Ohio Senate passes Heartbeat Bill that could effectively ban abortions

originally posted by: dogstar23
a reply to: SlapMonkey

My guess is the likely result of this, if passed, is a bunch of abortions will be performed later in the pregnancy than they otherwise would have once the courts intervene (however long that takes) and abortions begin happening in OH again.

Then, those who pushed for this law can carry the burden of knowing they played a part in additions happened at 10 weeks instead of 7, etc.

What part did they play? Did they stick their unprotected jolly in there and forget to pull it out?

a reply to: reldra

What concerns me the most about your comment is that is implies that medical professionals are not currently obligated by law to report suspected child-abuse victims.

It would seem that there already is a law on the books that governs the obligation to do so: 2151.421 Reporting child abuse or neglect

(A)

(1)

(a) No person described in division (A)(1)(b) of this section who is acting in an official or professional capacity and knows, or has reasonable cause to suspect based on facts that would cause a reasonable person in a similar position to suspect, that a child under eighteen years of age, or a person, under twenty-one years of age with a developmental disability or physical impairment, has suffered or faces a threat of suffering any physical or mental wound, injury, disability, or condition of a nature that reasonably indicates abuse or neglect of the child shall fail to immediately report that knowledge or reasonable cause to suspect to the entity or persons specified in this division. Except as provided in section 5120.173 of the Revised Code, the person making the report shall make it to the public children services agency or a municipal or county peace officer in the county in which the child resides or in which the abuse or neglect is occurring or has occurred. In the circumstances described in section 5120.173 of the Revised Code, the person making the report shall make it to the entity specified in that section.

(b) Division (A)(1)(a) of this section applies to any person who is an attorney; physician, including a hospital intern or resident; dentist; podiatrist; practitioner of a limited branch of medicine as specified in section 4731.15 of the Revised Code; registered nurse; licensed practical nurse; visiting nurse; other health care professional; licensed psychologist; licensed school psychologist; independent marriage and family therapist or marriage and family therapist; speech pathologist or audiologist; coroner; administrator or employee of a child day-care center; administrator or employee of a residential camp, child day camp, ...

So, I don't think that your claim that HB 125 is holding up legislation that causes medical professionals to report instances of child abuse is really factual or accurate, since this law already exists. Sure, maybe there is a component of the reporting process that may get streamlined (you didn't note to what extent or how), but the reality that the abuse must be reported already exists.

a reply to: shooterbrody

I assume you must be leading me somewhere, with a silly question like that. Doctors, clinics know how many and what kind of procedure they do each year.

"Settled" infers an interpretation.

originally posted by: SRPrime
And that's exactly the problem. The only legislation on opinions that should be valid is that you cannot draft laws that ban options because of someones opinion.

All that the job of the SCOTUS entails is to provide opinions on the constitutionality of laws brought before them. Like I said, opinions change--I'm not trying to make an argument that a change will be good or bad, I'm just saying that it's possible, if not probable, depending on the appointed justices in the upcoming future. And, often times, once SCOTUS opinions are determined, laws follow based on said opinions.

There is no fact in pro-life opinion. There is of course, factual evidence against it. If you force poor people to carry to term, all you do is make more poor people. Poor people equate directly to the crime rate, so forcing unwanted babies on people does and will raise the crime rates as well as produce higher costs through entitlement programs.

I must tell you that I find your bolded assertion and the comments after to be incongruous with each other. There are plenty of facts on both sides of the argument. Furthermore, there are plenty of children born into poor environments who end up successful as adults. How can you claim that only one side has facts, and then follow up that claim with a poor (no pun intended) stereotype of all poor people? Yes, there is statistical evidence that supports some components of your claims, but to generalize all children born into poor families is quite unfair. Conversely, to imply that all people born into middle- or upper-class families will be successful and not end up poor or criminals is incorrect as well.

Asserting generalizations can make some sense, but when the bill in question is concerned about individual human lives, generalizing is a distraction, because every individual and every parent is different, and socio-economic generalities often have no bearing on the individual--well, at least, not always a negative one.

Literally no good is done "saving" accident babies. I care more about those who are here and breathing, talking and conversing, than I do a "would be" child that's just going to make it more difficult for those of us who are here and breathing.

That's your opinion on the matter--I don't care about your opinion concerning abortion, nor is people's opinions on it the point of this thread.

