Ohio Senate passes Heartbeat Bill that could effectively ban abortions

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I think this law could increase the number of black market abortions, unfortunately. The mechanism for this would be such a restrictive law forcing desperate women to seek the old fashioned 'coat hanger' type abortion in unclean conditions, go out of state, or inject something (like methotrexate, or some other 'poison') into their amniotic cavity to 'kill' the contents, leading to 'no heartbeat'; so, that they can then get a legal abortion in Ohio. Scary stuff. Seems like this legislation is stepping backwards into earlier and more brutal times, to me.

How does this differ from let's say drug laws?

Pot is illegal on a federal level but several states have voted to legalize it.
Abortion is legal on a federal level so can states make it illegal?
Is the supreme courts decision the difference?

My own take on abortion is that there should be a cut off date. Half term maybe.
But I would also like federal funding for the mothers and an eased adoption process.

And we are suppose to meekly get along? Screw that. Four to eight years of harassment.

ETA It just occurred to me why Trump wants three generals in his cabinet.

a reply to: Bluntone22
pot being legal on the state level will not prevent the federal authorities from prosecuting people using federal laws..
they just seem to have chosen not to do it..

every person in the country has a federal guarantee to certain rights though. ya know, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. and the gov't has a vested interest when it comes to american's access to healthcare to the extent where there are federal regulations that seem to tie federal funding to the people's ability to have necessary access to that healthcare if those rights would be hampered if they went without it.
so, if a hospital who is accepting medicaid, medicare, receiving federal funding to purchase new equipment, ect, were to deny a patient any particular treatment that is considered to be the standard treatment for a health problem, then the gov't has the ability to pull that funding from them I do believe. now if a state were to write laws prohibiting that treatment will the federal gov't has the power to address that also.
in this case, it's a supreme court decision that says women have the right to abort up to the age of viability, and further if her life or health is at risk (along with a few other situations)... that decision on the federal level rules over state law.

I didn't bring up blindness as a possible disability resulting from pregnancy out of thin air. there's is a women who is permanently blind in poland because she was denied an abortion...

she already had a couple of little ones looking to her for their basic necessities. gee I don't know, but if she was in america, deserving of the right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness... if her children were....
well, now she can't see her young child if he happens to venture into a dangerous situation.. the laws have endangered her child..
liberty?? I am sorry, but she is no longer at liberty to enjoy many of those things that she used to is she?
pursuit of happiness?? well, think maybe it hindered that one quite a bit also..

and this law would prevent such a women from doing what she saw as necessary to retain these basic rights.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: windword

I never claimed that it would overturn the SCOTUS ruling in Roe-V-Wade, all I ever said was that, with the changing of the guard of justices being an imminent inevitability, the opinion on the matter may change with it.

What case do you envision being brought to the Court that would make the justices believe that the State has the right to search a woman's uterus, or compel a physician to inform the State of the contents of a woman's uterus, in order to govern her behavior based on those contents? I mean, this heart beat argument is hardly new, or news to lawmakers and doctors. But, SCOTUS has determined that a woman's autonomy is an inalienable right, up until the point of viability.

Do you think that religion will be, should be, the force that will ultimately invalidate a woman's constitutional right privacy and autonomy, as SCOTUS sees it right now?

a reply to: marg6043

I see it that way, too. And I view challenges to the status quo, no matter on which side of the argument I lie, as being good for a nation as a whole.

Now if only the people could quit being so divisive over these sorts of discussions, I think that we'd be okay.

a reply to: Fowlerstoad

That is definitely a possibility, but it's really not a good idea to incorporate the slippery slope argument into these types of discussions.

I do agree that this law appears to be more restrictive than I'd like to see, but again, I'm not here in this thread to talk about what I wish would happen, I just want to keep it about this law.

a reply to: dawnstar


I understand that sometimes things happen and abortion is the best option. No denying that.
But most abortions are not rape related or the mother was not in danger.

To me there is a point that the fetus is entitled to the same "life", liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Personally that's around the six month range.
But there again, I think we need to do more to help these women and make adoption of their children much easier.

a reply to: windword

Like I said in my OP--I'm not here (in my thread, anyhow) to discuss what I think should be done about abortion, or my feelings on it as a whole, or what basis I think should be used to overturn previous SCOTUS rulings.

But, when you say:

... SCOTUS has determined that a woman's autonomy is an inalienable right, up until the point of viability.

You must remember that, like I said, SCOTUS justices change, and with that, so do their rulings on the same subject matter. We'll just have to see how and if that changes, because honestly, I think that the tide on abortion will be changing soon, and for multiple reasons (not just one, like religion, or the oft-cited old-white-men-wanting-to-control-women's-wombs assertion).

It'll be interesting to watch, either way. As the science behind keeping a fetus alive outside of the womb gets better, and as we continue to understand more and more about the development of a child in the womb, opinions and science on the topic will continue to evolve, and with that evolution, laws should keep up, as should opinions on the matter.

a reply to: dawnstar
I tend to agree. I think this is just some hot air to win them a couple of pro-life votes. They know that this will be struck down but it will make some people happy for them to try.

a reply to: MOMof3
So Ohio goes about this fancy game and it's Trump's fault? Of course it is Jeez

a reply to: SlapMonkey

It'll be interesting to watch, either way. As the science behind keeping a fetus alive outside of the womb gets better, and as we continue to understand more and more about the development of a child in the womb, opinions and science on the topic will continue to evolve, and with that evolution, laws should keep up, as should opinions on the matter.

