Ohio Republican proposes ban on abortions after baby has a heartbeat

Unborn baby scheming about moving to Ohio
Unborn baby scheming about moving to Ohio

From Fox News.

Excerpt:

An unborn child’s heartbeat can be detected as soon as 18 days after conception, and supporters of a bill slated to be unveiled in the Ohio Legislature Wednesday say that women should be prohibited from ending pregnancies beyond that milestone.

State Rep. Lynn Wachtmann is planning to unveil the “Heartbeat Bill” and a legislative aide for the Republican tells Fox News that 42 of the 99 representatives in the Ohio state House have signed on to the bill, which would make an exception to the heartbeat rule only in emergency medical situations.

According to 2009 data from the Ohio Department of Health, 56.6 percent of abortions in that state occur in the first nine weeks of pregnancy. And since the fetal heartbeat appears on monitors by six weeks into gestation in most cases, supporters of the bill believe that it could prevent thousands of abortions.

“When the Heartbeat Bill passes, it will be the most protective law in the nation,” Janet Folger Porter, president of conservative advocacy group Faith2Action, said in a release. Porter helped craft the bill, and was also instrumental in passing the nation’s first ban in partial-birth abortion when she was legislative director of Ohio Right to Life.

[…]And though Porter and former Ohio Right to Life president Linda Theis vocally support the Heartbeat Bill, the pro-life organization’s current executive director says the legislation is destined for failure.

“Unfortunately, the Heartbeat Bill will not survive a court challenge, and therefore not save one life,” Ohio Right to Life executive director Michael Gonidakis told Fox News, arguing that state courts and the Supreme Court would slap down the heartbeat cut-off in the same way they would reject a full abortion ban. “Because the Supreme Court, unfortunately, has ruled on countless occasions that any restrictions on abortion pre-viability are unconstitutional,” he says.

And in Georgia, another Republican is proposing a bill to ban all abortions once the unborn baby can feel pain. Can you imagine causing pain to a helpless little baby? That would be horrible – but that is exactly what abortion does. So, I hope both of these pro-life bills pass.

I also must note that poets will play no part in these initiatives to restrict abortion. These pro-life legislative efforts will be fought by lawyers and judges who have advanced legal training – training that takes effort and money to achieve. And their case will be grounded in science, not in poetry. The pro-abortion side is grounded in poetry, feelings and sad stories about poor, poor women who are not responsible for their own choices. The pro-life side is grounded in reason and evidence. And the more reason and evidence the pro-life side can muster, the stronger their case will be in the only place where it really matters – the legislatures and the courts.

27 thoughts on “Ohio Republican proposes ban on abortions after baby has a heartbeat”

  1. I sincerely hope both of these bills pass and applaud those who are driving these initiatives.

    Now why did you have to spoil a perfectly good post with a dig at poets? Poets (like it or not) have influence for many people and pro-life poets can use their craft to expose the reality, just as pro-abortion poets use theirs to obscure it.

    Unto Us…

    Somewhere at some time
    They committed themselves to me
    And so, I was!
    Small, but I WAS!
    Tiny, in shape
    Lusting to live
    I hung in my pulsing cave.
    Soon they knew of me
    My mother –my father.
    I had no say in my being
    I lived on trust
    And love
    Tho’ I couldn’t think
    Each part of me was saying
    A silent ‘Wait for me
    I will bring you love!’
    I was taken
    Blind, naked, defenseless
    By the hand of one
    Whose good name
    Was graven on a brass plate
    in Wimpole Street,
    and dropped on the sterile floor
    of a foot operated plastic waste
    bucket.
    There was no Queens Counsel
    To take my brief.
    The cot I might have warmed
    Stood in Harrod’s shop window.
    When my passing was told
    My father smiled.
    No grief filled my empty space.
    My death was celebrated
    With tickets to see Danny la Rue
    Who was pretending to be a woman
    Like my mother was.

    Spike Milligan

    http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/unto-us/

    Like

      1. Poetry is part of the discussion, part of changing hearts and minds. People shouldn’t talk about the subject then? Makes no sense…

        Like

        1. But how can poetry make a finding of fact that will bind someone’s will? The best it could do is kindle some emotions, but why shouldn’t that work to make people pro-abortion just as easily.

          Like

          1. That’s a “tu quoque.” Lawyers can just as easily make a law that makes abortion legal.

            Poetry shapes the cultures and changes minds. Some of the best poets were lawyers, and some of the best lawyers were poets. The same goes for philosophers and statesmen. When confronted, Christ used stories to sway lawyers. I wonder if God thinks poets are more valuable than lawyers. I sincerely doubt it.

