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.
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
ThePetitionSite.com has a
petition available for persons opposed to the bill. It states:
"Tom Brinkman introduced House
Bill 228, dangerous legislation that would outlaw all abortion in the state
without exception - not even to save the life of the woman, not even in the case
of rape or incest. It would even make it a felony to transport a woman across
state lines to obtain an abortion.' 7 [Emphasis ours]
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:
"...prohibit abortions in this state, to increase the
penalties for the offenses of unlawful abortion, unlawful distribution
of an abortion-inducing drug, and abortion trafficking, to enact the
offense of facilitating an abortion, and to make conforming changes in
related provisions." 4 [Emphasis ours]
But the text of the bill seems to tell another story. 4 In particular, abortions would
be allowed if needed to save the pregnant woman's life:
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:
"... person who provides medical treatment to a pregnant woman to prevent
the death of the pregnant woman and who, as a proximate result of the
provision of that medical treatment but without intent to do so, causes the
termination of the pregnant woman's pregnancy."
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 prohibitspublic and private hospitals
from performing abortions.
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.
There are at least two novel features of this bill:
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
Clyde Wilcox is a professor Georgetown University. His specialty is the
politics of conservative Christians. He wrote:
Mark Harrington, executive director for the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform
Midwest, said in 2006-JAN:
"House Bill 228 provides the necessary constitutional challenge to strike
down Roe versus Wade. It will immediately be challenged in the courts, and
that's the strategy. House Bill 228 is a trigger law. The U.S. Supreme Court
needs a law to trigger a review of Roe versus Wade." 3
2006-JUN: Hearings on House Bill 228:
Hearings began on 2006-JUN-13. At that time, the
bill had 17 co-sponsors.
Rep. Chris Redfern, (D-Catawba Island) said that Republicans in the Ohio
House are bringing up this legislation:
"...for the exact same reason as President Bush... using hot button
issues to motivate the Republican right....Think about it. [Governor Bob]
Taft considers himself to be a supporter of right to life. For 16 years the
Republicans have controlled the statehouse and have controlled the
legislature for 12 years. If they had wanted to pass an abortion ban they
would have... Every two years they roll out these old ideas to motivate the
Brinkman denies this claim, saying:
"I introduced this bill more than a year ago. I'm 100 percent Pro Life.
A year ago we didn't have the vacancies on the U.S. Supreme Court.''
He is apparently referring to the new strict
constructionists on the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel
Alito. Some conservatives believe that the present court may overturn their 1973
Roe v. Wade abortion decision.
Kellie Copeland, the executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, said:
"The purpose of H.B. 228 is to overturn Roe v. Wade....South Dakota was a
wake-up call for a lot of people. South Dakota legislators launched an
attack on a woman's right to choose. Will Ohio lawmakers now follow them
down this path with an even more extreme ban?...We're gearing up, loaded for
bear....We won't let this politically inspired attack on women's health go
unanswered....We are ready to give them the fight of their lives....Most
people don't know anything about [the bill]....The ban hasn't gotten a lot
Denise Mackura, executive director of Ohio Right to Life, said:
"Because it is prohibiting abortion we are certainly supportive of the
underlying principle...The problem with this kind of law (H.B. 228) is that
the lower courts will immediately strike it down.''
The Acron Beacon Journal commented:
"But the bill as it is currently written, she said, fails to safeguard
some measures that anti-abortion advocates have fought to get into law --
such as informed consent that requires a minimum 24-hour waiting period for
any woman seeking an abortion and parental consent for minors. As written,
the bill would not only ban abortion, but would also require the repeal of
all laws that regulate or restrict abortion. The fear among anti-abortion
activists is that if the bill became law and was challenged and reversed by
the courts, the statutes eliminated by the legislation would not
automatically be reinstated." 9
Mark Harrington, Executive Director of the Center for Bio Ethical Reform
State Representative Michelle Schneider (R-District 35, Cincinnati)
introduced a bill to:
"... 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."
Exceptions would be made in some cases where the pregnancy
was induced through rape or incest. 6 There does not appear to be any restriction in the bill that would:
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 â€" 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 â€" 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 â€" 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.