Wednesday, June 29, 2011

DDN: Ohio House Passes "Heartbeat" Bill

According to the Dayton Daily News, the Ohio House of Representatives passed a law that would prohibit abortions after a fetal heartbeat can be detected. The bill will now go to the State Senate.

For perspective, the fetal heartbeat can typically be detected approximately around the 6-8 week of pregnancy, although it can vary.

A second bill was also passed that would prohibit abortions after week 20 of the pregnancy and a third bill was passed that, according to DDN, "prohibit health plans in the state exchange to be created as part of the new federal health care law from providing coverage for non-therapeutic abortions."

What do you think? (Here's a friendly reminder to keep the comments civil, mature and respectful)

11 comments:

  1. This is ridiculous.

    Why not just ban it all together then? If the heartbeat can be detected that early, I'd assume many if not most unplanned pregnancies are just then being discovered, let alone then having time to make an informed decision and visit a doctor.

    I'd never personally push anyone to have an abortion, but i believe a woman should make decisions about her body and what happens to it, not the government.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Please keep in mind prevention is the best, and a LITTLE knowledge goes along way in prevention. How many grown women do not know when the most possiblity is - in the month!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ending the life of a baby inside a woman's uterus is called abortion. Ending the life of a baby outside a woman's uterus is called homicide. Yet when a pregnant mother is murdered, the suspect can be charged with two counts of murder. Why isn't it considered murder when the mother takes the life of the baby? A life is a life.

    Incest and rape account for only 1% of abortions, 3% are due to mother's health, and 1% due to fetal abnormalities. Instead of letting that small 5% hold us back from progress, it's time we address the 95%.

    Atheist, Christian, Jew, Muslim, or otherwise, I honestly do not understand how otherwise good, reasonable people do not see ending the life of another "just because" as morally right.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Carl: While your statements are correct, do you have as much concern for the welfare of the child after the birth as well?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Birth control is not cover by insurance however, insurance will pay for an abortion.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This bill will go to court. It is a direct assault on Roe vs Wade that had a different definition for terms. It is another attempt by conservatives to control a woman's life and destiny while not giving a real damn about how the non-aborted child is educated, raised, cared for and fed.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I love when people scream about big, bad intrusive government and how they want them to stay out of their lives, unless of course it's an issue they want the government to interfere with. You can't have it both ways.

    I am against abortion but I am even more against people dictating what a woman can and cannot do with her own body. Then once the child is born, these same people advocate cutting off medicare and medicaid, help for impoverished children and education, all in the name of fiscal responsibility? Again, you can't have it both ways.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous 8:15;
    Right on! You certainly don't appear to be a Republican, but rather one who looks at things straightforward.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Not everything is about right versus left, sometimes it's simply right versus wrong.

    Where is the concern for women when it comes to the anguish, pain, and regret many suffer with after abortion? Women can suffer from any number of clinical mental illnesses as a result.

    As far as the welfare for the child, there are countless couples out there who are unable to have children of their own who would love to adopt these unwanted babies. Currently it can take years of waiting and massive dollars to adopt a newborn.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Carl, on this issue the determination of right versus wrong should be made between the woman, her doctor, and God if she so chooses. It should be eliminated from government and politics altogether.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Woman With a SoulJuly 14, 2011 at 10:36 AM

    This isn't just a woman making a decision about her own body and life. It's about another human being who is defenseless. That is the fact of the matter. Its like saying we shouldn't stop murder because really maybe they had a good reason; the other person would have messed up thier life! Duh. Where are your hearts and souls people. All you have to do is look at the sonograms. People who make mistakes with their sexual experiences shouldn't be allowed to write the consequences off so easily. They should at least carry the baby and let someone who wants a baby to take care of it. Right and Wrong are not a "decision".

    ReplyDelete

Featured Posts

/* Track outbound links in Google Analytics */