Fairborn commencement
Badin graduation
Division I regional track finals
Home > Blogs > Ohio politics > Archives > 2011 > July > 13 > Entry
Post-viability abortion ban wins final legislative approval
Ohio would become the 40th state to ban post-viability abortions if Gov. John Kasich approves legislation passed by the Senate on Wednesday.
Republican Kasich is considered likely to sign the bill, although he has not said for certain that he would. Rob Nichols, the governor’s spokesman, said Kasich aides are reviewing it and that Kasich has been “pro-life” throughout his career.
Mike Gonidakis, executive director of the Ohio Right to Life Society, said 39 states have similar bans, including five identical to the Ohio bill. It was approved on the legislature’s last session for the summer.
The Senate vote was 22-7, with all opposition from Democrats. All Dayton-area senators supported the bill, which passed the House earlier. One Democrat, Sen. Jason Wilson of Columbiana, joined Republicans in support.
Sen. Peggy Lehner, R-Kettering, said the legislation would prohibit the abortions on about 200 babies a year.
“No one can call these babies fetuses or potential life,” said Lehner.
Sen. Nina Turner, D-Cleveland, fired back. Turner said that her sister had been raped and under the bill would not have been permitted to have a post-viability abortion because there is no exception for rape. Her sister, added Turner, did not get pregnant.
“A woman should have the right to control her body,” Turner said.
Based on 2009 Ohio data, the last year for which statistics are available, there were 28,721 abortions in the state.
More than half - 57 percent - occurred at less than nine weeks in the pregnancy. Another 28 percent occurred between nine and 12 weeks and 613 abortions involved pregnancies of 20 weeks or more.
Viability “the ability to live outside the womb” generally occurs at 23 weeks, Lehner said. The bill, however, requires women to be tested for viability at 20 weeks. That’s because sometimes determination of how far along the pregnancy is can be a few weeks off, Lehner said.
If the test shows viability, an abortion would be prohibited unless necessary to save the woman’s life or if there is a serious risk to her physical health. There is no mental health exception.
Gon idakis said the bill is designed to be consistent with federal court guidelines on restricting abortions.
It is less restrictive than the “Heartbeat bill,” which has passed the House, but not the Senate. That measure would be the nation’s most restrictive abortion bill because it would ban abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected, which could be as early as five weeks, according to a physician supporting the bill.
The Ohio Right to Life Society does not support the bill because leaders say it would not withstand a court challenge and could set back efforts to restrict abortions. Janet Folger Porter, president of Faith2Action, the group supporting the “Heartbeat” bill, said she has a lot of commitments from senators to consider it in the fall. Porter said that other states are waiting for Ohio to lead the way with the “Heartbeat” bill.
Senate President Tom Niehaus, R-New Richmond, said it was “too early” to tell whether the Senate would take up the bill.
The bill would require a woman seeking abortion to be tested at 20 weeks and if the baby was viable she could not receive an abortion except in medical emergencies..
The legislation is separate from the “Heartbeat” bill which has passed the House but hasn’t been considered by the Senate. It would ban abortions once a fetal heartbeat could be detected. A physician supporting the bill has said that could occur as early as five weeks.
Rep. Lynn Wachtmann, R-Napoleon, House sponsor of the “Heartbeat” bill, said he is going to talk with senators about it but made no predictions.
“I have no idea,” he said, when asked to gauge Senate action.
