
“and explicitly makes legal pre-heartbeat abortions.”
They are already legal.
“So, for example, Ella would be explicitly legalized by this bill.”
It is already legal.
“I like these bills (this one and the fetal pain law) because it forces the fetus into the debate. And a lot of soft abortion supporters don’t like to think about the fetus (hence all the euphemisms). It brings the debate into winning territory. This is the kind of thing that can sway people in the middle.”
Absolutely, because many people don’t know how soon a human heart starts to beat. Somehow that kind of stuff is skipped over in sex ed class and biology class. Why students need to know more about condoms and flatworms than they do about human development is a mystery.
(Did you see that a pro-life republican won Weiner’s old seat??? hmm. I think the tide is turning and America is trending right). If we get a republican president for the next several years then this would change the face of the entire judiciary including the Supreme Court.
This district is heavily Jewish with a large concentration of Orthodox who are anti-choice and anti-gay marriage. The Democrat, who is Orthodox, is pro-choice and voted for the successful NY gay marriage legislation. They are also very pro-Israel and don’t see Obama as being sufficiently supportive of Israel. Obama’s margin of victory, in this district was lower than some districts in the south. The turn out was low because a lot of Democrats stayed home. Then, of course, there was that Wiener thing (no pun intended).
And re the SCOTUS. The most conservative Catholic members of the SCOTUS say that Roe is “stare decisis” - settled law.
Re this draconian anti-choice law. What will happen is that the company that sells the morning after pills will reap huge profits in Ohio. And as usual, women with means will travel to the nearest pro-choice state while poor women (and in Ohio there are more and more) will just have babies. Yay. Women as happy breeders. Yay. Another thing that is ensuing as we speak, is that this type of legislation serves to reinforce the image of the anti-choice movement as radical Christian extremists. (Janet Porter is on your side. Nuff said)
This district is heavily Jewish with a large concentration of Orthodox who are anti-choice and anti-gay marriage. The Democrat, who is Orthodox, is pro-choice and voted for the successful NY gay marriage legislation. They are also very pro-Israel and don’t see Obama as being sufficiently supportive of Israel. Obama’s margin of victory, in this district was lower than some districts in the south. The turn out was low because a lot of Democrats stayed home. Then, of course, there was that Wiener thing (no pun intended).
So a district which has been safely in the Democratic column for 90 years suddenly elects a pro-life republican and you do not think that the political winds are changing??? Come on, CC!
No, I do NOT think that all pro-choice democrats are going to become prolife republicans overnight, but the this election is an indication that the country is trending right. Basically mostly everyone is unhappy that Obama’s socialist/marxist agenda is directly affecting their own interests. What happened yesterday is exactly what I think will happen in the presidential election next year: Those on the right and in the middle will be fired up to vote Obama out and those leftist democrats who would never vote for a republican will simply stay home.
“Basically mostly everyone is unhappy that Obama’s socialist/marxist agenda is directly affecting their own interests”
Socialist/Marxist? Excuse me? If Obama were a socialist/Marxist we’d have single payer health care and we don’t. Folks are on their own and if ya die in the gutter, who cares. (But we need to ”save” babies!) If he were a socialist, the government would have taken over all our transportation systems. If he were a socialist, he wouldn’t have made a big deal with big pharmer (private sector, helooo) as part of health care reform. The rabid right love to crow about Obama as a socialist when he’s following the same free market path as George W Bush. What exactly is socialist about the Obama administration? I guess “John Birch” is still alive and well.
As I said, the demographics of the district are distinct as noted by Jewish Democrat from Florida, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, head of the DNC. And don’t forget, in May, a Democrat won the special election in upstate NY which was in a Republican district.
Yes, the left, the African American community, youth, and Hispanics are not happy with Obama because he’s not socialist enough. Meanwhile the rich are getting richer and income inequality is reaching third world levels. But rather than focusing on jobs which is, along with the president, the House fetus worshippers are trying to erode reproductive rights for women. Great priorities there.
