Proposed Ohio abortion law would be one of strictest in country

[OhioChick]

Posted: 02/08/2011

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Ohio could be on the verge of having one of the strictest abortion laws in the books.

The law would prohibit women from ending pregnancies at the first detectable heartbeat, which can occur as early as 18 days after conception.

The state bill will be known as the Heartbeat Bill and it will be unveiled Wednesday.

It is the first proposal of its kind.

Of Ohio's 99 representatives, 40 have already signed on to the bill.

Several abortion rights groups are gearing up to oppose the measure.

http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/local_news/proposed-ohio-abortion-law-would-be-one-of-strictest-in-country1297173211385

[FLAprogressive]

1. Fucking scary!

[RKP5637]

2. Then they will go underground as years ago when I was a kid. They will be done

in a highly profitable black market, people will seek then out, out of desperation, and many having abortions will die in filthy black market clinics. We are so backward.

[proud2BlibKansan]

10. The rich women will still get safe abortions

and the poor will go to a back alley abortionist.

Just like before Roe v Wade.

[RKP5637]

13. Yep, as one of my profs. told me years ago, if you have money in

the USA you just do what you damn well please.

[Cirque du So-What]

17. Thereby increasing the likelihood of stopping two heartbeats

that of the fetus and that of the unfortunate woman who was put in a position where she had to obtain a back-alley abortion. These bastards don't give a good goddamn about human life; it's all about control.

[safeinOhio]

3. Those 40 Representatives

can afford to just send their daughters to a different state. Little Suzy just went to visit her grandmother in Michigan for a few weeks.

[RKP5637]

4. Exactly what will happen! They're just looking for contributions and votes in the

next election. They are immune to the consequences of their actions.

[The Straight Story]

5. If you don't want to pay child support, or get pregnant, don't have sex

Harsh? Well the first part of that I have heard many times here (men know where babies come from, so don't have sex if you are not ready to use your body for 18 years to pay for the consequences) - and as for the rest....well I used to believe in your body, your choice, but have also learned that there are some in our society who have no choice (like, I don't have a choice which bar to go to, so all should be smoke free) and that makes me understand the RW more when they say 'the fetus does not have a choice to which womb it will be born'.

Funny how the same arguments, when turned around, suddenly are not so attractive.....

[kster]

16. Yep, its all fun and games until you think about it

its alright that smokers are banned from having any public places that they can have a drink and a smoke together.

If like minded people (smokers) are banned from having zero public places, should we care if a womans rights are being trampled on? Just asking because I really believe in a womans right to choose.

:thumbsup:

[Maru Kitteh]

22. Gosh - addiction sure makes some people say some patently absurd and morally vile things.

[a la izquierda]

23. The comparison that you're obliquely making...

between smoking and abortions is tried and hackneyed. And it's the same song and dance with you. I smoked for 11 years, and let me just say, in no universe do I view the ban on smoking in similar light as the proposed restrictions on abortion. I found bars I could smoke in if I wanted, and that was that. I also lived in CA for a long time, so going out to smoke was never a big deal. Women's access to safe abortions is a big freakin' deal.

*sigh*

[Shandris]

29. As a current smoker, I concur.

The two topics aren't even remotely related. One is talking about a 'lack of choice' in regards to a place to dine, and the other is referring to a lifelong process that will be enforced on someone by another person who has no fundamental right to influence that decision at all. A process that could have devastating consequences for the health of the person being forced, the child of the person being forced, and society at large.

[Chrissy85]

25. .... then the state should let people get fixed w/o regulations

That's all fine and dandy, but then the state should allow people to get fixed without any regulations. If you don't ever want to have children you should have the right to make it that way. That would be your body your right and not have any affect on anyone else. Telling people to not have sex is a bit unrealistic. Abstinence only programs have proven time and again to be failures.

[uppityperson]

27. Don't get raped, don't use your body to have a place to live? Oh. Kay.

How many men do you know that use their body to have a place to live, food to eat? How many women? I'm not talking prostitution, but simply "putting out" to the one who controls the money, to the one who controls who gets to live there, Tell me about wage equality between the sexes also.

By the way, a fetus isn't born "to a womb". It is incubated in and born from a uterus. And there are many who believe each of us choses our parents.

[luvspeas]

6. If these Asshats keep restricting abortion, I'm going to go Jane on them...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Collective

We all should.

[Ilsa]

8. I've often thought I'd assist for free. nt

[luvspeas]

9. the book is amazing...

The Story of Jane: the Legendary Underground Feminist Abortion Service

[BlueJazz]

7. Watch out people...They're Back !!!

[Ilsa]

11. Women should band together and tell them that they are

pushing them into lesbianism (not true) by punishing them for having sex with men. That ought to get their panties in knots for awhile.

[RKP5637]

12. That should do it!!! Also tell them men are going gay, and this leaves all these

old goats out in the pasture by themselves with their knotted panties!

