Green Room

Ohio House Bans Abortion… in a heartbeat!

posted at 1:53 pm on June 29, 2011 by

Is Ohio becoming the most pro-life state in the union?

According to this report it seems darned certain to be trying. Reuters reports that the ban goes into place once a fetal heartbeat is detectable.

Fetal heartbeats have been detected as early as five weeks into a pregnancy, though most are consistently screened for at six weeks. In essence this ban eliminates any partial birth abortions, and of course that Satanic practice that President Obama voted in favor of FOUR TIMES in his home state called “Born Alive Abortions.” (In essence infanticide caused by neglect. You know babies dying in soiled utility closets and all…)

Compare the pro-life environment (all stemming from Ohio’s legislature actions) as opposed to the Planned Parenthood issues of Indiana and it might just be the new mid-west capital and champion for the lives of unborn children.

Critics point out that the Ohio legislation doesn’t include exceptions for rape, incest, or life of the mother.

And why should they?

Is it the child’s fault that he/she was created out of such horrific circumstances?

The bottom line is always about the HUMANNESS of the child, which always seem to somehow go unnoticed. We’re pretty good at understanding or stressing the “rights of the mother.”

And that always leaves me scratching my head wondering, who does protect the most innocent and vulnerable amongst us?

And as a conservative it pains me to admit that in this instance, it appears to be, the government… in the state of Ohio at least.

 

I’m Kevin McCullough, and that’s how I “Binge Think.”

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Sanity from the heartland.

Joe Mama on June 29, 2011 at 2:58 PM

Praise the Lord, our Father in Heaven!

Dominion on June 29, 2011 at 4:00 PM

Hey, that is great news!

tinkerthinker on June 29, 2011 at 4:01 PM

Don’t agree with the total ban, but if you wanna stop abortions, it’s gonna happen at the state level.

Uncle Sams Nephew on June 29, 2011 at 4:25 PM

And the justice department will file suit against this the very day it is passed, just like everything else in the states where it goes against the progressive mantra.

karenhasfreedom on June 29, 2011 at 5:13 PM

I’m sure if it passes in to law there will be a lawsuit and it will be overturned.

tomas on June 29, 2011 at 7:13 PM

The Conservative North Carolina Legislature passed a measure making abortions a bit harder to seek: House Bill 854, a measure requiring a waiting period, an ultrasound, and state-mandated counseling before abortion.

The Act was vetoed by the female Lib Democrat Governor Beverly Perdue.

BigAlSouth on June 29, 2011 at 7:49 PM

Is it the child’s fault that he/she was created out of such horrific circumstances?

Is it the woman’s fault her pregnancy went awry and that an abortion is necessary to save her own life?

I’m glad the Republicans are finally expressing their view of women as mere vessels more openly now.

AJB on June 29, 2011 at 8:41 PM

I’m glad the Republicans are finally expressing their view of women as mere vessels more openly now.

AJB on June 29, 2011 at 8:41 PM

Why do liberals always assume that because we care for one life we don’t care for the other life as well? Let me be clear… we care for BOTH lives and see value in BOTH lives.

dominigan on June 29, 2011 at 9:37 PM

Hallelujah!!!

AH_C on June 29, 2011 at 11:06 PM

Is it the woman’s fault her pregnancy went awry and that an abortion is necessary to save her own life?

I’m glad the Republicans are finally expressing their view of women as mere vessels more openly now.

AJB on June 29, 2011 at 8:41 PM

That’s a canard!!! Name one case where a mother’s life was in such danger, she needed an abortion? There’s a reason why c-sections are used. I know a woman who would have died 3 times over, but she would never, ever consider aborting to save her life even if c-sections didn’t exist.

AH_C on June 29, 2011 at 11:10 PM

I’m glad the Republicans are finally expressing their view of women as mere vessels more openly now.

