Ohio Legislature Working on a very Restrictive Abortion Law

[guywithashovel]

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content...cold-feet.html

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live...litics&sid=101

Basically, this law would make abortion illegal if a heartbeat can be detected in the fetus.

From article

House Bill 125 would outlaw abortions after a fetal heartbeat can be medically detected, generally about six or seven weeks into a woman's pregnancy.

If my newspaper is a good resource, this law would be the most restrictive abortion law in the nation if passed. Even pro-life groups are skittish about it, but it's because they are concerned that it will go against Roe v Wade and get overturned, not because they don't support the concept of the bill.

[HYHYBT]

Yeah, that's a problem... chances are reasonable that you won't even know you *are* pregnant before then!

[Greenday]

Yeah, that's a problem... chances are reasonable that you won't even know you *are* pregnant before then!

And even if you manage to figure it out before then, they'll do all sorts of stuff to make you wait to get one until it's too late to get one performed.

I see this guys game though. He wants to please the people who voted him in. But if he waits until the world is over (Dec 2012), it won't affect anyone!

[insertNameHere]

As long as abortion isn't the only form of birth control a person is using, I don't really have a problem with it, as mistakes happen. I think people that need several a year because they "can't" take the pill or remember to use condoms should just be fixed. There are already plenty of neglected and unwanted children in our society today. If someone feels it would be better off to terminate an unwanted pregnancy rather than have a child they will neglect or be unable to care for, when I have children I want to be able to provide for them and not need to worry. Right, neither me or my gf can afford to live on our own and support ourselves, if we were to have a baby it wouldn't work out.

Then you have the "well jsut give it up for adoption" people, sure you might find a family that wants it but what about rape? Should someone need to carry around a constant reminder for 9 months?

It never ceases to amuse me the people who judge others for making choices that are best for them that the judges rarely have been in the same position of needing to make that decision.

[FArchivist]

I think people that need several a year because they "can't" take the pill or remember to use condoms should just be fixed.

1) Thankfully, that whole "several abortions a year" thing has proven to be an urban myth when actually studied. Yea for sociology studies.
2) I am uncomfortable with that "should just be fixed" because it smacks of eugenics.

[Ghel]

I read about this on Pharyngula. PZ talked about how the nutjob anti-abortionists brought in two pregnant women to have their fetuses "testify" via ultrasound on behalf of the legislation.

But even if they do get a nice image of a curled, fishlike embryo that is maybe a tenth as sharp as the worst images of zebrafish embryos that I see in my low-power dissecting scope, so what? It's not testifying. It's twitching. You'd get a more intelligent response if you dragged a cow in front of the committee and asked it to moo against slaughterhouses.

And the bill is ridiculous. They want to prohibit all abortions of embryos that have a detectable heartbeat…but 1) heartbeat isn't a valid measure of personhood, and 2) pragmatically, it shuts down almost all abortions. The heart starts beating at approximately one month after fertilization; the woman may not have even noticed more than a delayed period at that time, and the early symptoms of some water retention and possibly morning sickness are unreliable. There will be many women who are responsible and want to end a pregnancy as early as possible who will be denied a first trimester abortion because it was too late when they were diagnosed!

I'm glad the legislation is getting shut down (per the links in the OP) no matter the reason. Hopefully, if the citizens of Ohio have more time to think about it, they'll realize what a horrible piece of legislation this is.

[Greenday]

1) Thankfully, that whole "several abortions a year" thing has proven to be an urban myth when actually studied. Yea for sociology studies.

Do you actually have studies to back that up?

Just kidding, I've seen similar studies.

[blas87]

That's an extremely restrictive law, considering the extremist Pro Life bullshit propoganda on every damn billboard in this god forsaken land of cheese and hillbillies declares that the heart starts beating 18-21 days after conception (I forget which day it is, one sign says something happens at 18 days, another says something happens at 21 days).

Yeah, no way.

It's bad enough that they make women listen to the heartbeat before they can make their decision.

