Current Events > Ohio House passes Heartbeat to ban abortions of fetuses with a heartbeat.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/16/health/ohio-abortion-ban-heartbeat-bill.html

The Ohio House of Representatives this week passed one of the most restrictive abortion bills in the country one that would penalize doctors for performing an abortion when a fetal heartbeat can be detected and pose a potential challenge to Roe v. Wade.

A fetal heartbeat can be detected by an ultrasound as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, a time during which most women are unaware they are pregnant.

Under the bill, approved Thursday by a vote of 60 to 35, performing an abortion on a fetus with a heartbeat would result in a fifth-degree felony, which is punishable in Ohio by up to one year in prison and a $2,500 fine. The bill now heads to the Ohio Senate.

The measure includes no exceptions for rape or incest. Doctors may, however, make an exception during a medical emergency or if an abortion would save a womans life.

Representative Christina Hagan, the lead sponsor of the bill, said in an interview on Friday that it was crafted specifically to challenge Roe v. Wade, the 45-year-old Supreme Court decision that made abortion a constitutional right.

We believe Ohio is best positioned to send this through the Circuit Courts and to the federal Supreme Court, said Ms. Hagan, a Republican who campaigned on behalf of President Trump.

She said she was confident the bill would become law by the end of the year. Both the House and the Senate have a Republican-dominated veto-proof majority.

In 2016, Gov. John Kasich vetoed a bill prohibiting abortions when a fetal heartbeat can be detected. We did not have the strength in the majority to overcome that veto, Ms. Hagan said, adding, We do now.

---

Lame
---

Tmaster148 posted...

Representative Christina Hagan, the lead sponsor of the bill, said in an interview on Friday that it was crafted specifically to challenge Roe v. Wade

Well it's probably going to work. I doubt it'll conquer Roe v. Wade though.
---

Trump's America
---

Fuck anyone that supports this anti-woman shit.

voldothegr8 posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

Representative Christina Hagan, the lead sponsor of the bill, said in an interview on Friday that it was crafted specifically to challenge Roe v. Wade

Well it's probably going to work. I doubt it'll conquer Roe v. Wade though.

This is what happens when five people decide national policy, instead of the 486 people specifically elected to do so.

Questionmarktarius posted...

This is what happens when five people decide national policy, instead of the 486 people specifically elected to do so.

to be fair, the people elected to do so have made it very clear they're never going to decide any national social policy ever again

i mean unless one party gets both houses, the presidency, and a filibuster-proof senate majority
---

_Rinku_ posted...

Fuck anyone that supports this anti-woman shit.

There's this one guy on CE who wants to sentence anyone women who has gotten an abortion to the death penalty. I imagine he would think this doesn't go far enough.
---

If they have a heartbeat, doesn't that mean they're, you know, alive?
---

MakoReizei posted...

If they have a heartbeat, doesn't that mean they're, you know, alive?

They're "alive" regardless of whether or not they have a heartbeat.

Using the presence of a heartbeat is an entirely meaningless cutoff.
---

MakoReizei posted...

If they have a heartbeat, doesn't that mean they're, you know, alive?

It does not. You can't take out a 6 week fetus and expect it to be alive.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

voldothegr8 posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

Representative Christina Hagan, the lead sponsor of the bill, said in an interview on Friday that it was crafted specifically to challenge Roe v. Wade

Well it's probably going to work. I doubt it'll conquer Roe v. Wade though.

This is what happens when five people decide national policy, instead of the 486 people specifically elected to do so.

I don't understand what the 'this' that is happening is supposed to be.
---

Darkman124 posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

This is what happens when five people decide national policy, instead of the 486 people specifically elected to do so.

to be fair, the people elected to do so have made it very clear they're never going to decide any national social policy ever again

i mean unless one party gets both houses, the presidency, and a filibuster-proof senate majority

naah, even then they scream that the minority party is blocking their every action.
---

monkmith posted...

naah, even then they scream that the minority party is blocking their every action.

used to be that there was some policy the parties agreed upon or at least was willing to let the other party enact

procedural filibuster wasn't used 24/7 in the 90s
---

Darkman124 posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

This is what happens when five people decide national policy, instead of the 486 people specifically elected to do so.

to be fair, the people elected to do so have made it very clear they're never going to decide any national social policy ever again

i mean unless one party gets both houses, the presidency, and a filibuster-proof senate majority

I seriously don't understand whats supposed to be tying this situation to judges legislating from the bench. it's pretty bizarre, the state house passed a law and the governor vetoed it. now they're trying to pass the law again. That's... literally just how legislation works?
---

Darkman124 posted...

monkmith posted...

naah, even then they scream that the minority party is blocking their every action.

used to be that there was some policy the parties agreed upon or at least was willing to let the other party enact

procedural filibuster wasn't used 24/7 in the 90s

blame this asshole.

https://www.thenation.com/article/how-newt-gingrich-crippled-congress/
---

@Balrog0 posted...