If you don't know you're alive, you're not self aware -- if you're not self aware, you're not a person yet. Until this fact changes, nobody should be capable of forcing a prolife opinion through law.

That's not a "fact." You're presenting your opinion as fact, and that's quite the ignorant way to propose your argument and be taken seriously. But again, this is not a thread on the philosophy of when life begins or your opinions on the topic.

The second we have some godly answer to this question is the second I'll support a bill that changes things as long as it's reflective of that new information. It is not the governments place to legislate opinion. They are there to legislate fact to create a better society. Legislating in favor of pro-life creates a worse society and is unfounded by evidence. This is a moral opinion legislated.

You're way off the mark on this one--and what does a religion's god have to do with our federal government proposing legislation?

You're making no sense. "[The government] is there to legislate fact ..." No, they're there to legislate laws and policies--facts already exist in society and nature, even without a government at all.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

All that the job of the SCOTUS entails is to provide opinions on the constitutionality of laws brought before them. Like I said, opinions change--I'm not trying to make an argument that a change will be good or bad, I'm just saying that it's possible, if not probable, depending on the appointed justices in the upcoming future. And, often times, once SCOTUS opinions are determined, laws follow based on said opinions.

Opinions vary, true. But, the Constitution hasn't changed. There is no Constitutional protection established for the "unborn". The Constitution clearly states, in the 14th Amendment, that its rights extend to all people born. That's not an opinion. And, that's why the Republican Nation Platform calls for a Constitutional Amendment declaring the unborn "covered" under the 14th Amendment.

a reply to: windword

I understand that, I truly do. But, being the legally minded person that I am, I must quote from the court's opinion in Roe V. Wade (way down in section VIII):

The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution.

In the spirit of non-explicit mentioning of rights, the 14th Amendment does not specifically state that it can not be applied to human beings in the womb of the mother, either, which means that it SHOULD be okay for states to make laws that protect these human beings as well, without the federal government telling them that they cannot (kind of in line with the purpose of the 10th Amendment).

Take, for example, the instances where someone kills a pregnant mother and they get tried and convicted for the murders of both people, the mother and the unborn baby. Why is there a protection against being murdered in that instance, but when it comes to abortion, the killing of that same unborn baby is completely legit (within the confines of the law, of course). I'm not concerned so much with who is doing the killing as I am with different standards being applied to the same being: The unborn child.

In my opinion (which doesn't matter in the grand scheme of anything), the 10th Amendment should supersede the SCOTUS determination that abortion is covered under the Right to Privacy in the 14th Amendment, giving it special status when it comes to state laws limiting abortions--or at the least, should be used to assert that the states can extend rights to the unborn child. But that's not the current reality, so I suppose it is a moot point in arguing it.

Regardless, as the opinion of the original Roe-V-Wade ruling guides the constitutionality of state laws regarding abortion limitations, this Ohio law will most assuredly be deemed unconstitutional. And I do agree--there will probably have to be an amendment giving enumerated rights to a developing baby before anything will legally change concerning abortion and the rights of the child versus the mother. From the court's opinion:

The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. ... But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.

All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.

As you can see, this is an opinion come to by the majority of the justices--an interpretation.

But, like I said at the start of my response, I don't really agree with the idea there needs to be an explicitly established protection for an unborn baby for it to be legally acceptable to apply certain rights to it, and just like in the reasoning behind the majority opinion to which I linked, it only takes one time for a case to brought to the SCOTUS and argued in front of a whole new panel of justices for the previous opinion to be negated.

The Constitution may not have changed in regard to the reasoning behind the Roe-V-Wade ruling, but that doesn't mean that the reasoning behind the courts' opinion will not. It's their job to interpret the constitution, and not all interpretations are the same.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

In the spirit of non-explicit mentioning of rights, the 14th Amendment does not specifically state that it can not be applied to human beings in the womb of the mother, either, which means that it SHOULD be okay for states to make laws that protect these human beings as well, without the federal government telling them that they cannot (kind of in line with the purpose of the 10th Amendment).

There's no way one can reinterpret the Constitution to include the unborn, when it explicitly states "persons born". The founding fathers, nor the Bible for that matter, ever considered the unborn as "persons". Imagine the can of worms that would arise if the State tried to claim ownership through citizenship of every child conceived while the mother was visiting the USA! Talk about "anchor babies"!

