The proposed Ohio law that would have banned abortions of any fetus that had a heartbeat-- in other words, after about six weeks of gestation-- has been set aside by the Ohio legislature.
That is the right move. The law had no chance of being upheld as constitutional. From the time of the Roe era, pro-life groups have been trying to use scientific evidence of the humanity of the unborn to restrict abortion, and it has largely been a failure, in particular when used to justify near-total bans on abortion. As I discussed in my own dissertation, the 'humanity' of the unborn is one consideration but not the primary or major consideration regarding abortion rights or restrictions. To point that out drives pro-life activists crazy and sounds terribly unfeeling toward the unborn. Still, that is the way the law has been structured and interpreted, and the many consequences (intended and unintended) that would result from changing the paradigm have kept judges cautious.
The 'scientific evidence' tactic might work better when attached to legislation that attempts to nip at the edges of abortion rights, like bills grounded in the concept of 'fetal pain' or even 'partial-birth abortion' bans that rest on the conclusion that this particular technique of late-term abortion is never medically indicated.
Another interesting angle to the story is the differing agendas of the legislators and the activists. The pro-life activists appear to be terribly disappointed that the bill is not going to go forward. The (Republican) legislators, on the other hand, perhaps reading the national mood and interpreting the results of the 2012 election cycle, appear to want to dial back on reproductive politics-related issues for now. What does the Republican President of the Senate want?
Associated Press article published in The Washington Post (November 27, 2012): Ohio Senate puts end to bill that would have banned abortions after 1st fetal heartbeat
Article in The Hill (November 27, 2012): Anti-abortion rights groups slam McCain
That is the right move. The law had no chance of being upheld as constitutional. From the time of the Roe era, pro-life groups have been trying to use scientific evidence of the humanity of the unborn to restrict abortion, and it has largely been a failure, in particular when used to justify near-total bans on abortion. As I discussed in my own dissertation, the 'humanity' of the unborn is one consideration but not the primary or major consideration regarding abortion rights or restrictions. To point that out drives pro-life activists crazy and sounds terribly unfeeling toward the unborn. Still, that is the way the law has been structured and interpreted, and the many consequences (intended and unintended) that would result from changing the paradigm have kept judges cautious.
The 'scientific evidence' tactic might work better when attached to legislation that attempts to nip at the edges of abortion rights, like bills grounded in the concept of 'fetal pain' or even 'partial-birth abortion' bans that rest on the conclusion that this particular technique of late-term abortion is never medically indicated.
Another interesting angle to the story is the differing agendas of the legislators and the activists. The pro-life activists appear to be terribly disappointed that the bill is not going to go forward. The (Republican) legislators, on the other hand, perhaps reading the national mood and interpreting the results of the 2012 election cycle, appear to want to dial back on reproductive politics-related issues for now. What does the Republican President of the Senate want?
“I want to continue our focus on jobs and the economy,” Niehaus told reporters. “That’s what people are concerned about.” (Source: The Washington Post)Note also U.S. Senator John McCain's recent comment that, when it comes to abortion, Republicans should "leave the issue alone"-- and the pro-life movement reaction:
The Susan B. Anthony (SBA) List and Personhood USA, both groups that oppose abortion rights, attacked McCain after he spoke about the issue on "Fox News Sunday."
...
On Tuesday, the SBA List called on McCain to rethink his comment in light of his stated opposition to abortion rights.
"He should figure out why he decided to take that position [to oppose abortion rights] in the first place," said SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser.Links:...
Personhood USA took a more direct tact in an earlier statement, calling on the GOP to "drop" its former presidential candidate over his desire for a de facto truce on abortion.
"We will never be successful if we compromise," said Jennifer Mason, the group's communications director. (Source: The Hill)
Associated Press article published in The Washington Post (November 27, 2012): Ohio Senate puts end to bill that would have banned abortions after 1st fetal heartbeat
Article in The Hill (November 27, 2012): Anti-abortion rights groups slam McCain
Comments