Posted on 12/16/2016 3:57:11 AM PST by HomerBohn
If there was a chance in hell of a single baby actually being saved by the “heartbeat” bill, I’d be as upset about this as the other commentors here.
Although interestingly, a “heartbeat” bill is seen by the strict pro-life community as a fatal compromise that sacrifices hundreds of thousands of lives on the alter of “reasonableness”. It would in fact be possible that a heartbeat bill, even if it miraculously passed supreme court muster, would save NO babies, because every woman could still get their abortion they wanted before the 6 week deadline.
So it is absurd to argue that it is a sell-out to support 20-week ban but not 6-week ban, unless you also will admit that it is a sellout doing a 6-week ban instead of an implantation ban.
(which btw is still considered an outrage by the part of the pro-life community who argues for a fertilization ban, meaning a ban on doing anything to end the life of a fertilized egg. This is the most strictly pro-life position, (well I guess those who argue that preventing a sperm and an egg from interacting is a form of abortion are “stricter”) although it is nearly impossible to actually control legally, as you would NEVER know that an egg got fertilized but then didn’t get implanted. (note that a firm anti-death-to-fertilized-eggs position would shut down IVF, since you would be required to implant every fertilized egg or be accused of murder).
Anyway, from a strategic viewpoint, and looking at this like a war, Kasich is correct. the 6-week bill is like having a soldier take off his clothes and march toward the enemy with a grenade, in the theoretical possibility that he will make it to the camp and kill the leader. When in fact, we know he’ll just be shot dead, and we’ll have one less soldier.
A certain-to-lose fight over a heartbeat bill will waste money. And it isn’t saying that a life is worth money, because the money spent won’t save a life, it will actually enrich our opponents.
No point really in passing a bill that will do nothing more than transfer tax dollars to the pro-abortion side.
That’s the “practical” argument. The ethical argument would be “we pass the bill because it is right, even though the courts are wrong”. Except as I pointed out above, “heartbeat” is not the “right” bill, a full ban is the “right” thing to do. Which we don’t pass because we know it will get rejected, just like we know this heartbeat bill will be rejected.
But that wasn't in the headline. Why not? The headline is dishonest.
Kay-Sick is term limited. Cannot run again — Thank God! However, he will probably run for another state office or senator. I will never vote for the POS-RINO again!
Yes, your title would have been far better.
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.