Take, for example, the instances where someone kills a pregnant mother and they get tried and convicted for the murders of both people, the mother and the unborn baby. Why is there a protection against being murdered in that instance, but when it comes to abortion, the killing of that same unborn baby is completely legit (within the confines of the law, of course). I'm not concerned so much with who is doing the killing as I am with different standards being applied to the same being: The unborn child.

The highly controversial Unborn Victims of Violence Act protects a woman's right to choose. No one has the right to force a woman to have an abortion or to lose her WANTED pregnancy!

Women's reproductive rights are Constitutional rights, not states issues.

The only way to render Roe V Wade irrelevant is a Constitutional Amendment. Overturning Roe V Wade has far too many far reaching implications that could invalidate anyone's right to privacy and anonymity and the jeopardize the doctor patient relationship, not just pregnant women. Imagine if the State could force you to "donate" a kidney or your daughter to have an abortion. The knife cuts both ways.

originally posted by: windword
There's no way one can reinterpret the Constitution to include the unborn, when it explicitly states "persons born". The founding fathers, nor the Bible for that matter, ever considered the unborn as "persons". Imagine the can of worms that would arise if the State tried to claim ownership through citizenship of every child conceived while the mother was visiting the USA! Talk about "anchor babies"!

You're (and the 14th Amendment) are talking about citizenship. I'm not talking about citizenship. Our nation's laws apply to everyone on our soil, not just citizens.

Women's reproductive rights are Constitutional rights, not states issues.

You can keep repeating that, and I'll keep repeating that, under current SCOTUS opinion on the matter, you are correct. But, like I said (and is the truth), SCOTUS rulings do not create laws, and a change in that opinion is always just a new SCOTUS ruling away. Of course, that's assuming that the SCOTUS would agree to hear the case.

The only way to render Roe V Wade irrelevant is a Constitutional Amendment. Overturning Roe V Wade has far too many far reaching implications that could invalidate anyone's right to privacy and anonymity and the jeopardize the doctor patient relationship, not just pregnant women. Imagine if the State could force you to "donate" a kidney or your daughter to have an abortion. The knife cuts both ways.

You are wrong about the bolded portion, but let's quit beating this dead horse, as we're both unwilling to compromise on our view of that issue.

As for the rest of it, you're using the Slippery Slope and Strawman logical fallacies at this point, so it's not worth discussing under that pretext.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

You are wrong....

You can't change the wording of the constitution through opinion.

As for the rest of it, you're using the Slippery Slope and Strawman logical fallacies at this point, so it's not worth discussing under that pretext.

Of course it is! The "What will happen if Roe V Wade is overturned or rendered irrelevant?" is worth discussing! Depending on the reason it's overturned or rendered irrelevant has everything to do with the "slippery slope". If Roe V Wade is overturned because the justices don't believe the constitution protects the private relationship between a patient and their doctor, everyone's privacy is threatened.

If the Court makes it too dangerous for women to visit doctors, they won't. They will use over the counter pregnancy tests and "back alley abortions" options. That's another factual slippery slope.

The fact is Roe V Wade is NOT broken and doesn't need to be fixed. There is no debate to be had. Changing the official medical opinion of when viability occurs does nothing to change Roe V Wade.

originally posted by: windword
You can't change the wording of the constitution through opinion.

Jesus...I know you can't change the wording. The problem comes into play when things are so vaguely worded in the constitution (like parts of the 14th Amendment...even the SCOTUS noted that the vagueness of the wording is why abortion can be deemed to fall under a 'right to privacy') that interpretation of its meaning can vary.

That's what we have when things are brought to the SCOTUS, and that interpretation can be different with different combinations of justices. Why do you keep arguing against that? There's a trail of rulings and then contradictory rulings that are a factual testament to my claim.

Of course it is! The "What will happen if Roe V Wade is overturned or rendered irrelevant?" is worth discussing! Depending on the reason it's overturned or rendered irrelevant has everything to do with the "slippery slope". If Roe V Wade is overturned because the justices don't believe the constitution protects the private relationship between a patient and their doctor, everyone's privacy is threatened.

If the Court makes it too dangerous for women to visit doctors, they won't. They will use over the counter pregnancy tests and "back alley abortions" options. That's another factual slippery slope.