Permalink | Comments (19) | Post your comment |
Tweet
Comments
By Squirrellygirl
July 21, 2011 10:19 AM | Link to this
How many unborn babies have been aborted or killed? How many people were killed during the Holocaust? Huh. Can’t compare? Why not? Aren’t babies people, too? Did you know that socialists rank people according to their worth by their ages and what they can contribute to society right now? So babies can’t contribute anything since they are just babies, so they aren’t worth as much as a 25 year old according to socialists. You can observe this in Obamacare, where they provide for getting rid of the poor via making tax payers pay for abortions. And we see where socialism steals land and possessions from their citizens, eventually they take farms and the produce is sold outside their country while the pheasants go hungry: “famine” I think they call it. Socialism involves killing off the poor people and the seniors and babies and unborn because they can’t contribute as much to society. Nice. And you want socialism here in America? You got it when you are killing off the babies. You are just turning your heads and rationalizing that “it” isn’t a person. Our nation will have to recognize that we are in need of God’s help before we can receive God’s help. Our beautiful experiment, our Republic, is in danger. Socialists have taken over the highest offices in our government and are attempting to overthrow our Republic. Obama has appointed ungodly radicals for high positions in our government. One of Obama’s czars, Holdren, believes in forced abortions via secret sterilizing our drinking water supply. This is done in the dark of night. It’s not been voted on, we haven’t been represented by these radical socialists who are currently occupying the presidency and his “advisors”. Isn’t it strange how if someone kills an unborn baby in a violent act, the baby is considered another human being, but if the mother and doctor kill it, it is a legal abortion. Words are a funny thing, and so is the conscience. It won’t go away.
By Squirrellygirl
July 21, 2011 9:47 AM | Link to this
Abortion is murder of an unborn baby. Carla: “…technically will save Caresource & Medicaid a lot of money, of which the state has little to spare as it is. 200 babies is also a lot of food stamps.” So, Carla, what you are saying is that poor people should abort their babies because poor people are worth less than richer people? That’s socialism, Carla. That’s what they do. They kill the poor people off anyway they can, famine, abortions, etc. Carla, this is AMERICA, home of the free and brave. This is a place where everyone has rights including the unborn babies. The baby moving around in the woman’s stomach is NOT part of her body, it is a different entity, a human being, and GOD knows every hair on that baby’s head. There will be a judgement day for people who kill the defenseless, including the seniors and the babies, and the unborn.
By raiel
July 14, 2011 2:32 PM | Link to this
I second Imogen. Second thing, most charts show that abortions are decreasing in this country. While the number has stayed similar over the years, the number of people is increasing. Therefore, a smaller percentage of people are getting abortions every year. Yay.
By Imogen
July 14, 2011 11:11 AM | Link to this
Did anyone notice that this bill is for “post viability”? Abortions are the least favorite topic among any seemingly rational or morally conscience person and probably always will be. However, as someone that does believe the woman should hold the right to choose, I also believe that the woman needs to do so in an time sensitive fashion. Why wait until you’re 20 weeks or more to decide to terminate? Waiting longer than a comfortable distance after the initial shock of “OMG I”M pregnant!!” is irresponsible and selfish. To wait that long you already know the baby’s sex and could possibly be showing? I say the bill would expedite a woman’s choice to choose and lessen the physical and emotional risk involved in terminating the pregnancy. “Do it or don’t do it” but don’t wait around to “see” if things will change or look up, because chances are if the woman is questioning her circumstances and justifying whether or not a baby is the right thing for her at that time, it’s not. So she needs to put her big girl pants on do what she needs to do. And to wait past 20 weeks if a woman has been assaulted and the result is a fetus, is unfortunate but also comes with hard decisions. That baby is only going to grow, there isn’t a “pause” button once it starts. There’s always a risk of pregnancy when sex is involved whether protected and unprotected. Decisions change everyday, but terminating a pregnancy is a yes or no, waiting 20 weeks or more is saying maybe, just stay the course if you’re already that far, adoption may be hard but it’s far less selfish and irresponsible and far less risky than an abortion of a fetus that’s near the size of a hand. This isn’t BK, you can’t always have it your way.
By pleaseunderstand
July 14, 2011 10:56 AM | Link to this
I discovered my baby had a serious birth defect at 17 weeks and I terminated the pregnancy in order to protect my mental health of carrying a baby I very much wanted to term only to lose the baby shortly after birth. That would have been more devasting to me than having the abortion. There needs to be more than just a risk to mom’s life or health exception.
By Carla
July 14, 2011 9:23 AM | Link to this
SB5, Marge. One by one, rights are being attacked. So yes, they did come for the lot of us who work to assist the lot of you. Did I pull out Hitler or Holocaust? No. I pulled out the fact that one by one, rights are being attacked, taken away, overhauled. If any comparison is being made, it’s to that of an Orwellian state & Big Brother telling us what we can & cannot do.
