Heartbeat Bill

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) at 04:12, June 1, 2019. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

The Heartbeat Bill is pro-life legislation originating in Ohio, which would prohibit abortion once the heartbeat of the unborn child is detectable. A heartbeat develops in an unborn child typically in the fifth or sixth week of pregnancy. A federal version of the bill, H.R. 490, was introduced in Congress in 2017 by Rep. Steve King, but blocked from a floor vote in the House of Representatives. A total of 173 congressmen have signed on as co-sponsors of the Heartbeat Bill, H.R. 490, as of July 27, 2018.[1]

Nine states have passed heartbeat bill as of May 31, 2019, including Louisiana. Additional states are considering it.[2] The Heartbeat Bill has been signed into law in Iowa,[3] Ohio,[4] Kentucky, and Mississippi, and Georgia. Heartbeat Bills have also passed in the House in Missouri and Tennessee.

As of May 20, 2019, here are the landslide margins by which the Heartbeat Bill has passed in state legislatures in 2019:

  • Alabama: 74-3 and 25-7 (full protection bill)
  • Georgia: 92-78 and 34-18
  • Kentucky: 71-19 and 31-6
  • Mississippi: 78-37 and 34-14
  • Missouri: 110-44 and 24-10
  • Ohio: 56-40 and 19-13[5]

Heartbeat Bills are also pending in Florida, Texas, South Carolina, West Virginia, Rhode Island, Illinois, Maryland, New York, and Minnesota.

The Heartbeat Bill separates the wheat from the chaff among politicians and organizations that call themselves pro-life. The National Right to Life cCommittee typically aligns itself with moderate Republicans (it endorsed Fred Thompson in 2008 for president) and has not endorsed this bill. Ohio Right to Life has lost local chapters in Ohio due to its decision not to endorse passage of the Heartbeat Bill:[6]

“ The refusal of Ohio Right to Life to get behind the heartbeat proposal has led to bitter dissent. In the last two weeks, six county chapters have angrily withdrawn from the organization including, on Thursday, the Cincinnati chapter, the state’s oldest and largest. ”

Decisions concerning heartbeat legislation

In two cases handled by the same panel on the Eighth Circuit, it invalidated heartbeat legislation in Arkansas and North Dakota.

In the Arkansas case, the court held as follows:

The Arkansas State Medical Board (the State) appeals from a summary judgment permanently enjoining certain sections of the Arkansas Human Heartbeat Protection Act. Ark. Code Ann. §§ 20-16-1301 to 1307 (2013). Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
I.
The Act provides that a licensed physician "shall not perform an abortion on a pregnant woman before the person tests the pregnant woman to determine whether the fetus that a pregnant woman is carrying possesses a detectible [sic] heartbeat." Ark. Code Ann. § 20-16-1303(a) (footnote omitted). Further, a physician "shall not perform an abortion on a pregnant woman with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of an unborn human individual whose heartbeat has been detected under § 20-16-1303 and is twelve (12) weeks or greater gestation." § 20-16-1304(a). If a physician violates section 1304, his or her medical license shall be revoked. § 20-16-1304(b). The Act provides exceptions to protect the life of the mother, for a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or for a medical emergency. § 20-16-1305. The Act requires informed disclosures about the existence of a heartbeat and the probability of bringing the unborn to term. § 20-16-1303(d), (e). ....

Edwards v. Beck, 786 F.3d 1113, 1115-16 (8th Cir. 2015).

In the North Dakota case, the same three-judge panel held less than two months later that:

This case presents the question whether, given the current state of medical science, a state generally may prohibit physicians from aborting unborn children who possess detectable heartbeats. The district court held that it may not. Because United States Supreme Court precedent does not permit us to reach a contrary result, we affirm.
I.
North Dakota has, for a number of years, prohibited abortion "[a]fter the point in pregnancy when the unborn child may reasonably be expected to have reached viability," except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. N.D. Cent. Code § 14-02.1-04(3). North Dakota defines "viable" as "the ability of an unborn child to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid." Id. § 14-02.1-02(19). In 2013, North Dakota passed House Bill 1456, codified at N.D. Cent. Code § 14-02.1, which extends the general prohibition on abortion to the point in pregnancy when the unborn child possesses a detectable heartbeat. H.B. 1456 contains two operative provisions. The first requires a physician performing an abortion to "determin[e], in accordance with standard medical practice, if the unborn child the pregnant woman is carrying has a detectable heartbeat." H.B. 1456 § 1.1, 63d Leg. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (N.D. 2013). This requirement does not apply "when a medical emergency exists that prevents compliance." Id.; see also N.D. Cent. Code § 14-02.1-02(12) (defining "medical emergency"). A physician who violates the heartbeat testing requirement is subject to disciplinary action before the state board of medical examiners. See H.B. 1456 § 1.2. The second operative provision prohibits a physician from performing an abortion on a pregnant woman if the unborn child has a "heartbeat [that] has been detected according to the requirements of section 1." Id. § 2.1. There are exceptions for the life or health of the pregnant woman and for the life of another unborn child. Id. § 2.2(a). A physician who violates this provision commits a felony. Id. § 2.4. The pregnant woman, however, is not subject to liability. Id.

MKB Mgmt. Corp. v. Stenehjem, 795 F.3d 768, 770 (8th Cir. 2015).

Contrast with Personhood Amendment

Some pro-lifers, including James Bopp, have compared the Heartbeat Bill to the Personhood Amendment. But there is no similarity, and the Heartbeat Bill has none of the flaws associated with the Personhood Amendment.

  • the Heartbeat Bill is legislation, not an initiative, thus is free of the election mischief that the Personhood Amendment causes;
  • the Heartbeat Bill does not implicate contraception, which is a more difficult issue politically and legally, while the Personhood Amendment has been accused of banning some forms of contraception;
  • the Heartbeat Bill is supported by genuine and effective pro-lifers, including Janet Porter, Jack Willkie and Michele Bachmann; and
  • the Heartbeat Bill is clear and not susceptible to misinterpretations by courts.

See also

Further reading

References

  1. ↑ https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/490/cosponsors
  2. ↑ Newman, Alex (April 17, 2019). Pro-life “Heartbeat” Bills Seek to Rein In Abortion Across U.S. The New American. Retrieved April 17, 2019.
  3. ↑ Iowa passed it in May 2018. [1]
  4. ↑ On March 14, 2019, the Ohio Senate passed the Heartbeat Bill yesterday by a vote of 19-13. From there it goes to the Ohio House, where it already enjoys a majority of representatives as co-sponsors this bill as sponsored by Reps. Ron Hood and Candice Keller there.
  5. ↑ Source: Faith2Action.
  6. ↑ https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/health/policy/fetal-heartbeat-bill-splits-anti-abortion-forces.html?pagewanted=all
Retrieved from "https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Heartbeat_Bill&oldid=1528528"