Darkman124 posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

This is what happens when five people decide national policy, instead of the 486 people specifically elected to do so.

to be fair, the people elected to do so have made it very clear they're never going to decide any national social policy ever again

i mean unless one party gets both houses, the presidency, and a filibuster-proof senate majority

I seriously don't understand whats supposed to be tying this situation to judges legislating from the bench. it's pretty bizarre, the state house passed a law and the governor vetoed it. now they're trying to pass the law again. That's... literally just how legislation works?

Opps I left off part of the article. Didn't notice cuz mobile.

In his 2016 statement, Mr. Kasich said the bill was contrary to the Supreme Courts rulings on abortion and pointed out that similar legislation in other states had been declared unconstitutional by federal judges.
Mr. Kasich did, however, sign a bill banning abortion after 20 weeks.

If the current bill does not reach the governors office until next year, it will land on the desk of his successor, Mike DeWine.

During a campaign debate, Mr. DeWine said he would support the legislation.

I will sign the bill, he said. I believe that the essential function of government is to protect the most vulnerable members of society. That includes the unborn.

---

Irregardless posted...

Trump's America

---

Balrog0 posted...

I seriously don't understand whats supposed to be tying this situation to judges legislating from the bench. it's pretty bizarre, the state house passed a law and the governor vetoed it. now they're trying to pass the law again. That's... literally just how legislation works?

the subtext of qmark's post is the entire point of the bill was to pose a legal challenge of roe v wade before the new conservative SCOTUS
---

Balrog0 posted...

Darkman124 posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

This is what happens when five people decide national policy, instead of the 486 people specifically elected to do so.

to be fair, the people elected to do so have made it very clear they're never going to decide any national social policy ever again

i mean unless one party gets both houses, the presidency, and a filibuster-proof senate majority

I seriously don't understand whats supposed to be tying this situation to judges legislating from the bench. it's pretty bizarre, the state house passed a law and the governor vetoed it. now they're trying to pass the law again. That's... literally just how legislation works?

What SCOTUS giveth, SCOTUS taketh away.
This legislation is overtly crafted to end up going before SCOTUS.

The heartbeat cutoff is meaningless, they're essentially saying they want to ban abortion at conception if they could.

You may disagree with that, but to try to make this an issue of "misogyny" is dumb at best and deceitful at worst. No one is trying to to ban women from menstruating, once a fetus is involved this becomes a huge grey area. And the father is going to affected just as much.
---

Article is longer than I initially thought.

Here's more

But some doctors say that the decision to have an abortion is one that ought to be made among a woman, her family and her health care provider.

Every situation truly is unique and every time I think that Ive heard it all, I have a patient come in and just surprise me by the circumstances of her needing care, said Dr. Sarah Horvath, a family planning fellow at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The organization urged Ohios governor to veto the heartbeat legislation presented in 2016.

Fetal heartbeat legislation could prevent women from seeking an abortion before they even realize they are pregnant, she added.

If they werent intending to become pregnant or taking pregnancy tests routinely, most would have no idea theyre pregnant at that point, Dr. Horvath said.

The Ohio State Medical Association has pushed back against the bill and is very concerned about its plan to criminalize doctors for performing a medical procedure that could be considered a standard of care, said Reggie Fields, a spokesman for the organization.

According to Ms. Hagan, instituting penalties is necessary to prevent abortion providers from disregarding the law.

If a murder is occurring, then there has to be a repercussion for that action, she said.

In other states, like Iowa, similar bills have been signed into law.

For me, its immoral to stop an innocent, beating heart, Iowas governor, Kim Reynolds, said this year.

Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit challenging that laws constitutionality, and a county judge granted a temporary injunction to block it from taking effect pending the litigations outcome.

North Dakota passed a heartbeat bill in 2013, but it was overturned by a federal judge.

Next year could bring additional challenges to abortion access.

We fully anticipate when state legislatures come back in full swing in January 2019 that others will follow suit and introduce restrictive legislation, abortion bans and things of that nature, Brigitte Amiri, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Unions Reproductive Freedom Project, said in an interview on Friday. I think what happened yesterday should be a wake-up call on the direct attacks on Roe v. Wade.
More than a dozen abortion cases are currently before federal appeals courts, any of which could reach the Supreme Court next year. Now that Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh has replaced Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the court has a conservative majority. Abortion rights groups consider Justice Kavanaugh a threat to Roe v. Wade.

