The state Senate in Ohio may soon be ready to vote on what’s being called the “Heartbeat Bill” which outlaws abortion once an unborn child’s heartbeat is detected.
But nothing’s every easy for pro-lifers because the bill is getting some unforeseen enemies – pro-lifers.
Some pro-lifers including Johanna Dasteel, Congressional Liaison for American Life League, among others are opposed to the bill because if the bill became law and was signed by Governor John Kasich, it would inevitably end up at the Supreme Court and I guess they believe the makeup of the court isn’t favorable to it right now. And the fear is that if the Court rules, it won’t take up the same case again and the law will be locked in.
I totally get that but isn’t that strategy a bit paralyzing? Are we really going to wait until a Republican President might win an election and might get an opportunity to appoint a justice to the Supreme Court who might get through the Senate.
I think you do the right thing and keep on doing the right thing no matter what. I’m not questioning the commitment to the pro-life cause of anyone who’s against the Heartbeat bill for timing reasons but I think sitting around and waiting and strategizing and waiting some more for the perfect moment that may or may not ever come isn’t the way to go.
I say vote for the Heartbeat bill. Now. Do the right thing and maybe a miracle will happen. But waiting definitely won’t get anything done.
Below is a news report which lets both sides speak at length.
October 13, 2011 at 2:44 am
No, Dasteel and ALL are against the bill because it enshrines the right to abort children prior to the detection of a heartbeat. I think there may be something to that…and waiting for a friendly Supreme Court, actually.
October 13, 2011 at 4:17 am
Roe v. Wade has enshrined abortion through the 9 month of pregnancy for 37 years – so how is this law (if passed) not a major victory for life? The "all or nothing" approach is a waste of precious time. Ultrasound can detect a heartbeat as early as 5 weeks! Just think about how many lives can be saved while we continue to fight for total abolition.
October 13, 2011 at 2:27 pm
The timing argument ignores the fact that Ohio has the will to act now due to Republican control and may not at some unspecified time in the future. I think the argument that the bill doesn't cover all life is stronger, although this is a case of the perfect becoming the enemy of the good. The bill would be a huge improvement, imperfect certainly, but vastly better than current law.
October 13, 2011 at 2:34 pm
Suzanne is correct. The ALL position is that each time we vote to save some babies at the cost of unknown future babies, we strengthen the case for abortion as OK in some circumstances. That is, all life is not equal.
When you fight to regulate rather than eliminate abortion the end result is that you perpetuate it. The U.S. Supreme Court does not operate in a vacuum.
October 13, 2011 at 3:34 pm
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
October 13, 2011 at 4:14 pm
What blackrep said.
It's one thing to be dissatisfied, it's another to refuse what would save lives because darn it it's not good enough. This shows that ALL's leadership does not quite understand Catholic moral ethics.
Such a bill could save thousands of innocent lives. I am baffled.
October 13, 2011 at 6:26 pm
First, Ms. Dasteel says nothing about the timing of the courts in the clip above. You've named the wrong woman in this post. Second, Catholic moral ethics prevents committing an evil so that good may come of it. In this case it is not moral to support a bill that qualifies a person's dignity to rest squarely on the ability of a tech to hear a heartbeat. Not is it permissible to tolerate the execution of children who have been conceived in rape/incest.
October 13, 2011 at 6:45 pm
If there are two children dying in front of you, but you only have the means to save one, do you do so or ignore both?
The anti-Christs have been using the Hegelian dialectic for decades to destroy society incrementally by introducing an antithesis, compromising, and then introducing a more radical antithesis and compromising again. It's time we turn the tables and use the same tactic, if that's what it will take. We need to keep pushing the envelope as far as it will go, not waiting until we can push it all the way in one shove.
October 13, 2011 at 7:48 pm
Incrementalism is the game the Left plays, usually for 10-20 year spans.
Works for them!
Given that it works, then incrementalism should be the watchword. Go for it, Ohio!!!
