Abortion Foes Push Fetal Heartbeat Bills in States

Ah, got to love those anti abortion folks.

Why bother just pushing an amendment barring abortion when one can attempt to regulate how doctors do their jobs?

Why show a bit of compassion when you can torture women?

I have always wondered about the sadistic minds of those who claim to be virtuous, who want to make a difficult decision and an emotional time even more so by forcing women to listen to a fetal heartbeat.

Perhaps it is time I start advocating such wonderful things like vasectomies with a pair of scissors only.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/abortion-foes-push-fetal-heartbeat-bills-states-14720987

A nationwide coalition of anti-abortion groups said Wednesday it is preparing to push legislation in all 50 states requiring that pregnant women see and hear the fetal heartbeat before having an abortion.

The effort follows the introduction of similar legislation at the federal level by Republican presidential candidate and U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota.

Ohio Right to Life director Mike Gonidakis, whose group is part of the coalition, said the 50-state push was not a response to a bill moving through the Ohio Legislature that would outlaw the procedure at the first detectable heartbeat. His group has not endorsed the Ohio bill because of legal concerns, though Bachmann has said she supports it.

"We know it can withstand a judicial challenge, and we know it's an approach that's worked over the years," Gonidakis said of his coalition's proposal. "Hundreds of thousands of babies are alive now because their mothers heard the heartbeat and changed their minds."

Should the Ohio bill become law, it would impose the nation's most stringent abortion limit. The legislation has divided the anti-abortion community in Ohio, the home state of International Right to Life founder Jack Willke.

Ohio Right to Life has withheld its support for the so-called "heartbeat bill," contending the measure could not withstand a court challenge under Roe v. Wade. The landmark U.S Supreme Court ruling sought to strike a balance between states' rights to limit the procedure and a woman's right to privacy.

The Ohio bill ties an abortion ban to the detection of the fetal heartbeat and has the potential to prevent abortions as early as six weeks into pregnancy — before many women know they are pregnant.

Scores of restrictions aimed at reducing access to abortion have been approved so far in state legislatures this year. Five states — Alabama, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, and Oklahoma — have passed measures banning virtually all abortions after five months of pregnancy.

The informed-consent bill that's being pushed in the 50 states would require abortion practitioners to make the fetal heartbeat audible and visible to pregnant women before an abortion. It's being backed by the National Right to Life, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Americans United for Life, Susan B. Anthony List and Family Research Council Action.

While the separate strategies show internal differences, their purpose is the same, said Kellie Copeland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, an abortion-rights group.

"Let's be clear, they all want to take away a woman's ability to make personal, private decisions by outlawing abortion," Copeland said.

Gonidakis said the coalition's plan has been in the works for six months, and has been vetted with coalition lawyers.

"This is it," Gonidakis said. "This is the one that's going to continue to save lives in the current court environment we have."

The Ohio heartbeat bill cleared the state's House in late June, though it has been stalled in the Senate.

Senate President Tom Niehaus has said he wants a group of state lawmakers to review any legal issues related to the bill and report back to him in November.

On Wednesday, supporters of the Ohio bill touted the measure's support in the state, and they announced the creation of a new anti-abortion nonprofit, Ohio ProLife Action, that will work on getting the bill passed.

The group's president said she sees the organization as "filling the void" created by the Ohio Right to Life's opposition to the bill.

"We have just found that in working on this bill that there is a real need for a statewide organization," president Linda Theis told reporters at a news conference.

Willke, of Cincinnati, has thrown his support behind the new group.

Gonidakis said Willke resigned from the board of Ohio Right to Life in August and cited his failing health in his resignation letter.

Theis called the informed consent measure a "great step," and said her organization would support it.

Still, she said, "Their bills are just safer. We're saying to the courts, 'We're going to give you something you haven't seen before. Tell us what you think.'"

 

Of course all attempts to educate the murdering mothers is met with resistance by the Death Squads, because they know that when a woman realizes that little nuisance is more than just a parasite, she is likely to have second thoughts on the slaughter, leading to less revenue for the Death Mills.

Suck on it.

 

Really?

I see it for what it is, an attempt to inflict emotional pain.

That is a tempting offer, but I will have to pass at this time.

 

MORE government regulations and increased costs............

 

Right, because murdering an unborn innocent little child should be as easy as choosing which Hamburger Helper goes with peas.

 

For starters, it is not murder. It is a legal medical procedure.

Second, I doubt it is an easy choice for any woman.

You want less abortions? Get the votes to make it illegal.

 

I don't know that it should be illegal. I'm conflicted on the issue of the woman's domain.

I'd like to see less abortions by getting women to think long and hard about what they are doing. You can call it a medical procedure and the law agrees, but morally it's murder.

 

How would you get inside any woman's heart and head to JUDGE how long and hard she thought about it?

 

Well Margot, they are obviously NOT bleeding their hearts out based on the numbers of little babies that are slaughtered every year. So, bull(*)(*)(*)(*) on the heart strings. Adopt out the child. Hard? Tough (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

How would it inflict emotional pain? If the person having the abortion only sees it as a clump of cells, what is there to feel sad about?

Let's be honest here for a second. The only reason it could cause any kind of emotional pain is if the mother realizes that she is killing a human being. Otherwise your argument doesn't even make any sense.

 

Odd. Who said anything about a clump of cells?

Abortion has been ruled by the USSC to be a private matter between a woman and her doctor. I see no reason to interfere with that relationship, nor do I see a reason why someone else should.

 

It doesn't matter if the woman is made to hear the heartbeat, she will still likely go ahead with the procedure anyway - that is, unless the pro life bastards want to charge her for having a procedure which is forced on her.

 

What enticing women to have abortions? I agree. Conning them into killing theor children in utero is dispicable!!!

 

End thread////

Your exactly right, as usual.

 

are you calling those of us who are pro-life "bastards"? Once again, I expect more from those who are in a place of power.

 

I am not really clear on what point you are attempting to make.

Currently women are free to make their own choices. I don't see anyone conning anyone.

 

Every measure ever put forth to try to educate women on what an abortion truly is, is met with fierce opposition by the pro abortion crowd!!!! That should be self evident here.

 

Dishonest tactics and emotional appeal driven by zealotry and ignorance should always be resisted. It is much better to rely on facts and eliminate coercion.

 

Who is connimg women into having abortions?

 

What is non factual about a baby's heart beat?

 

The state should not interfere with the woman's decision to have or not have an abortion. The state has no right to tell us what and what not to do to our bodies. It is an issue that should ultimately be decided by the woman, seeing as it is her body, after all.

 

Right, so a man should be able to use his body to kill another human being and who is the govt to tell him he can't!!!

 

The man is taking another life. He is affecting others. He wasn't raped and forced to have a child. He was not forced to go through the labor process and raise a child he could not afford, or hell, did not want. The state should NOT force someone to make a personal decision that does not concern those around them. Soon, the state will be telling me when I can and can't eat, sleep, and watch television. It does not concern the government. It concerns the woman.

 

1% 0r fewer are committed because of a rape, so you are way off base if that is all you have.

The state has always had the right to tell you you cannot commit a premeditated homicide without punishment.

 

Of course not. I never meant it to come across that way. I apologise for any offense caused.