And re the SCOTUS. The most conservative Catholic members of the SCOTUS say that Roe is “stare decisis” - settled law.
Actually, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in a decision that “stare decisis is not an end in itself“
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/johnroberts-supremecourt-abortion-roev-wade/2010/01/24/id/347808
Actually, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in a decision that “stare decisis is not an end in itself“
When he was being questioned, prior to his confirmation, he said this.
SEN. SPECTER [as read into the record by Sen. Feinstein]: “Judge Roberts, in your confirmation hearing for the circuit court you testified: ‘Roe is the settled law of the land.’ Do you mean settled for you, settled only for your capacity as a circuit judge, or settled beyond that?”
ROBERTS: “Well, beyond that. It’s settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis. And those principles, applied in the Casey case, explain when cases should be revisited and when they should not. And it is settled as a precedent of the court, yes.“
SPECTER: ”You went on to say then, ‘It’s a little more than settled. It was reaffirmed in the face of a challenge that it should be overruled in the Casey decision, so it has added precedental value.’“
ROBERTS: ”I think the initial question for the judge confronting an issue in this area, you don’t go straight to the Roe decision. You begin with Casey, which modified the Roe framework and reaffirmed its central holding.“
“News Max” - LOL – now there’s some objective “journalism.” (Not)
And if Roe is overturned, my state and those surrounding it will remain, proudly, pro-choice – as will the state of NY. Liberal, Reformed, pro-choice Jews are still the majority of Jews in NY state. If they do vote Republican, it would be for a pro-choice candidate especially if the Democrat is anti-choice. But as, in NY, the majority of Democrats are pro-choice, Jews will continue to vote Democratic albeit in smaller numbers due to the Israel thing.
Better tell planned parenthood of SW Ohio if Ella is illegal in Ohio ;-)
The heart beat bill doesn’t really change the status of Ella in Ohio.
Expect instead that Ella doses will be accumulated and sold on the black market to start early abortions, many of which will be completed at hospitals.
The reason for FDA approval of Ella was to make chemical abortion more available in the states with significant abortion restrictions.
Ella is an analog of mifepristone, RU486, and at higher doses those used for MAP, will accomplish later chemical abortions.
What exactly is socialist about the Obama administration?
Geez, are you kidding me? The damage this man and his administration has done to this country in just 2 and a half years is just mind boggling. And if we elect him again next year well…we ain’t seen nothing yet. :(
This article does a good job of pointing out how Obama’s policies are marxist/communist/socialist in nature:
http://hallicino.hubpages.com/hub/Top-7-Marxist-Communist-Policies-Being-Implemented-By-Obama-Today
The “Heartbeat Bill” will definitely challenged and all those nice folks in Ohio, who haven’t been working since the factory moved to Malaysia, will be footing the bill for the state to defend itself. Why isn’t the Ohio legislature trying to help the Ohio economy? Once again, love those “pro-life” priorities that put fetuses over unemployed people.
And good stock tip – invest in the company that makes Ella and RU 486.
Funny, when the Ohio legislature brought up the bill they brought in a fetus to testify. Thing is that the sonogram couldn’t pick up any heartbeat. Guess the fetus had nothing to say!
Well, CC, as much as I hope Roe vs. Wade to be overturned I know far too well that republican appointed Justices sometimes prove to be a disappointment and this may be the case with Roberts. However, I did find this on Wikipedia:
“As a lawyer in the George H. W. Bush administration, Roberts signed a legal brief urging the court to overturn Roe v. Wade.[23]
In private meetings with senators before his confirmation, Roberts testified that Roe was settled law, but added that it was subject to the legal principle of stare decisis,[24] meaning that while the Court must give some weight to the precedent, it was not legally bound to uphold it.”
“News Max” - LOL – now there’s some objective “journalism.” (Not)
News Max was just quoting Roberts in his legal decision.
And good stock tip – invest in the company that makes Ella and RU 486
I believe getting RU486 requires 3 Doctor visits one in which the age of the baby must be determined. If a heartbeat is detected then technically it would also be illegal to dispense an abortion drug.