AJB on June 29, 2011 at 8:41 PM

Mmm, I love me some projection-thinking! “Conservatives = monsters, so conservatives attempting to save life of baby = conservatives trying to kill mother.” How can liberalism still not be classified as a mental disorder?

Living4Him5534 on June 30, 2011 at 12:33 AM

I hate, hate, hate abortion. How anyone can think it’s a necessary procedure in any fashion is beyond my cranial capabilities.

uknowmorethanme on June 30, 2011 at 7:12 AM

Women are no more mere vessels than babies are mere masses of tissue.

perries on June 30, 2011 at 10:24 AM

How many times have we heard about or read about doctors trying valiantly to save someone’s life but find they can’t restart that person’s heart? That’s when the doctors call time of death: when a person’s heart would no longer beat.

So we know life ends when the heart stops beating. So we can conclude that life begins when the heart starts beating. It’s that simple.

Kim Priestap on June 30, 2011 at 1:31 PM

I can understand a medical necessary to save a mothers life, or rape and incest.
But using abortion as ‘birth control’ is what’s being done.
It’s just not right to kill a person because you’re too lazy to take pills or wear a condom.
It’s time to make the statement, “Abortion is not an approved birth-control method.”

docjohn52 on June 30, 2011 at 1:31 PM

God bless Ohio! If only the winters weren’t so cold!!!!

Come on, Tennessee!!!

AJB on June 29, 2011 at 8:41 PM

docjohn52 on June 30, 2011 at 1:31 PM

When the life of the mother is truly threatened by her pregnancy, if both lives cannot simultaneously be saved, then saving the mother’s life must be the primary aim. If through our careful treatment of the mother’s illness the pre-born patient inadvertently dies or is injured, this is tragic and, if unintentional, is not unethical and is consistent with the pro-life ethic. But the intentional killing of an unborn baby by abortion is never necessary.

Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal disease such as cancer or leukemia, and if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save the life of the mother.
-Alan Guttmacher, former Planned Parenthood president

Don’t fall for the lies pro-aborts use to get the sympathy vote.

Kim Priestap on June 30, 2011 at 1:31 PM

Actually, life begins at conception.

pannw on June 30, 2011 at 4:28 PM

Actually, life begins at conception.

pannw on June 30, 2011 at 4:28 PM

\

Life begins when there is both a heartbeat and brain activity, which is still VERY early on in pregnancy. Too bad we can’t use that definition instead of the feel-good one used by fundies.

Uncle Sams Nephew on June 30, 2011 at 10:14 PM

Uncle Sams Nephew on June 30, 2011 at 10:14 PM

Oh, thank you for clearing that up. Here I was only taking the word of all the honest medical/biological/scientific communities/textbooks/evidence. Sheesh, don’t I feel foolish? /

I think you mean that in your opinion the life is worthy of recognition or something when it reaches your arbitrary milestones. Science proves that life begins at conception. From that moment, it is a growing unique human life with it’s complete genetic makeup/sex. Have you ever seen Nova’s The Miracle of Life? You should watch it. It’s really fascinating and informative, and the folks at Nova aren’t a bunch of feel good fundies. They weren’t just coming up with a definition they felt good about. They were searching for truth.

pannw on June 30, 2011 at 11:24 PM

Pannw,

At conception the life of the cells is evident (otherwise they would not multiply.) The evidence that they are human is indisputable. (DNA proves it.)

Therefore HUMAN LIFE, begins at conception is a true statement both in the conscience of genuinely compassionate people, as well as the scientific method.

Just sayin…

Kevin McCullough on July 1, 2011 at 9:36 AM

This post has been promoted to HotAir.com.

Comments have been closed on this post but the discussion continues here.

Ed Morrissey on July 2, 2011 at 1:10 PM

Kevin McCullough on July 1, 2011 at 9:36 AM

Umm…am I missing something? You address that as if you are correcting me, but you said exactly what I posted…

I’m confused. I think you were talking to the people I was arguing with. :)

pannw on July 2, 2011 at 3:49 PM