What you're doing is arguing hypotheticals and worst-case scenarios. Again, that has no place in a thread that I started to discuss a specific law and its constitutionality. If you want to go off on this tangent, feel free, just do it with someone else, because I've never really been interested in pretending that I can see the future, let alone that such soothsaying is a "factual slippery slope."

I'm happy for you that you have such faith in your fortune telling, though. I'm going to stay firmly planted in reality, myself.

The fact is Roe V Wade is NOT broken and doesn't need to be fixed. There is no debate to be had. Changing the official medical opinion of when viability occurs does nothing to change Roe V Wade.

Again, you're strongly voicing an opinion, and like I've said before--that's fine. Have your opinion, but the fact of the matter is that the RVW opinion concerning viability certainly does play a major part in the ruling, and if it the date of viability gets pushed earlier and earlier, state laws can adjust to that and keep moving the part that they can outlaw abortion earlier and earlier to match.

Have you ever even read the actual ruling? I mean, I linked to it--you should read it. I'll help you out with the relevant verbiage, though:

For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

and also this part, which is relevant:

Physicians and their scientific colleagues ... have tended to focus ... upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes "viable," that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.

What you must note is that the opinion notes that advances is medicine will affect such determination as to when a fetus becomes "potentially able to live outside of the mother's womb ... with artificial aid." Please note the term "potentially" in there, because that potential to survive is what changes most often with advances is the technology that renders the "artificial aid."

I could quote more, but that is enough to negate your claim that changes in medical viability of the fetus won't change the ruling--well, it won't change the ruling, per se, so you're right, but it will allow states to change and tighten the timeframe of when abortions can be legislated as being illegal in accordance with RVW. Hell, the fact that two babies have survived after being born in the 21st week of gestation tells me that it's possible to try and argue that the "potentially able to live" part of the ruling could be argued to apply to the 21st week instead of the 24th, which seems to be the accepted time limit at the moment--it doesn't specify probability of living with artificial aid, just that there is the potential to do so.

One of my biggest issues with the ruling, though, is that even when it talks about viability, it refers to "potential human life," and I think it must be noted that this is definitely in-line with the advances maybe up through 1973, but I think that our advanced understanding of DNA and other things as it pertains to child development in the womb since that time shows that a fetus, especially at and after the point of viability, is definitely already a human life.

But, to each their own. I think this discussion between you and I is revealing itself to be a fruitless endeavor. Obviously you can continue if you want, but it's 50/50 at this point if I will respond.

Best regards--and thanks for keeping it calm and civil.

a reply to: MOMof3

I am not leading "anywhere", I apologize in advance if my questions seem beneath you. I don't understand how any leo could get info on any completed individual medical procedure let alone abortion with the current HIPPA laws in place. As for number of procedures performed at any said facility, is that info not also protected? Who wants anyone to know they had a colonoscopy let alone an abortion?

As far as "settled"; when congress passes a law for or against abortion we can discuss "settled". Even SCOTUS justices themselves wrote Roe v Wade did not settle the abortion issue and the issue would be debated further. If Trump puts uber conservatives on the bench Roe v Wade may very well be overturned. To me, it will be interesting to see how the newish HIPPA laws work for/against Roe v Wade.

a reply to: shooterbrody

many states require healthcare providers to provide statistics when it comes to abortion. hippa will protect your personal healthcare information which means that those statistics cannot be so informative that they can link that information to you. but, informing them of the number of abortions performed, reasons for those abortions, without patient id numbers and such doesn't go against hippa.
the problem lies within these laws, how does one prove that an abortion is medically necessary without providing the personal information concerning the case.

a reply to: dawnstar

Why would the "reason for an abortion" be given to the state or anyone else for that matter? Does the aforementioned state also keep tabs on the "reasons for a nosejob"? If the state does not isn't that discriminatory?
Why at this date would one have to prove the medical necessity? Is there currently any language in any state that demands this? Would the current HIPPA laws not protect this?

Land of the free? unless you are a woman.
Nowt to do with anyone but the woman.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Every medical procedure and dx has a code number entered in the computer system for stats and billing insurance companies. That is not private.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

That's what we have when things are brought to the SCOTUS, and that interpretation can be different with different combinations of justices.

Not when it comes to Civil Rights.

The The Bill of Rights asserts that "All men are created equal". It took a Constitutional Amendment for men of color to be included in that statement. It took another one to include women. It's gonna take a Constitutional Amendment to include the unborn too.