            I am proud to call myself an Ohioan in the face of this bill. I’m praying that is passes.

            Like

          2. Exactly. And so it does. Why should the devil have all the good poetry, to borrow a phrase from William Booth. Why should our emotions only be engaged by those making their point from the side of evil?

            Also, just because you do your best not to be swayed by emotion doesn’t mean others aren’t. And sometimes we also need to feel emotion. Sometimes we should. The pro-abortion side ignores the child’s humanity and treats it as subhuman. Poems like the one I quoted from Milligan can uncover that humanity that people usually know exists, but that they ignore, and it can bring out very appropriate emotion. He writes from the point of view of the child so to speak, which helps us to see that the child has a stake in the matter too, which is what the pro-abortion side ignores.

            Like

          3. I think the main thing is that parents have to decide what they think whether children are meant to serve God or serve parents. If the former, then the question of effectiveness and influence is relevant. If the latter, then effectiveness and influence are irrelevant.

            My purpose for reading books and saving money to prepare for children is to serve the Lord. I have worked, saved and prepared to do that. What I am finding is that other people have not worked, saved and prepared, and that they have a completely different view of what children are for. An excellent book on this is Hugh Hewitt’s “In But Not Of: A Guide to Christian Ambition”. I would think that most people in my “marriage produces children who are effective and influential” group will have read this book or similar books. The problem is that the vast majority of people think that reading, thinking, planning and preparing takes the emotions, feelings and spontaneity out of marriage and parenting. They think that the purpose or marriage and parenting is to have romantic feelings and feelings of well-being. But that is not my view. If marriage is about happiness for the people, then there is no need to read these books or to make plans or to prepare to sacrifice. You can tell whether a person has the “serve God” view of marriage or the “spontaneous happy me” view by looking at what they read and how they prepare for marriage. I once knew a woman who thought that marriage was just an extension of going out, drinking and dancing and having fun. This person read a lot of Mark Driscoll and John Piper on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. She liked strict rules to coerce men, but never women.

            Like

          4. You don’t realize that you are advocating a world where all the songs, poems, films, visual art, etc. are evil, full of ungodly rebellion, lust, and violence because you discourage people from going into the arts. It’s sad enough how many artists are caught up in evil and propagating it and what you are advocating is even worse because you are basically advocating putting a stop to art from a Christian worldview. If nobody with a Christian worldview did anything artistic, there wouldn’t be literary works by Austen, or Dickens, there wouldn’t be any of the pre-Raphaelite art you made a post on, there wouldn’t be any Christian songs for children to sing, there wouldn’t be any Cyrano de Bergerac for you to quote, there wouldn’t be any songs to celebrate heroes, there wouldn’t be any Star-spangled Banner, there wouldn’t be any films celebrating war heroes or any films about William Wilberforce. That’s a dismal world.

            Like

          5. Plato says I am right:

            Poetry, drama, music, painting, dance, all stir up our emotions. All of the arts move people powerfully. They can strongly influence our behavior, and even our character. For that reason Plato insisted that music (especially music), along with poetry and drama and the other arts, should be part of the education of young citizens in his ideal republic, but should be strictly censored to present, at first, only the good. (That stories and images can shape character may seem obvious enough; but how does music do this? Plato was much impressed with the theories of Pythagoras, and his number mysticism. Early thinking about geometric ratios was partly inspired by noticing the series of overtones connected with the vibration of a string. A string, when plucked, vibrates along its whole length, but also in halves, giving the octave, and in other divisions which give the fifth, the third, and the rest of the overtone series. These are the bell-like higher tones string players produce when they play “harmonics”. Plato thought that the right sort of music would help to set the soul in harmony rather than discord. But that meant excluding certain musical modes from the Republic, and keeping only those that were conducive to a properly ordered soul, i.e., one whose will ruled its passions at the direction of its reason. Only when young people were ready should the strength of their character be tested by exposing them to depictions of evil, and to the more promiscuous modes of music.)

            From Plato to New York Mayor Rudolf Giuliani, influential people through the centuries and across cultures have worried about the power of the arts to influence, and potentially to corrupt. It can be hard for a twenty first century westerner to sympathize with Plato’s severe censorship of the arts. Little if anything is more valuable to us than our freedom; we don’t take kindly to others telling us what we can watch or listen to or read. We believe in the free exchange of ideas, and let the best idea win. We might even try to justify this idea from Plato’s own dialogues. Of course, Plato did not value freedom so highly as do we; he thought that freedom with no limits and no proper training would result in no good. In fact, he thought it would leave the mass of people vulnerable to deception, manipulation, and eventual enslavement by a tyrant. In spite of this, he agreed with modern people about the free exchange of ideas. There was no other way to arrive at truth, in his view. His problem with the arts was that they operated by images rather than by ideas, and thus that they might cloud the truth rather than clarifying it.