The Trump administration has already made moves to curb reproductive rights, including a regulation that would allow some employers to deny birth control coverage for moral or religious reasons.

The big blank ad spaces look like the article finished on mobile.
---

Good

Questionmarktarius posted...

What SCOTUS giveth, SCOTUS taketh away.
This legislation is overtly crafted to end up going before SCOTUS.

highlights an interesting question for liberals

which SCOTUS rulings (citizens united, etc) would be targets to destroy by passing bad-faith legislation on the state level the second the left can manage a majority on the court

also

im in your head
---

Darkman124 posted...

Balrog0 posted...

I seriously don't understand whats supposed to be tying this situation to judges legislating from the bench. it's pretty bizarre, the state house passed a law and the governor vetoed it. now they're trying to pass the law again. That's... literally just how legislation works?

the subtext of qmark's post is the entire point of the bill was to pose a legal challenge of roe v wade before the new conservative SCOTUS

yeah but the point I'm trying to make is that without the SCOTUS safeguards on this issue, it wouldn't even be up to debate and many states would have long ago done this kind of thing or much worse. so I'm still kind of failing to see the point of bringing that up? am I being obtuse?
---

Darkman124 posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

What SCOTUS giveth, SCOTUS taketh away.
This legislation is overtly crafted to end up going before SCOTUS.

highlights an interesting question for liberals

which SCOTUS rulings (citizens united, etc) would be targets to destroy by passing bad-faith legislation on the state level the second the left can manage a majority on the court

I think Citizen's United is a bad example here. Because I can't think of many people who would be for money in politics.
---

Good
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

The heartbeat cutoff is meaningless, they're essentially saying they want to ban abortion at conception if they could.

You may disagree with that, but to try to make this an issue of "misogyny" is dumb at best and deceitful at worst. No one is trying to to ban women from menstruating, once a fetus is involved this becomes a huge grey area. And the father is going to affected just as much.

unless the father is also carrying a baby for 9 months, with all the health risks and burdens associated, kindly shut the fuck up.
---

Life is sacred for republicans until they're born. After that it costs money and they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps

Rexdragon125 posted...

Life is sacred for republicans until they're born. After that it costs money and they need to pull themselves up by their umbilical cords.

ftfy
---

Darkman124 posted...

which SCOTUS rulings (citizens united, etc) would be targets to destroy by passing bad-faith legislation on the state level the second the left can manage a majority on the court

Heller, presumably.

Why is society trying to put so much responsibility on a man who just wants to have sex casually?
---

Darkman124 posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

What SCOTUS giveth, SCOTUS taketh away.
This legislation is overtly crafted to end up going before SCOTUS.

which SCOTUS rulings (citizens united, etc) would be targets to destroy by passing bad-faith legislation on the state level the second the left can manage a majority on the court

Here's the thing, would a law equivalent to this one that bans most political spending by corporations actually be in bad faith?

I think the Citizens United ruling is bad, so I would say no.

There are a lot of people who honestly believe that human life begins at conception, and therefore abortion is murder and should be banned.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

voldothegr8 posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

Representative Christina Hagan, the lead sponsor of the bill, said in an interview on Friday that it was crafted specifically to challenge Roe v. Wade

Well it's probably going to work. I doubt it'll conquer Roe v. Wade though.

This is what happens when five people decide national policy, instead of the 486 people specifically elected to do so.

Even if all of Congress decided on a law, it could still go to the courts for decision on if it's constitutional anyway right?
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

There are a lot of people who honestly believe that human life begins at conception, and therefore abortion is murder and should be banned.

Believing something doesn't mean it is correct.
---

monkmith posted...

Damn_Underscore posted...

The heartbeat cutoff is meaningless, they're essentially saying they want to ban abortion at conception if they could.

You may disagree with that, but to try to make this an issue of "misogyny" is dumb at best and deceitful at worst. No one is trying to to ban women from menstruating, once a fetus is involved this becomes a huge grey area. And the father is going to affected just as much.

unless the father is also carrying a baby for 9 months, with all the health risks and burdens associated, kindly shut the fuck up.

Why are you so angry? The father will be affected just as much emotionally and financially as the mother.
---

So Ohio is banning abortion? Fuck this anti-woman, anti-sense religiously backwards bullshit. Just move to Saudi Arabia if you want to live in a socially regressive religious state.
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

monkmith posted...

Damn_Underscore posted...

The heartbeat cutoff is meaningless, they're essentially saying they want to ban abortion at conception if they could.

You may disagree with that, but to try to make this an issue of "misogyny" is dumb at best and deceitful at worst. No one is trying to to ban women from menstruating, once a fetus is involved this becomes a huge grey area. And the father is going to affected just as much.

unless the father is also carrying a baby for 9 months, with all the health risks and burdens associated, kindly shut the fuck up.