Have you ever even read the actual ruling? I mean, I linked to it--you should read it. I'll help you out with the relevant verbiage, though: For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

...For the preservation of the life or health of the mother, not the fetus, embryo or fertilized egg!

What you must note is that the opinion notes that advances is medicine will affect such determination as to when a fetus becomes "potentially able to live outside of the mother's womb ... with artificial aid." Please note the term "potentially" in there, because that potential to survive is what changes most often with advances is the technology that renders the "artificial aid."

So what? Roe V Wade protects the woman's privacy up until viability! If science creates an artificial womb that allows women to transfer their unwanted embryos or fetuses to one of them, great! That has absolutely no effect on Roe V Wade, merely on when viability occurs.

Obviously you can continue if you want, but it's 50/50 at this point if I will respond.

It is not a 50/50 prospect that Roe V Wade will be overturned by a change of justices and their opinions, though. If it was Roe V Wade would have been overturned already. But it can't be without affecting the rights of every American, not just pregnant women, so it won't be. Republicans and the Christian Right know this, which is why the Republican National Party Platform, includes, and has for decades, a long term plan to enact a Constitutional Amendment that would make abortion and many forms of birth control, as well as all forms of euthanasia (but not the death penalty) unconstitutional and ILLEGAL!

Here it is:

The Constitution’s guarantee that no one can “be deprived of life, liberty or property” deliberately echoes the Declaration of Independence’s proclamation that “all” are “endowed by their Creator” with the inalienable right to life. Accordingly, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to children before birth.
www.gop.com...

a reply to: MOMof3

That is not what we are discussing is it? Is the reason for the procedures medical necessity entered as well? Are the billing and insurance people not held to HIPPA privacy laws as well? The way I understand HIPPA laws it is intended to be private. I signed no release for the state or other nosy agency.

a reply to: shooterbrody
well, take this law we are discussing...
abortion is banned after a heartbeat is detected unless the life of the mother is at risk..
I can't imagine that they wouldn't require some kind of proof that the mother's life was at risk, can you?
it wouldn't be enforceable if doctors could just make the claim and not be required to back it up with the medical records.
medicaid and insurance will also payout for abortions under certain circumstance, so I imagine that they have the ability to investigate weather or not such claims are true.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: MOMof3

That is not what we are discussing is it? Is the reason for the procedures medical necessity entered as well? Are the billing and insurance people not held to HIPPA privacy laws as well? The way I understand HIPPA laws it is intended to be private. I signed no release for the state or other nosy agency.

The Hippocratic Oath is not a requirement.

Not all doctors sign it. Some consider it outdated and unrealistic in today's world.

DOCTORS AREN’T BOUND BY THE HIPPOCRATIC OATH

Myth: Doctors are bound by the Hippocratic Oath.

A binding agreement, as much a social contract as Social Security or Medicare, the traditional Hippocratic Oath holds those who swear to it to a strict code of professional and personal conduct. Contrary to popular belief, though, most doctors never take this oath, and, actually, most of us are probably glad they never do. www.todayifoundout.com...

I'm in Texas, where they recently passed rules requiring fetal remains- from abortions and miscarriages- to be cremated or buried as opposed to being treated as medical waste as they currently are handled. I'm sure they haven't even addressed who is going to pay for all this and who eats the cost if the patient (woman) is indigent. ....all for nothing more than to hit the abortion industry and make it even MORE difficult than it already is, and just months following the final say of the Supreme Court to leave the abortion issue alone.


Meanwhile....
My son is about to be 3 years old. He has been on an Early Head Start waiting list since May. That's 8 friggin months! And there's dozens (hundreds?) of kids on this 'list' as well.

And my kids qualify for CHIP insurance. Hooray right?! Oh...nope...I paid THEM a $50 fee and the deductible is so friggin high I will never meet it. So, I'm paying for everything out of pocket. I'm out $220 this month for my daughter's glasses. Last month was the dentist. Next month I need to get them caught up on vaccines. ALL out of pocket.

Aaaannnddd...I'm unfortunately dependent on disability. My monthly payments are ridiculously low, but I'm able to live comfortably because I get a pension disability too. But Social Security just cut my income! $900 down to $600.


But, ya know....
me and my kids aren't fetuses, so no one gives a sh*t.