[kath]

14. Sheesh - at 18 days post-conception a woman is just realizing that her period is late.

Gives her NO time to make a difficult choice, actually removes any choice - which, of course, is what the fetus worshippers intend. (although, at 18 days, it's not even a fetus yet, just a teensy little embryo.)

[Chrissy85]

26. EXACTLY!

I would also like to add, that technically, if you think it is a baby that early and has rights, you usually fall into the religious reasons category and not the scientific one. To me, that would imply that this would be a religious law. Which, of course, you cannot have in this country, given that, according to the first amendment, there is a separation of church and state.

[Dappleganger]

15. And just how many jobs will this create??

These neanderthal's need to keep their stinking nosy noses to themselves.

[mwb970]

18. I guess this is part of the "jobs, jobs, jobs" mantra that the republicans ran on.

In Washington they got in on "jobs, jobs, jobs" and immediately gave billions away to rich people, tried to repeal health care for the uninsured, and held numerous hearings on abortion. When Kasich became governor of Ohio (how sad it makes me to type that), the first thing he did was stock his cabinet with rich white men. Then he gave back $400 million in train money and now he is presiding over this horrible anti-choice initiative. You see, it's all about "jobs, jobs, jobs" for him. Not! All he's done about jobs is to privatize the agency that oversees Ohio's job creation so that it can meet in secret and find new ways to screw us over for profit.

Don't you just love republicans?

[Le Taz Hot]

19. If this passes

it will be important that there be a network of people willing to drive patients to a nearby state where they're not under these types of restrictions. Fighting the bill is a no-brainer, of course, but until it's reversed (if it passes) it's important to ensure women have access to abortion services when they need them. For years I was an escort for the local Planned Parenthood. The irony was that the vast majority of the women I escorted weren't there for abortions, they were there for things like low-cost pap smears, birth control and low-cost pre-natal care.

[Vinca]

20. A Democrat needs to propose a bill that mandates all babies

born to mothers who desired an abortion and couldn't obtain one be turned over to the father at birth to be supported by state funds through the age of 18. If they want to preserve every embryo, they should foot the bill. And the worm will turn as soon as men are included in the equation.

[LeftinOH]

21. The Democratic Party of Ohio *should* use this to highlight how Republicans

aren't really interested in solving the state's problems. But they won't.

[Chrissy85]

24. Here's what I wanna know.....

Okay, in doing some reading, I found that in one Ohio county, over a 10 year span, 4,300 abortions were preformed. That is an average of 430 a year and it was only the county with the 3rd highest abortion rating in the state. Which means that in 3 counties alone there are over 1,000 a year. 1,000 unwanted pregnancies a year. If we limit the ability of these women to have an abortion, that is, 1,000 unwanted children (presuming that they don't find a way to have an abortion another way. What then happens to those women and children? Ohio already has huge debt, and one of the ways they are thinking of combating that is by limiting funding to women on medicaid. Which means that a lot of those women might be able to receive proper care during their pregnancy, which can lead to a much higher risk of life long issues for the child. Now, taking away that as well, what happens to those children? If the parents/mothers who didn't want them keep them, how many of them are going to be subject to abuse and neglect? (*I'd also like to note here that children who grow up on abusive homes have a higher tendency of being abusers themselves*) If they aren't kept, then they go into the system. And yes, there are plenty of people out there who can't have a child of their own who are looking to adopt. However, in 1999, only 1/5th of the children in foster care, who were available for adoption were in fact adopted. That means that 4/5 were not. Trends also show that the older a child is, the less likely it is that they will be adopted. In 2007 there were 28,921 abortions in the state of Ohio alone. That would be 28,921 children potentially being added to the number of children already in the system. If we increase the number of children in said care, but the average amount of people actively looking to adopt stays the same, the adoption percentage goes down from the 1/5. But taking those numbers, and not looking at the number of children already in the system, 1/5 of 28921 is only 5664.2. With the state in a state of budget crisis, the remaining children being added every year would cost more and more to care for, meaning that if the state can't do it, the level of care they receive goes down, making them neglected and possibly abused. As a result, abuse goes up, because children from abusive homes tend to repeat the abuse later in life, crime goes up, we increase the number of people in our correctional facilities because of this, making them back in the care of the government, where they can be mistreated some more.

And there are those that argue if you don't want to have a baby don't have sex, but really, be honest, how many people are really going to abide by that? And, what if a person really doesn't want to have children? Unless there is a viable medical reason, most doctors won't allow a woman to get fixed unless she already has children. In some states, males have to be 27 or have x number of children and a woman 21 or x number of children. And if you are married, you have to get spousal permission. Other states have different regulations some stricter even. If they want to tell people they can't have an abortion even though they do not want children, then they need to allow people to make it so they can't have children if they don't want them.

[uppityperson]

28. Some will turn to back alley abortionists or those like Gosnell