Why are you so angry? The father will be affected just as much emotionally and financially as the mother.

Still not in his uterus.
---

Tmaster148 posted...

Damn_Underscore posted...

There are a lot of people who honestly believe that human life begins at conception, and therefore abortion is murder and should be banned.

Believing something doesn't mean it is correct.

I guess it's tied to religious beliefs. If people have souls then when would they get them? At conception most likely

I am pro-choice but I think abortion is wrong basically for that reason.
---

You can't prove souls exist. Let's not make policy based on religious principles. If religious people are against abortions they can chose to not get them.

Separation of church and state.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Damn_Underscore posted...

monkmith posted...

Damn_Underscore posted...

The heartbeat cutoff is meaningless, they're essentially saying they want to ban abortion at conception if they could.

You may disagree with that, but to try to make this an issue of "misogyny" is dumb at best and deceitful at worst. No one is trying to to ban women from menstruating, once a fetus is involved this becomes a huge grey area. And the father is going to affected just as much.

unless the father is also carrying a baby for 9 months, with all the health risks and burdens associated, kindly shut the fuck up.

Why are you so angry? The father will be affected just as much emotionally and financially as the mother.

Still not in his uterus.

Females are biologically designed to give birth. That's just how it is. If men gave birth people would sill have the same beliefs about when life begins.

Do you have any qualms whatsoever if the woman wants an abortion but the man doesn't?
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

monkmith posted...

Damn_Underscore posted...

The heartbeat cutoff is meaningless, they're essentially saying they want to ban abortion at conception if they could.

You may disagree with that, but to try to make this an issue of "misogyny" is dumb at best and deceitful at worst. No one is trying to to ban women from menstruating, once a fetus is involved this becomes a huge grey area. And the father is going to affected just as much.

unless the father is also carrying a baby for 9 months, with all the health risks and burdens associated, kindly shut the fuck up.

Why are you so angry? The father will be affected just as much emotionally and financially as the mother.

cool, will he bleed to death when the placenta tears from the uterus during childbirth? maybe have a heart attack due to wildly fluctuating blood pressure while carrying the baby? develop gestational diabetes that continues after the birth? hell, will he become incontinent after the birth?
---

Tmaster148 posted...

You can't prove souls exist. Let's not make policy based on religious principles. If religious people are against abortions they can chose to not get them.

Separation of church and state.

I agree, but when it's a question of life and murder not everyone will agree.
---

To all the people in this topic, I'm curious what you believe the cutoff should be for abortions. I fully support abortions, but it's a lot easier to bitch about a cutoff than it is to provide your own and justify it. For example, third trimester is a pretty common one because at that point you could conceivably have a premature birth and through medical science the baby could survive.
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

You can't prove souls exist. Let's not make policy based on religious principles. If religious people are against abortions they can chose to not get them.

Separation of church and state.

I agree, but when it's a question of life and murder not everyone will agree.

Murder is the illegal killing of another person. Abortion is literally not murder.
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Damn_Underscore posted...

monkmith posted...

Damn_Underscore posted...

The heartbeat cutoff is meaningless, they're essentially saying they want to ban abortion at conception if they could.

You may disagree with that, but to try to make this an issue of "misogyny" is dumb at best and deceitful at worst. No one is trying to to ban women from menstruating, once a fetus is involved this becomes a huge grey area. And the father is going to affected just as much.

unless the father is also carrying a baby for 9 months, with all the health risks and burdens associated, kindly shut the fuck up.

Why are you so angry? The father will be affected just as much emotionally and financially as the mother.

Still not in his uterus.

Females are biologically designed to give birth. That's just how it is. If men gave birth people would sill have the same beliefs about when life begins.

Do you have any qualms whatsoever if the woman wants an abortion but the man doesn't?

[Citation Needed]

Darkman124 posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

What SCOTUS giveth, SCOTUS taketh away.
This legislation is overtly crafted to end up going before SCOTUS.

highlights an interesting question for liberals

which SCOTUS rulings (citizens united, etc) would be targets to destroy by passing bad-faith legislation on the state level the second the left can manage a majority on the court

also

im in your head

The whataboutism here is insane. Youre referencing something you think the liberals are going to do. It hasnt happened yet, but youre still using it to justify the GOP taking established law hostage so they can rewrite precedent to read however they want
---

Alpha218 posted...

The whataboutism here is insane. Youre referencing something you think the liberals are going to do. It hasnt happened yet, but youre still using it to justify the GOP taking established law hostage so they can rewrite precedent to read however they want

do you even know me
---