            Source:
            http://www.rowan.edu/open/philosop/clowney/Aesthetics/philos_artists_onart/plato.htm

            Like

          6. Well said, Stephen. Thank you.

            I think you meant “I wonder if God thinks lawyers are more valuable than poets. I sincerely doubt it.” ;-)

            Like

          7. I think that God values results, and it’s up to us to make sure that we take the most direct path to results, given our talents. The goal should be results.

            Like

          8. Actually, Plato says you are wrong. He wanted to restrict the arts to only good arts because of the power they have. You, in effect, want to restrict the arts to only the bad art – seeing as no Christians or sensible people are supposed to produce art – leaving only bad art to exercise power. Thanks for the quote. It proved my point nicely.

            Like

  2. I think the question is, does poetry’s influence have to be negative? Not even Plato thought so. He banned it from the republic because it could sway there emotions from a perfectly reasonable society. Obviously, society is not perfectly reasonable. Emotion is a part of argument, and poets hold sway over that part.

    Of course, Plato was influenced by Homer and other poets, so his view on poetry was that it was neutral, but it because it could make him lose control of his philosophical society, he would ban poets.

    If poetry is neutral, why not use the good and leave the bad?

    Like

      1. I think I’ve won already… Admit defeat WK. ;-) God gives people talents to be used for His glory – and those can be the talents of a lawyer or a poet – or both!

        Like

        1. Well, from my point of view, I have to calculate what is likely to be best. I have read books on ambition and influence. I have read to build up awareness about where the battles are currently being waged in culture. And I have an idea of what I would be trying to accomplish with a marriage and children, and it’s not to raise poets and ballet dancers. My goal is to make the decisions that I think will work. Not to let the children parent me, not to let their mother control me. I have other things I can do with my resources than play house. I have a vertical responsibility, and I am not going to abdicate that by wishing and hoping and making decisions based on wishing and hoping.

          Like

          1. Well, you are free to parent your children as you wish. Just be careful of confusing your idea of what is best with God’s purposes.

            Like

          2. Well, we have to decided who has access to God’s will. I think I know pretty well what would make God honored and glorified, and what would not. I think that I have to look at the world and make good plans based on my assessment of the battlefield. You have a different view, based on… what? What is your reason for thinking that a poet is MORE influential than a Supreme Court Justice?

            Everyone has to make good on the talents that God has given him. We all have to decide. We all have to make a plan to please him. I have a way of making my plan that is based on hard calculations of influence, effectiveness and trouble spots (e.g. – intelligent design, marriage, abortion, parenting, education). I look at policy and news and I think about what sorts of money and qualifications could actually help to solve the problems I see. That’s my plan. So for example, I work at a difficult job that I don’t necessarily like, I pass on buying things that might make me happy, and with the money saved I pay to bring Christian apologists to speak at universities and churches. That’s my plan.

            What is the basis of your plan? What problem are you trying to solve? What are your reasons for thinking that your solution will work? How have you denied yourself to prepare to execute your plans?

            Like

          3. I think at this point I should tell everyone that I am BETTER at literature than computer science. And that I chose computer science so that I would be able to provide for a family. And it has caused me nothing but stress and strain and suffering and fear. But I have roles that are independent of my feelings, one of those roles is provider. I guess that I am just willing to look at God and saying “I’m expendable”. I never felt that life was about me getting what I wanted, but only about putting rounds on target. (Or points on the board, in case anyone liberal is reading this). This planet and this life is not about me being happy. It’s about doing what is expedient. I may not be GOOD at what is needed to be influential and effective, but by golly, if that’s what is needed then that’s what I am going to do.

            There’s one woman in particular whose name starts with M that knows exactly what I am talking about, who knows exactly how far I was willing to take that.

            Like

          4. Guess what? I studied computer science too. And I’m better at literature too. And you are well aware that I’ve had to make some very hard decisions in order to make God the priority. I know that the market for poets is not big and it’s not something that often leads to a stable income. I think even the very talented in the arts need to develop marketable skills. I just don’t think I can see the future or know every possible opportunity a person may have if they’re extraordinarily talented. That’s why I’m less inclined to write a diatribe belittling poets en masse or to ignore the contribution they have made. And you still didn’t address my argument as to where the good art is supposed to come from and the consequent negative weighting of the arts if no Christians should be artists.

