Ohio's Proposed Heartbeat Bill

By Sarah Mann

The issue of abortion rights has been at a new height over the past few weeks. Abortion rights activism has been one of the leading social issues of our generation and recently in Ohio there has been a new twist in the potential for state restriction of this federal right.

House bill 125 or the “heartbeat bill” was set forth by Ohio Republican Rep. Lynn Wachtmann in February to ban abortions once a heartbeat is detectable on an ultrasound.  As of right now there is no specific timeline regarding how many days along a woman must be in her pregnancybefore this restriction might take place, but it is known that as early as 18 days a fetal heartbeat can be detected.

Since 1973, the Roe v. Wade case decision brought legal abortion to all women in the United States, and this heartbeat bill is by far the most aggressive challenge since its passage.       

Prior to researching more about abortion laws and rights, I have to admit I was a bit confused as to how legislators in Ohio could essentially overturn this 1973 Supreme Court decision to legalize abortions.  Then I realized it was because they justified this bill as a restriction to an abortion. 

Although abortions are technically legal in all 50 states, many states have made them more difficult to obtain than others. Many states have demanded mandatory ultrasounds, parental consent if underage and even a 72 hour waiting period prior to an abortion, but no restriction as gone as far as Ohio.

During the case on March 2, two Ohio women, both supporters of the bill, took the stand and had ultrasounds preformed on their 9 week and 15 week old fetuses. Controversy over the depiction of these women who are suppose to, in effect, represent all women in Ohio, was conveyed by Kellie Copeland, spokesperson for NARAL Pro-Choice in Ohio.

"They were used as props, and women are not props. Women are citizens and we deserve the right to protect or have them to make their own decisions.  I don't think Lynn Wachtmann or anybody else should be able to make decisions for every woman which is exactly what they're trying to do."

Since Republicans control all aspects of Ohio state's government, it is likely that this bill will in fact pass.  The United States Supreme Courtonce again has a conservative edge with John Roberts as its Chief Justice.  If the Ohio law were to be appealed to the Supreme Court, it may be upheld.   

When looking into any critical social controversy I like to look to both sides and see why people see things so differently.  And when watching a video on www.heartbeatbill.com, a woman emphatically asks for support on the bill and discusses the need for defenders for unborn fetuses.

 What I have interpreted from many pro-life activists is that it’s pro-life v. pro-abortion, and I don’t believe this is really the case.

 I consider myself pro-choice, not because I agree with the procedure of abortion, but with the choice its gives us.  The bottom line, for me anyways, is that there simply has to be the option, the choice, the opportunity because if that’s taken away from us we all know the procedures certainly won’t stop, they will just get dangerous and unsafe.

I believe this is what all the pro-life activists aren’t addressing.  That is the real issue.  It’s not that I, as a pro-choice supporter, believe that terminating a pregnancy is good or ok, but I understand that taking away the option to abort a fetus will only lead back to the dangerous road of back alley abortions and unsafe conditions.

For an update, check out the Jezebel article!

Roe V. Wade Economics

By Kate Finegold

Roe v. Wade, a landmark Supreme Court case from 1973 that made abortions legal in the U.S., has most definitely brought about pivotal improvements in the lives of women. Some of which are more obvious than others. By declaring that abortion is included in a woman’s guarantee of privacy under the 14^th Amendment, the abortion procedure was brought into the public arena to be regulated and standardized, making it less risky for women and also not as taboo a subject. Now that women can go to a licensed doctor and have their operation in a sterile hospital room, instead of being forced to seek out a “back alley butcher”, the complications and deaths associated with abortions has dropped to just below 0.3%. Before Roe v. Wade, 50% of maternal deaths were a result of illegal abortions. Now, abortion is 11 times safer than giving birth, a statistic that really drove home for me how important to women’s safety legalizing abortion has been (for more statistics, go to NOW).