October 13, 2011 at 8:58 pm
Anonymous, that analogy is tired and doesn't work.
A.) The debate is not two children literally dying in front of you. The debate is legislation that either recognizes all humans as worthy of protection, or just some of them. Nevertheless there ARE children dying at an abortion clinic near you, but YOU DO NOTHING. Why? Because the law prevents you? In which case, this matter really is about passing just laws.
B.) In order for your analogy to work, a fireman would have to run into a burning orphanage and save only the babies NOT conceived in rape/incest; or the children whose heartbeat can't be heard with your ear. However, a just law – to continue the analogy – allows the fireman to save all the babies in just one room in a three bedroom house, provided he doesn't screen those babies for rape/incest.
If prolifers stuck with principle from the beginning, abortion would have been criminalized over a decade ago. Instead we fool ourselves into thinking we can fix it later, which delays an abortion ban for another decade.
God isn't keeping score with how many babies you saved. He's keeping score with how faithful you were to the Gospel.
October 13, 2011 at 9:15 pm
How many lives would be lost if we did wait to pass the bill until the Supreme Court was more favorable? That's how I see it, not that we are saying that abortion before a heartbeat is detected is ok. In politics, we have to take baby steps sometimes.
October 14, 2011 at 8:55 am
The Texas law that went to the Supreme Court in Roe V. Wade had exceptions, just as this one does and just as Case V. Planned Parenthood. What shot it down were those exceptions because they undermine the principle that opposition to abortion stands on – that ALL human beings (from the first instant of their life) are persons with civil/human rights.
I hope that everyone who gets inspired and wants to imitate Ohio in other states will take that energy and join the Personhood campaign in that state. Personhood bills will set the precedents we need to take on the Supreme Court. Get as many going as possible and one will make it up there – hopefully with language that doesn't appeal to the heart (few can get teary over a 2 hour old zygote), but to the neocortex.
Person legislation going to the Supreme Court may sidestep a direct challenge to Roe and be defended on the basis of the 14th Amendment.
Yes, a Heartbeat bill will save babies for awhile, but it won't be an effective challenge to Roe because of the darn exceptions. Roe, like Dred Scott may never be overturned. It will be made irrevelant if the Personhood from the beginning is established.
Still, great to see the politicians getting on the bandwagon and the people standing up. Let's move them on down the road and challenge them to let go of those pesky exceptions. Then maybe they'll take a step further to where the fight becomes one for human rights.
October 14, 2011 at 3:24 pm
Well, since my mother is weighing in, I ought to as well (thanks for the support, Mom!).
Matt, I'm a huge fan of your blog! Unfortunately, this time, you attributed the wrong position to the wrong person. It is true that I don't support the bill, but not because of timing reasons.
I'm a big believer in doing the right thing, in season and out of season (read: no matter the prejudices or makeup of SCOTUS). I just don't believe the Heartbeat Bill is the right thing, morally or legally.
Something to note about the bill: it specifies that an abortionist who commits an abortion without first running a test to detect a heartbeat is not subject to criminal prosecution, but to the medical board which determine whether he/she needs to be disciplined and what form that discipline will take.
If the abortionist does run a test and detects a heartbeat, but still commits an abortion outside the parameters stipulated for non-criminal abortions, he/she has only committed a Class Five felony. This is only one notch above a misdemeanor, punishable by something like probation or community service.
It is certainly not treating abortion as the murder of a person. It is not a ban in the way it is being sold as a ban.
October 14, 2011 at 5:38 pm
After reading the arguments, I have to side with ALL on this one. No abortion should be permitted in any case, and that includes taking the morning-after pill.
October 17, 2011 at 4:03 pm
I don't know if this has already been stated, but the Supreme Court is not the end all be all of the Constitution. The Founders warned against allowing the court to dictate the law, and stated that it was the right and duty of the individual States to nullify such outrageous unConstitutional laws. The states need to reclaim their sovereignty and tell the federal government to pound sand.