Sponsored link.

The Ohio anti-abortion bills

With the confirmation of two additional strict constructionist Justices to the U.S. Supreme Court in early 2006, and the resulting swing of the court's political philosophy to the right, some pro-life advocates see an opportunity to overturn the court's 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling. This would allow individual states to criminalize most abortions within their jurisdiction. By 2005-MAR, legislators in about nine states were drafting anti-abortion bills. So far, all appear to allow abortions in those rare cases where the procedure is needed to save the life of the woman. Some bills would also allow abortions if the pregnancy was due to rape or incest. Two bills to criminalize or restrict abortion have been introduced into the Ohio legislature. One would aggressively criminalize almost all abortions in the state; the other would merely increase restrictions on abortion. The two bills reflect an internal dispute among the pro-life movement. One faction wants to go for broke and try to wipe out almost all abortions as soon as possible. They are heavily motivated by the knowledge that about 3,500 abortions are being performed daily. The other faction wants to continue the decades-old policy of gradually restricting access to abortion.

All nine bills are clearly unconstitutional at this time, because they obviously violate the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 ruling. However, they are being specifically introduced because they are unconstitutional. The goal is to encourage a lawsuit to have the bill declared unconstitutional. The suit would then be appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in the hopes that it would finally be found constitutional.

2005-APR: House Bill 228 introduced:

Representative Tim Brinkman (R-Mount Lookout) drafted an anti-abortion bill with the cooperation of Citizens for Community Values, a conservative Christian group based in Cincinnati, and Right to Life of Greater Cincinnati. It was introduced Ohio House Bill 228 in 2005-APR-29. Other supporting organizations include the Pro-Family Network and the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform. Representatives of Life Issues Institute of College Hill and the Pro Family Network have also indicated support. Eighteen other representatives are co-sponsors.

Information about the bill seems confusing. Some sources seem to imply that Bill 228 would basically introduce enforced childbirth for every pregnant woman in the state by forbidding all abortions, even those needed to save the mother's life:

	According to NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, this bill would "ban all abortions in Ohio, without exception." 5 [Emphasis ours]
	ThePetitionSite.com has a petition available for persons opposed to the bill. It states:

	Mark Harrington Live.com has a petition for those supporting the bill. It states that the bill would "ban abortion in the state." 8 [Emphasis ours]
	The preamble to the bill itself states that the goal of the bill is to:

	Sec. 124.85 (b) prohibits state funds from being used "directly or indirectly" to fund insurance policies whose coverage includes abortion -- even those required to prevent the death of the woman.
	Sec. 2919.12. (A) states that: "No person shall perform do any of the following:" Perform or induce an abortion; [or] Transport another, or cause another to be transported, across the boundary of this state or of any county in this state in order to facilitate the other person having an abortion."
	However, there is an exception to preserve the life of the woman: Section A1 would not apply to a:

	Anyone "facilitating an abortion" by transporting "another, or cause another to be transported, across the boundary of this state or of any county in this state in order to facilitate the other person having an abortion" 4 would be guilty of a second degree felony. This might be interpreted as applying to a taxi driver, bus driver, etc. even though they might not be aware that the woman is planning to have an abortion.
	Sec. 4731.91 specifically prohibits public and private hospitals from performing abortions.
	A woman who wants an abortion in order to prevent a serious health problem -- perhaps involving permanent disability -- could not legally obtain one in the state. 2 She could go to another state for an abortion, but she would have to do this on her own. She could not enlist anyone's assistance without causing them to be liable for a felony charge.

	It would appeal all existing state legislation that restricts abortion. Thus, if this bill were to become law and later be overturned by the courts, the currently existing restrictions would not necessarily be restored.
	It would criminalize the action of a person helping an adult pregnant woman to cross a state line in order to have a legal medical procedure performed elsewhere. That provision might well be unique in the history of the U.S., -- at least since the days of human slavery -- and may well make the bill unconstitutional.

"... prohibit the use of public funds or facilities for nontherapeutic abortions, proscribe public employees acting in the scope of their employment from performing or inducing a nontherapeutic abortion, and... declare that it is the public policy of the state to prefer childbirth over abortion to the extent that is constitutionally permissible."

It defines a:

"Nontherapeutic abortion" as any "abortion that is performed or induced when the life of the mother would not be endangered if the fetus were carried to term."

	Prevent abortions from being performed in private clinics, or
	Prevent a woman from traveling to another state or country to obtain an abortion.

The bill has 50 co-sponsors. According to NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, although Ohio would go on record as preferring childbirth over abortion, it would not provide "...a dime to expand prenatal care and services for low-income and single women."

2018-NOV/DEC: Ohio House passed "heartbeat bill;" Senate amends bill, which then returns to the House:

On 2018-NOV-12, the House passed a bill that would ban abortions if a transvaginal ultrasound had detected a heartbeat of an embryo or fetus. This measurement technique can generally detect a heartbeat about six weeks after conception which is often before the woman realizes she is pregnant. The bill does not include an exception to the ban in the case of rape or incest.