Other societal benefits that can be attributed to the Roe v. Wade ruling are less apparent. Economist Steven Levitt believes that the legalization of abortion in the 70’s led to the substantial crime drop that occurred in the 1990s. Crime rates in the eighties were on the rise, and most people expected another spike to occur in the following decade. But what happened instead was a 30% decrease. Explanations for the sudden change included more innovation policing methods, harsher sentencing of criminals, a crack-down on the crack market, tighter gun control, a strong stable economy and more police. But based on Levitt’s calculations, these factors only contributed to half of the decrease in crime. What other explanation could there be? Abortion. If it wasn’t an option for parents not ready to start families, there would be a lot more children born into the world whose parents weren’t in a position to give them the proper care and attention. The first wave of unplanned for kids born in the seventies would be the prime age for crime in the nineties, but since they were never born, crimes they may have grown up to have committed didn’t happen. Thus the drop in overall crime activity, according to Levitt.

When I at first watched a FreakEnomics YouTube video about Levitt’s findings, I wasn’t buying it. In the heated debate still surrounding abortion, Levitt’s argument would definitely add ammo to the pro-choice side. Because let’s be honest, politicians, and most people for that matter, care most about and focus most on money. So an argument that shows that we could save dollars on law enforcement by having people police themselves with abortions could persuade a lot of folks to join the pro-choice side. While such an argument is indeed persuasive, is it true? I remember from a former statistics class to be wary that apparent correlation does not always mean causation. It seemed so far-fetched to me that I thought it was a farce, but then I researched the various effects of Roe v. Wade and what Levitt is saying began to make a lot more sense.

Children born to families that planned on having them are usually raised in a more caring environment. Mothers with unwanted births have a harder time forming a healthy relationship with their child; they spank and slap their children more often, according to a study posted on Planned Parenthood’s website. In addition, children born after 1973 in states that are pro-choice are less likely to be born in single-parent households, live in poverty or receive welfare. Hence, the option for legal, safe abortion that Roe v. Wade has made possible gives women the freedom to choose when they are ready to start a family, and when they are in the best position in their lives to do so. Although it is sad to think about children being neglected and mistreated because they weren’t “wanted”, it is more uplifting to think that less children are being born into this situation since the legalization of abortion, and that our entire society is benefiting from this in the form of less crime. 

Planned Parenthood Federal Funding Removed

By Taure Shimp

Planned Parenthood serves as an indispensable resource for millions of women and men each year, offering access to STD testing, breast and testicular cancer screenings, emergency contraception, sex education and abortions. However, the House of Representatives recently passed a measure which will pull federal funding from Planned Parenthood.

Indiana Republican Mike Pence is the driving force behind this movement and he has made abortion the key issue. In an opinion piece at The Daily Caller, Pence writes, “The Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act would close the loophole that has forced millions of pro-life Americans to subsidize the nation’s leading abortion provider, sustaining and underwriting the destruction of innocent human life that has been carried out on a massive scale by Planned Parenthood.” However, by law, Planned Parenthood doesn’t receive money from Title X funds for abortion services in the first place. Taxpayers aren’t paying for Planned Parenthood to perform abortions. Furthermore, abortion constitutes less than 5% of the overall services Planned Parenthood offers and yet, outrageously, this act restricts all federal funding from going to Planned Parenthood, including funding which allows them to test for STDs, perform breast exams, and offer contraceptives.

What this legislation really does is relegate women to second-class citizens, where our health and our bodies are denied support from the very government that is supposed to represent us. Now, Planned Parenthood will be forced to generate all of their own funding the services they offer to women and men will not be available to the same extent. Planned Parenthood states, “The reality of Rep. Mike Pence’s bill is that millions of women who rely on Planned Parenthood health centers for their primary and preventive health care, including annual exams, lifesaving cancer screenings, contraception visits, and testing and treatment for STDs, would lose access to their main source of basic preventive health care.”

To sign a petition in order to help Planned Parenthood and send this to your local representative, click on this link here. No donation is required, but names are very much needed and appreciated during this time. 

For more information on this issue, check out these links:

1.      Feministing
2.      Bitch Media
3.      Planned Parenthood
4.      The Daily What