What you're suggesting is not a change to the law, though. You're saying that as science advances the age of fetal viability changes. Roe V Wade is unaffected by a change in when viability is determined. A woman's right to choice remains the same up to viability.

I can't see how Roe V Wade is broken, or why it needs to be challenged in the first place. This is why I asked you, "What situation would convince the Court that Roe V Wade IS, in fact, broken?"

The Constitution is clear that its protection extends to those people who are born, not to the unborn. What it seems to me you're really wanting is a Constitutional amendment, providing that the unborn have equal rights under the Constitution, therefore making Roe V Wade and the Supreme Court's opinion, irrelevant.

a reply to: Bluntone22

if those abortions are so rare, then why is it so difficult for lawmakers to write laws that will protect the women, who in my opinion are the ones that have the most justifiable reason to want an abortion? heck, take all the emphasis on late term abortions, they are really few, women have to shell out an unbelievable amount of money for them and travel sometimes across country if they need one... and most of these are for reasons that I believe are justifiable, usually either to preserve the mother's life and health or because medical tests have detected severe problems with the fetus. and then, if at all possible, the doctor's aim going into it is usually to save both through a c-section if the fetus is viable.
and yet, it's one of the most common targets of the pro-life crowd.

a reply to: dawnstar


Both sides like to push the least common cases to champion their causes.

Pro choice always pulls the rape card.
Pro life always pull the late term card.

The problem is that neither is willing to compromise their position even a little bit.
In the mean time women suffer.

a reply to: dawnstar

Please, stop posting in this thread if the majority of your argument is going to be based on the Appeal-to-Extremes and Appeal-to-Emotions logical fallacies.

Using extreme examples--from either side of the argument--is not an appropriate way to discuss this issue. There are extreme examples of infinite things that can go wrong with every situation in life. We get that.

Please try to keep it on the subject of the law and the viability of the law, not personal feelings concerning abortion and the possible side effects of pregnancy--unless you will keep it on topic and tie it into the facts about this law. This thread was not meant to carry over from the other one where you and I were discussing opinions about abortion.

ETA: This isn't just meant to be only directed at you, as others are derailing it, too.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Bluntone22

heck, take all the emphasis on late term abortions, they are really few, women have to shell out an unbelievable amount of money for them and travel sometimes across country if they need one... and most of these are for reasons that I believe are justifiable, usually either to preserve the mother's life and health or because medical tests have detected severe problems with the fetus.

It's worth noting that only one of those late-term abortion reasons are protected by the ruling of the SCOTUS--life/health of the mother. That being said, why would a woman need to "travel sometimes across country if they need one" when they should be necessary medical procedures that any doctor should be able to prescribe in any hospital in any jurisdiction in the U.S.?

a reply to: SlapMonkey



Do you ever see either side being willing to compromise their beliefs?
This may always be black or white.

The big question is if the bill is constitutional. Passing the bill will mean nothing if a federal judge puts a halt on it.

a reply to: SlapMonkey
the fact that this law, as well as many others treat those rare cases and the threat they pose to the women as not worthy of addressing is probably the biggest reason why there will never be any legal compromise between the two groups! and I've seen enough of them get shot down to come to the conclusion that the lawmakers don't want to do anything really except pretend to be pro-life. This law will be shot down for just the reason I am pointing out...end of discussion and debate. if you are forcing women to wait around while a pregnancy to adversely affect a women's health to the point where her life is in danger before providing her the care that is needed to keep her life out of danger then you are not providing her with healthcare!

a reply to: SlapMonkey

because abortions and problematic pregnancies become more complicated the further along a pregnancy is?? there is only something like five doctors in the country that do late term abortions.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: SlapMonkey
Do you ever see either side being willing to compromise their beliefs?
This may always be black or white.

The big question is if the bill is constitutional. Passing the bill will mean nothing if a federal judge puts a halt on it.

I do see compromise on it, just not in the media and loudest mouthpieces of either side, because all that they're interested in is the most extreme examples as to why their side might be right, and then they push that as the norm.

But, when it comes to your average person, many are compromising in nature. Just because both camps may want the law to fall on one extreme or the other doesn't mean that they're not willing to live with it. Hell, we're all living with the way that it is right now--that's proof that we can live with it other ways, too, if the tide ever turns.

There will always be people unhappy with the way that things are, and will often have good reasons for it--it's just that the opposing side doesn't necessarily hold the priorities of concern in the same order. This is one of those issues that I see riding a pendulum in the judicial system in perpetuity. Any law that concerns human life and that taking of it will have that effect, like the death penalty (it's just not the flavor of the month currently).

I really with the right would leave this issue alone. I think the right would be more effective changing hearts and minds organically by just getting men and women to be more responsible when it comes to sex.

In general, abortions should be relatively rare. Vast majority of performed because men and women are irresponsible and don't want to live with the consequences of their choices. Birth control is readily available and practically free. There is no excuse for accidental pregnancies other than irresponsibility. Abortions for rape, molestation,and health of the mother aren't even statistically significant.

If the right wants to reduce abortions, instead of passing these non-starter laws like in the OP, they should focus on trying to get people to make better choices.

These laws are almost as bad as these stupid gun control laws liberals keep trying to pass to overturn the 2nd.