Posted on 02/08/2011 10:28:19 AM PST by ph12321
An unborn child's heartbeat can be detected as soon as 18 days after conception, and supporters of a bill slated to be unveiled in the Ohio Legislature Wednesday say that women should be prohibited from ending pregnancies beyond that milestone.
State Rep. Lynn Wachtmann is planning to unveil the "Heartbeat Bill" and a legislative aide for the Republican tells Fox News that 42 of the 99 representatives in the Ohio state House have signed on to the bill, which would make an exception to the heartbeat rule only in emergency medical situations.
According to 2009 data from the Ohio Department of Health, 56.6 percent of abortions in that state occur in the first nine weeks of pregnancy. And since the fetal heartbeat appears on monitors by six weeks into gestation in most cases, supporters of the bill believe that it could prevent thousands of abortions.
"When the Heartbeat Bill passes, it will be the most protective law in the nation," Janet Folger Porter, president of conservative advocacy group Faith2Action, said in a release. Porter helped craft the bill, and was also instrumental in passing the nation's first ban in partial-birth abortion when she was legislative director of Ohio Right to Life.
While the legislation must still be proposed in the state Senate and a court challenge could derail the plan, advocates for the bill hope that if the Ohio measure is successful, other states will follow suit with similar laws. A website created to tout the bill urges supporters to send heart-shaped balloons to the governor and state representatives by Valentine's Day. A music video on the site features babies dancing to the tune of Nena's "99 Red Balloons" -- retooled with pro-life lyrics.
But pro-choice group NARAL has equated the bill to "political interference" into a private medical issue...
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Very little, I should imagine, since practically every "partial victory" is immediately overturned by the Death Eater courts. I'd like to know of a specific instance in which a law was defeated by "pro-life dogmatists" in one jurisdiction, while being passed and upheld by courts in another.
“Six weeks into gestation” means around four weeks after conception (gestation is deemed to begin after the mother’s last menses, which is around two weeks prior to ovulation). But I’m not sure why they imply that the fetal heartbeat is first detected by ultrasound six weeks into gestation; ultrasound detected my oldest daughter’s heartbeat around two weeks after conception (in fact, all you could see in the ultrasound was the flickering heartbeat).
Greetings HKMk23:
Well said.
The left is giddy with each and every fiber hacked from the tree of liberty; mindful that even the mightiest tree, when given enough hatchet blows, eventually falls.
We ought to celebrate this minor pro-life victory. And remind ourselves that we are merely resting at a milestone. We’re upon the moral clarity path, restoring the sanctity of life in Ohio is the endpoint.
Cheers,
OLA
- No abortions for convenience or birth control.
- First trimester abortions for rape, incest, or terminal birth defects (i.e. anencphaly) are permitted.
- The morning-after pill is OK.
The question is, is this acceptable, as an intermediate objective, while we pursue the eventual goal of not killing any of the unborn?
To me the answer is a conclusive "yes", because achieving a total ban on abortion will require the one-to-one changing of tens of millions of American hearts and minds, and I prefer to allow the killing of as few babies as possible while that process is underway.
you are right.. look at what happened here in CO when that type of bill was introduced. It went down in flames because conception isn’t where the fight needs to be taken. I stated that if a heartbeat bill was introduced, we had a better chance during the mid-terms and got flamed here because too many people here want it outlawed altogether instead of incrementally... which is where it needs to start. In small increments like this.
“But because it does not define life as of the instant of conception, will the pro-life movement treat it with contempt??”
No.
*“But because it does not define life as of the instant of conception, will the pro-life movement treat it with contempt??”*
“I am betting yes.”
For what it’s worth, I just got off the phone with some of the local pro-life leadership and all I got was cheering. At the national level it remains to be seen. But in my corner of the world it seems a lot of people like it.
Good.
I don’t know that there’s an instance of any partial victory on abortion being defeated by people backing an all-or-nothing pro-life view. What I DO know is manifest in a quite pointed question asked by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. He said, “I am against abortion, but where is the moral outcry in America?”
Imagine it: a Judge in the highest Court in this country chastising The Church on an issue where the voice of The Church should be drowning out all others, but isn’t, and I think that this is how the courts have come to think that they have cover when they overturn the partial victories they have.
So, It’s not so much direct opposition to partial victory that has cost lives, but the perception of merely lukewarm support.
It’s a good first step.
;’}
Some idiots may.
See my previous comment, for my take on it.
That's a disturbing thought, but there's precedent for it in the misbehaviour of some folks in the racial "civil rights movement". I offer Je$$e Jack$on and Fat Albert $harpton as examples.
Yes, that makes sense. Everything makes more sense when one has had more coffee.
Not me. It would gut the abortion industry. One step back from barbarism.
Your scenario is quite possibly true, but I would hesitate to include “terminal birth defects” for two powerful reasons:
ONE:
I have spoken with women who have given birth to children with terminal defects, and their unanimous voice is that the experience was cathartic, and healing in spite of it being tragic. The chance to see, and hold, and cry, and grieve with that stricken child in their loving embrace gave them closure, and none of them would exchange those deeply-treasured moments for a king’s ransom. The medical community exerts great pressure upon women to elect abortion in such cases; turning one tragedy into two, and many OB-GYN’s will refuse to perform the delivery under such conditions. But the need to attain closure is absolutely central to the woman’s recovery afterward, and an abortion takes all of that away from her; leaving her bereft of the child, and cut off from the path to closure.
TWO:
I have spoken to women who have had children misdiagnosed prior to birth. While these incidents are few in number, in many cases, the actual health of the newborn is dramatically better than the diagnosis indicated. In one case of which I am aware, the child was almost completely normal. What a huge tragedy was averted because this woman insisted on having a live birth despite the evidence she was given!
To bad nobody brought this up at CPAC.
CPAC has willingly become a shadow of it’s former self.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.