No matter what the state says as soon as the case hits a federal court the state loses. However far worse than that is the danger you are putting women in by forcing them to find alternatives online from Mexico or something. I know you guys don’t care about women only fetuses but this is seriously dangerous for women and you leave them no other options except parenthood which is simply not acceptable to most women as you have seen in the abortion statistics you guys are always posting.
More than half of the women in the USA want to have healthy sex lives without being pregnant. I would love to see some research done on how many practicing Catholic women use birth control weather they admit it or not… Heck I wonder how many women on this website “That are still young enough to have children” are using birth control without admitting it.
Women want to have sex without the risk of getting pregnant, is it really your place to tell them no? If it was your place to tell them no, would they all listen or just find a different way to have an abortion? All we have to do is to look at abortion numbers prior to 1970 to see that making it illegal will not stop it and as a side effect many more women will die or lose their ability to have children all together.
Do you want those deaths on your conscious? Because they should be…
You guys need to do more reading on how abortions were done before 1970 so at least you know what you are trying to condemn women to with your legislation… You might just realize that there is no stopping abortion and you are only trying to make it much less safe like it was 40+ years ago.
Courts don’t like to have legislatures openly and directly challenging their authority. Someone should let the lobbyists for the anti-abortion movement know that antagonizing the judiciary is not a good way to further their agenda.
You tweet your meat, you lose your seat.
Three branches of government. The founding fathers intended a balance of power between the federal government and the states and among the executive, legislative and judicial branches.
Change does not come about from well-behaved, meek people. Change comes from those willing to challenge the status quo. The US Supreme Court would never have reversed Plessy v Ferguson if blacks didn’t want to risk antagonizing the judiciary in Brown v Board of Education.
PS. We know how abortions were done before 1970. I have a friend who was coerced into one by her mother in 1968. We pray together in front of abortion mills now.
When I went through Rachel’s Vineyard, half of the women there had no living children and all expressed deep sorrow and their inability to conceive when they did want children. There has been a dramatic increase in infertility since 1970; some due to STDs, some due to abortion complications.
You will never convince me that most women are better off with abortion. Maybe the rich elites on the East Coast but not anyone else. And they’re only better off if the goal is to be insensitive and childless like the New York City ladies. Just my perception from the midwest.
Go Ohio. And Tenessee just defunded Planned Parenthood. It is heartening to see some progress.
Beautiful! Go Ohio! The Heartbeat Bill is exactly the type of thing that could make it to the SCOTUS. It changes the focus from “penumbras”, “emanations”, and the “right to privacy” to a different legal way of looking at abortion; i.e. from the standpoint of the baby. Though many believe that this legislation may not pass legal muster and may even set us back I say we have no way of knowing that. Professor Forte recognizes the dynamics of how the courts and various legislative efforts play off of prior decisions and can in time arrive at a favorable decision. Those who want to wait for the perfect setting and the perfect legislation and the perfect timing before they get behind something 100% will never see it.
I wonder if it’s ever been mentioned on this board how bizarre it is that the morning after pill - you know , that human pesticide - was called RU-486? As in: “Are you for 86-ing” your baby?
Yay. Women as happy breeders.
Why so insulting of women who like to have families?
Stop hating on moms.
Though many believe that this legislation may not pass legal muster
Well, it is not like Roe v. Wade passes legal muster. No legal scholars, not even on the left, would argue that Roe v. Wade passes legal muster. Heck there isn’t any legal reasoning in it.
Courts don’t like to have legislatures openly and directly challenging their authority.
What authority? You must mean the authority to adjudicate the laws passed by the…
wait for it….
Legislature
Someone should let the lobbyists for the anti-abortion movement know that antagonizing the judiciary is not a good way to further their agenda.
Who is antagonizing whom? The people through their legislatures have every right to further their agendas, and the courts are there to ensure that their intent is enforced.
“More than half of the women in the USA want to have healthy sex lives without being pregnant.”
And how many men want women to have sex lives without getting pregnant?