I am no fan of abortion, but this goes too far. If a woman wants an abortion, let's just rub some salt in that wound, listen to that heartbeat, how can you do that to an innocent baby, even though you were roofied and raped by a total stranger? How DARE you want to abort that fetus that's 24 days old because you already have 3 kids and they won't let you get your tubes tied and you can barely afford to feed the kids you have?

Sickening.

[HYHYBT]

The heart starts beating at approximately one month after fertilization; the woman may not have even noticed more than a delayed period at that time...

Often not even that; a lot of women have irregular periods.

[Andara Bledin]

My mother had a full period for the first month of both her pregnancy with me as well as with my brother.

^-.-^

[BlaqueKatt]

1) Thankfully, that whole "several abortions a year" thing has proven to be an urban myth when actually studied. Yea for sociology studies.

are you sure about that?

[Greenday]

are you sure about that?

"These girls are not the majority of under-18s. Women undergoing abortion do not find it pleasant and most make sure it does not happen again."

Did you read your own article?

[tropicsgoddess]

Ugh. More right to life nut jobs trying to force their ways on women. They really want women to go back to the days of using knitting needles or coat hangers or any other desperate and dangerous means of abortion just to force women to keep babies they can't have or don't want! It's bad enough there are so many unloved and unwanted children suffering in this world, do we need anymore?!!

[FArchivist]

are you sure about that?

Yes, I am ABSOLUTELY SURE about that. See the following:

- Guttmacher Institute. Facts in Brief - Induced Abortion. 2003. www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

- Finer LB, Henshaw SK. Abortion incidence and services in the United States in 2000. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 2003; 35: 6-15.

- Guttmacher Institute. State Facts About Abortion. 2003. www.agi-usa.org/pubs/sfaa.html

- Jones RK, Darroch JE, Henshaw SK. Patterns in the socioeconomic characteristics of women obtaining abortions in 2000-2001. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 2002; 34: 226-235.

- Elam-Evans LD, Strauss LT, Herndon J, Parker WY, Whitehead S, Berg CJ. Abortion surveillance-United States, 1999. Morbidity Mortality Weekly Report 2002; 51 (SS09): 1-28. www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5109a1.htm

- Henshaw SK. Unintended pregnancy in the United States. Family Planning Perspectives 1998; 30(1): 24-29 & 46.

- Personal communication, Archdiocese of Washington (based on statistics in the 2003 edition of The Kennedy Directory: The Official Catholic Directory).

- Henshaw SK, Kost K. Abortion patients in 1994-1995: Characteristics and contraceptive use. Family Planning Perspectives 1996; 28(4): 140-147 &158.

- Torres A, Forrest JD. Why do women have abortions? Family Planning Perspectives 1988; 20(4): 169-176.

- Psychological Responses Following Abortion. Reproductive Choice and Abortion: A Resource Packet. Washington, DC: American Pyschological Association, 1990.

I think my list of scholarly sources based on reputable organizations kind of outweighs an unsourced article in the British version of the Weekly World News tabloid. And aren't you a former scientist? And, with your scientific knowledge, you use a TABLOID to back you up?

[Hyena Dandy]

The Daily Mail is hardly like the Weekly World News. Its more like, say, The Boston Herald, or whatever the tea party equivalent of the Huffington Post is.

It has an agenda, but for the most part, it tries not to post outright LIES.

Also, the most recent of your sources is from 2003. A lot of cultural changes can happen in 8 years. Or in the 5 years between the most recent of your sources and the 2008 Department of Health data referenced in the Daily Mail.

Which is a source.

That they reference.

So its not unsourced.

Look, FA, I'm on your side on this one. I don't think using abortions as birth control is a serious problem. After all, as the Mail article said 'nearly 1,500 of the 19,000'...

That's less than ten percent. Its a pretty small figure, and as they pointed out, there are probably mitigating factors.

You can't just mark everything they say as untrue because you don't like them. I don't like The Daily Mail either, but I don't dismiss everything they say just because they're the Daily Mail.