Ohio Senate passes Heartbeat Bill that could effectively ban abortions

a reply to: shooterbrody

" Is the reason for the procedures medical necessity entered as well? "

That is why a diagnosis has a set of legal codes and medical procedures have a separate set of legal codes. Keeping a record of how many flu cases a doctor treated is not private info. No one can pull your personal medical record without your permission.

originally posted by: windword
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.

And I would argue that it shouldn't have had to take those special amendments to include all human beings, but it did, and that's because of the way that the Constitution was interpreted. Furthermore, it is the preamble to the constitution that includes that phrase, not the bill of rights (which talks about the rights of "the people," not "men").

But let PBS discuss its original intent and meaning for me:

When Jefferson wrote "all men are created equal," he didn't mention women. But did he mean to include women? No one knows; perhaps not. We do know that in the eighteenth century the words "men" and "mankind" included men and women. Did he mean to include black men when he said "all men?" Historians argue about that. Jefferson was a complicated man—he thought slavery was wrong, yet he owned slaves. But this is the important part: Thomas Jefferson's great Declaration of Independence has grown even greater with the passing of time. Today, when people all over the world read his words, they understand them to mean all people—men, women, and children—of all colors and beliefs.

Or perhaps we should look to the Library of Congress to discuss what the phrase originally meant:

The concept that all men are created equal was a key to European Enlightenment philosophy. But the interpretation of "all men" has hovered over the Declaration of Independence since its creation. Although most people have interpreted "all men" to mean humanity, others have argued that Jefferson and the other authors of the Declaration meant to exclude women and children. Within the context of the times it is clear that "all men" was a euphemism for "humanity," and thus those people, such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King, who used the Declaration of Independence to demand equality for African Americans and women seized the historical as well as the moral high ground.

Please note that it matters immensely to put the phrase into its original context and meaning and understanding. The idea that "all men are created equal" not applying to women or non-whites is a more modern bastardization of the text--a misinterpretation of the words, so to speak. There you have it--interpretation versus wording, and that's what I've been discussing nearly this whole time with you and that you fail to acknowledge or accept.

Now, I said:

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 then you came back with:

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

Reading comprehension is a thing--quit searching for buzzwords. What that part that you quoted is referring to is the right of a physician to perform a late-term abortion if it is solely for the purpose of "preservation of the life or health of the mother," even if the state has laws against said late-term abortions (that's what "proscribe" means).

Why are you failing at understanding what I'm (and the ruling is) putting forth, here? It's as if you're speed-reading and looking for catch-phrases that you think bolster your claim, then pull them out of their proper context (even when the proper context is provided for you) in hopes that I don't notice. Again--please stop with these asinine tactics of communication.

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. ...

And when did I ever claim that it wouldn't have an affect on what people see as a "right" currently with the ruling in place? (pssst...I never did)

But this is treading water in the part of the discussion that you and I won't budge on, so, meh.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: shooterbrody

the problem lies within these laws, how does one prove that an abortion is medically necessary without providing the personal information concerning the case.

Whistleblowers at the hospitals/clinics, and then investigations, I suppose. An investigation will allow law enforcement to go through all of the details of the medical records.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
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?

Seems to me that there is a system where doctors have to substantiate the NEED behind any medical procedure that is not elective (such as a nose job). Otherwise, how else would the insurance companies know if a procedure is elective (which they may not opt to cover) or a necessary medical procedure that they will cover?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

And I would argue that it shouldn't have had to take those special amendments to include all human beings, but it did, and that's because of the way that the Constitution was interpreted. Furthermore, it is the preamble to the constitution that includes that phrase, not the bill of rights (which talks about the rights of "the people," not "men").

It was an example. Like the 14th Amendment states that Constitutional Rights are extended to "persons born", the Bill of Rights claims that "These rights" belonged to (white, landowning) men, not slaves, bond servants or women, and they meant it! That is an historical fact! The extension of those Constitutional rights had to be fought for, demanded and claimed, at the cost of the lives and freedom of countless individuals. They weren't gain by a presidential appointment of a few judges. They were only gained after Constitutional Amendments.

The founders also meant it when they said that Constitutional rights extend to "persons born". It's a ridiculous premise to imagine the founding fathers meant to extend Constitutional rights to the unborn when women weren't even given the right to inherit property, own a business, ask for divorce or vote. Women born abroad couldn't even petition for American citizenship unless they were married to an American or an upstanding white landowner also petitioning. In order for the unborn to acquire Constitutional protection a Constitutional amendment will be required.

there was a second, less drastic law passed by the ohio legislature that would ban abortion after 20 weeks, this one has more of a chance to be found acceptable by a supreme court, especially if trump can get in and add at least fill the empty seat that exists before the law gets to them.


www.slate.com...

fetal heartbeat bill is vetoed by gov.
the 20 week ban is signed by him..