            Like

  3. This is the second time where you are clearly in the wrong. Remember your accusation that Chris Matthews had a music degree? I do. The claim was farcial and had no evidence to support it. The man has never displayed any sort of musical talent nor the ability to analyze or compose music, yet you debased the study of music to the banal and childish preoccupations of the liberal mind.

    Now again, you criticize something illogically and without support, and use the same farcial logic to defend your point. Do you think that laws stop people from doing things? That is the logic of the liberal, and that is why liberals are forever passing laws and more laws and more laws, because they believe that words written on paper have a magic ability to prevent action.

    Laws without enforcement are meaningless, and law only restrains those who are not sufficiently motivated to break them. Consider criminals and their purchase of black-market guns. Did the laws against criminals owning guns stop them from acquiring them? No. Did the laws against murder stop Ted Bundy? No. What halts people is not law, but the enforcement of law, that is to say, punishment, or the fear thereof.

    So, laws by themselves have no force, and possess even less power in language than poetry, for while a law may incidentally stir up some emotion, a poem is designed for that very purpose. And given that the obedience to the law hinges upon either fear of enforcement or a moral sense within, what value is it to disparage the tools which appeal to, and cultivate, the moral sense within; such tools include poetry, music, and the arts in general. (Yes, poetry communicates truth; yes, fiction and music and drama and movies all, all can communicate truth.) Rather than encouraging people to discern what literature, what music, what poetry advances the knowledge of the Holy, you simply write off entire fields and modes of communication.

    Furthermore, to chase all Christians out of the arts as though particular fields were evil, is to play right into the hands of the godless worldlings that dominate our culture. The concept of Christians as sour, dull, passionless, uncreative souls places us into a nice, neat box, which allows the devil and his followers to use all manners of emotion and creativity against us, deprives us of a like response, and denies anything of that sort to call our own. Your solution is to abandon the field, and then to create a world chock full of stony Goodman Browns which through amputating their emotions isolate themselves from love, mercy, grace, and from truth itself.

    In short, you have forgotten the great analogy of Paul, comparing believers to members of a body. Some are given to be poets. Some are given to be lawyers. All of the body cannot be an eye nor an ear, for it was, it would not be a body.

    It is far past time to stop disparaging the eye for not being an ear.

    Like

  4. These sentences made me pause for thought: “I have read books on ambition and influence… And I have an idea of what I would be trying to accomplish with a marriage and children, and it’s not to raise poets and ballet dancers.”

    My mother was a talented musician. Not the most practical soul in the world. She suffered chronic illness for many years, but she taught private lessons for piano and voice in her home. Her students could never tell when she was in pain, but sometimes she had to spend a day in bed recovering after a week of teaching. She also led the music at her church for decades. Somehow she found the strength and energy to keep more relationships and friendships than almost anyone I know, and her music brought many people to her. She had a passion, first for Jesus, and for music. She felt strongly that she had a responsibility to spend her talents for the Kingdom, and she loved it.

    She passed away less than a year ago. At her viewing, the line of visitors at the small country church stretched down the block and around the corner. Around a thousand people (in a town of four thousand) came to pay their respects. I don’t know how many people told me, “Your mother changed my life.” “Your mother was the best friend that I ever had.” “Your mother led me to Jesus.” – and many more personal thanks that I can’t write here. Thanks to my mother, a musician in a small town in the South, thousands of lives have been changed, families have stayed together,and people have come to know and love our Jesus. I have no way of knowing how many. Some of those people are influential in business, law and other “practical” professions, and she will have impacts in this world through them, but most importantly, there are many people who will live forever with Jesus because she was obedient to Him. The only permanent achievement in this world is helping someone else to live forever, and she did that many times over.

    She was absolutely in the mission field for which God prepared her. She would have made a terrible lawyer, politician, or debater. She was a fantastic musician, friend, wife, mother, and follower of Jesus.

    I deeply respect your choosing a harder, more practical profession because you feel that is where God can use you best. However, if your children have talents in other areas, you can encourage them to use those talents in Godly ways – and they may end up doing something very effective for His Kingdom that you don’t expect.

    There’s my two cents on influence. :)

    Like

  5. BTW, Wintery, I don’t mean to sound like I’m always taking issue with you. You just kick-start my trains of thought. :)

    Like

  6. @WK: The courts and the legislatures, yes… but first, in hearts and minds, then in policy-makers and hospital and clinic workers. And let’s not forget the post-abortive women, who will provide the strongest case but need the most evidence of all.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s