On DEC-12, the Senate amended the bill to remove the requirement that a transvaginal ultrasound be used. Other methods of detecting heartbeat can only detect a heartbeat later in pregnancy starting at about eight weeks after conception. This is after the embryo has transitioned to a fetus. (The transition from an embryo to a fetus occurs eight weeks after conception.)

The Senate also made a second amendment: to authorize the State Medical Board of Ohio to suspend or revoke the license of any physician who performs an abortion after a heartbeat can be detected.

The Senate has a majority of Republicans. The bill was passed 18 to 13. The bill then returned to the House. If they agree with the amendment, the bill will go to Governor John Kaisch (R) who is expected to veto it, because it is clearly unconstitutional.

Similar bills passed by other states have been declared unconstitutional by various courts. However, with a recently attained majority of conservative Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, it has a chance of passing if it reaches the High Court.

The pro-life group Ohio Right to Life neither supports nor opposed the bill because it is so clearly unconstitutional under past court rulings.

Governor-elect Mike DeWine (R) has said the he would sign this type of bill. ₁₁

Planned Parenthood Action reacted to the heartbeat bill. Dr. Leana Wen wrote:

"Ohio's legislature passed a six-week abortion ban. It's an outrageous attempt by extreme politicians to block basic reproductive health care — and takes direct aim at our constitutional right to abortion.

If the governor signs it, it will become the most extreme ban in the country, outlawing almost all abortions in the state and criminalizing health care for millions of people.

This is nothing but a blatant attempt to control our bodies and restrict our rights — and we're not going to take it.

Reproductive health care is health care. Women's health care is health care. And health care is a basic human right. ..."

"If this ban is enacted, it'll effectively block almost all abortions in the state. And as is the case with so many of these attacks, it will hit hardest among people who already have trouble accessing health care — particularly young people, people of color, and people in rural areas. It'll mean patients will have to travel out of state or be forced to carry a pregnancy to term against their will. That's simply unacceptable and is a clear attempt to challenge Roe v. Wade." ₁₂

One of her assertions is wrong. Almost all developed countries follow the Golden Rule, and follow Jesus' statement in the Sheep and Goats section of Matthew 25. They make health care a basic human right:

But in the U.S., it is restricted to those who can afford to pay for it.

Also in Canada, it is not truly "universal:" For some reason, dental health needs are not universally included.

Related essays on this web site:

	Anti-abortion bills in various states
	Laws restricting abortion in the U.S. and Canada
	Roe v. Wade: Its basis; court philosophies; political aspects
	The future battle over women's access to abortion; The impact if Roe v. Wade is overturned

References:

The following information sources were used to prepare and update the above essay. The hyperlinks are not necessarily still active today.

1. "Abortion bill sure to fuel fire. Ohio law would make act a felony," Newspaper Network of Central Ohio, 2006-MAR-20`at: http://www.centralohio.com/
2. Charu Gupta, "And The Ban Played On: Ohio abortion opponents differ over staying the course or declaring war on Roe v. Wade.," Free Times, undated, at: http://www.freetimes.com/
3. John Craig, "Bill seeks abortion's end in Ohio. Backers say it could help overturn Roe v. Wade," Columbus Enquirer, 2006-JAN-19, at: http://news.enquirer.com/
4. The text of Bill 228 can be read at: http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/
5. "Ohio Abortion Ban Proposed," NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, at: http://www.prochoiceohio.org/
6. The text of Bill 239 can be read at: http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=126_HB_239
7. "Stop Ohio House Bill 228," The Petition Site, at: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/
8. "Sign the Petition to Ban Abortion in Ohio," Activist Radio, at: http://www.markharringtonlive.com/
9. Carl Chancellor, "Bill would outlaw abortion. Ohio legislation would make no exception for rape, incest or to save woman's life," Akron Beacon Journal, 2006-JUN-11, at: http://www.ohio.com/
10. "CBR: Ohio Abortion Ban to Get Hearing on June 13th," The Mark Harrington Show, 2006-JUN-01, at: http://www.markharringtonlive.com/
11. Claire Hansen, "Ohio Senate Passes ‘Heartbeat Bill’ Restricting Abortions," U.S. News and World Report, 2018-DEC-12, at: https://www.usnews.com/

Site navigation:

Home page > "Hot" topics > Abortion > Legal aspects > here

Copyright © 2006 to 2018 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Originally posted: 2006-MAR-20
Latest update: 2018-DEC-16
Author: B.A. Robinson

Go to the previous page, or return to the "Legal aspects of abortion" menu, or choose:

Web ReligiousTolerance.org

Page Translator: This page translator works on Firefox, Opera, Chrome, and Safari browsers only After translating, click on the "show original" button at the top of this page to restore page to English.