By Jeanie
July 14, 2011 9:21 AM | Link to this
Another sad day in the state of Ohio for women. Once again the repugs are regulating what a woman can and can not do - and yes, its the womans body. Next thing you know Ohio will be telling us who we can and can not marry - oh wait, they’ve already done that. Whats next? Ohio - leave my body alone - its MY decision not yours! (and please dont spout the religious crap - that MY choice also!)
By Carla
July 14, 2011 9:20 AM | Link to this
SB5, Marge. One by one, rights are being attacked. So yes, they did come for the lot of us who work to assist the lot of you. Did I pull out Hitler or Holocaust? No. I pulled out the fact that one by one, rights are being attacked, taken away, overhauled. If any comparison is being made, it’s to that of an Orwellian state & Big Brother telling us what we can & cannot do.
By Sue
July 14, 2011 8:00 AM | Link to this
Peggy Lehner, R-Kettering HAS GOTTA GO!
By Joe
July 14, 2011 7:30 AM | Link to this
Just another example of the Republican’s idea of small government.
By marge
July 13, 2011 10:37 PM | Link to this
@Carla…”And Then They Came for Me?” Please…no equation to The Holocaust.Go rationalize somewhere else.
By dpkdayton
July 13, 2011 9:22 PM | Link to this
what a stupid argument Amber. so if you are a women and can’t be drafted you have no say in whether or not the US goes to war. You are probably the same women who says a man has no right to decide anything with a womens pregnacy but will sit there with your hand out demanding the father pay child support. at least have the guts to call it what it is, killing a human life. you coward.
By Carla
July 13, 2011 9:20 PM | Link to this
Funny how that baby’s body is completely dependent upon the woman’s body in order to develop cell by cell. If the woman is not prepared or willing or healthy enough for such a development to take place, despite birth control methods and even sterilization (watch “I didn’t know I was pregnant” on TLC because it happens), then so be it, the relationship between host body and developing fetus (which if you want to be technical, has half of the DNA structure of the “mother”, so there’s still some form of ownership over that fetal body” especially since it’s development puts demands upon the woman’s body that otherwise wouldn’t occur)can be terminated. If you don’t like terminations, don’t have one. By no means are they pleasant, but it can save lives (oh what, the “mother’s” life doesn’t count now?) and technically will save Caresource & Medicaid a lot of money, of which the state has little to spare as it is. 200 babies is also a lot of food stamps. You hope for more protection? From what? Your rights being taken away? Freedom being taken away? Well, guess what, they are taking them away one by one within this state. You may not agree with all forms of freedom or personal rights available to citizens (such as the right to terminate an unwanted or unhealthy or risky pregnancy), but this is proof that they are willing to take it all away at any cost. One day, the state will come for you. Or your sons, daughters. Count on it.
By Stephen
July 13, 2011 8:47 PM | Link to this
This seems the most reasonable bill, and a compromise between all sides. The others are too extreme and pander to only one side of the issue.
By mom4life
July 13, 2011 8:23 PM | Link to this
Abortion has never been about what a woman can and can’t do with her own body. It’s about what a woman can and can’t do to her baby’s body. I’ve been pregnant 4 times. Not once was it ‘my body’ that was moving around inside me. I applaud this bill, although I hope for more protection.
By M005E
July 13, 2011 7:51 PM | Link to this
This has absolutely nothing to do with denying “a woman her right to choose.” That is a straw man argument that is totally irrelevant. This has everything to do the rights of the baby in her womb. By the the time there is a baby involved the womens right to choose has already been exercised.
By Amber
July 13, 2011 6:27 PM | Link to this
This is ridiculous! No one should be able to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body. Especially a man who will never have to experience pregnancy.
By Randy
July 13, 2011 5:17 PM | Link to this
Thank God! 200 babies a year is a good place to start but lawmakers need to do more to save lives.
By letmelive
July 13, 2011 4:53 PM | Link to this
It has never been the position of RTL to stop the murder of preborn children, but rather use political pandering to “regulate” the killing. Incrementalism has been the black eye of the pro-life movement. If you say your pro-life, and that abortion is murder, then every child from conception to natural death should be protected. No exceptions!