- checking login information
Loading...Listening To Heartbeat May Soon Be An Abortion Requirement In Every State
It’s not unusual that once a state has tested out trying a new restriction for obtaining an abortion and the restriction passes, it will pop up soon after in multiple states. Anti-abortion groups like Americans United for Life pull together draft legislation for a state that can work as a boilerplate for other legislatures, a sort of cut and paste approach to encroaching on a woman’s right to choose.
Usually, though, when a law is about to get a national, 50 state push, they don’t pick one that has already been declared unconstitutional.
According to ABC News, the next legislative session could very well be the year of the “Heartbeat Bill” in every state in the country. “A nationwide coalition of anti-abortion groups said Wednesday it is preparing to push legislation in all 50 states requiring that pregnant women see and hear the fetal heartbeat before having an abortion,” the station reports, with one activist adding, “We know it can withstand a judicial challenge.”
There’s only one problem — it can’t. As Texas proved recently when it tried to pass the same bill, it violates a woman’s first amendment rights to force her to listen to the fetal heartbeat, Federal Judge Sam Sparks ruled. And the Supreme Court refused to hear the case.
Pushing possibly unconstitutional law to trying and get it heard by the Supreme Court is one thing. But focusing on legislation that has already been turned down for review by the highest court in the land?
Looks like if the Justices won’t rule, the anti-choice movement is going to force their hand with endless challenges until they are simply forced to weigh in.
Related Stories:
Bachmann Proposes “Heartbeat Informed Consent Act” To Win Presidential Support
Ultrasounds Done Testifying, Now They’ve Turned to Protesting
Read more: abortion, abortion restrictions, anti choice, heartbeat, pro-choice, reproductive rights
Photo credit: wikimedia commons
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may
not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.
Recent Comments from Causes
How tragic and incredibly bitter and twisted are the parents of the 15-year-old? That poor girl to have…
Thanks for this interesting article.
One does have the option of taking some of the large portions home for later. However, when it comes…
meet our writers
361 comments
+ add your ownUrge Your Lawmaker to Vote No on "Let Women Die" Bill
On October 13, 2011, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R.358, an extreme anti-choice bill.
Now, at least 46 anti-choice U.S. senators stand ready to move the War on Women forward in the Senate.
Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah has already introduced the Senate companion to H.R.358, the “Let Women Die” bill – and it has more than 30 cosponsors. It would allow a hospital to refuse a woman lifesaving, emergency abortion care even if she will die without it. On top of that, it effectively would ban insurance coverage of abortion in state health-insurance exchanges, denying abortion coverage to millions of women.
We must stop Sen. Hatch’s bill, S.877. Call on your senators to stop this anti-choice attack from advancing.
H.R. 358 would ban abortion coverage for millions of women across the country and allow health care providers, including hospitals, to refuse a woman emergency abortion services, even if she would die without it.
Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/house-passes-let-women-die-act.html#ixzz1bntqs6pP
Vernon, if you read the text of the "Let Women Die" bill that PASSED the House of Representatives and has a 60-40 vote set up to pass the Senate, its purpose is to give extra money to hospitals that turn away ANY woman seeking an abortion for ANY reason. Why criticize me?
Jen
Every passage you quote speak of abortion if the woman's life is in danger. I said several times that I agree with that.
Also, it is obvious that abortions will never be banned totally as you are suggesting will happen if Roe vs Wade is reversed. There will never be a "No abortion ever" policy. You should know that. What is being proposed is that anyone who wants an abortion will have to give reasonable cause. Reasonable cause can be so many things. Obviously rape, & danger to mother & all that are reasonable causes. I guess that even proverty will be a factor.
Wonky computer. Sorry for the repeat...to continue....
The Mishnah elsewhere states: “If a pregnant woman is taken out to be executed, one does not wait for her to give birth; but if her pains of parturition have already begun [lit. she has already sat on the birth stool], one waits for her until she gives birth.” One does not delay the execution of the mother in order to save the life of the fetus because the fetus is not yet a person (Heb. nefesh),
Vernon, I was moved to respond to your comment about how we need more responsibility in abortion, but we don't know who is who. The current bills being debated are about denying abortions to ANY woman for ANY reason (a complete reversal of Roe vs. Wade) can you sign on to "If a pregnant female can prove severe medical or rape necessity via documentation from a doctor or law enforcement, she can be granted an abortion?" as opposed to "No abortions ever for any reason?"
A pertinent scriptural passage is Leviticus 24:17, where it states: “And he that smiteth any person mortally shall surely be put to death.” However, an unborn fetus is not considered a person or nefesh and, therefore, its destruction does not incur the death penalty.
Turning to talmudic sources, the Mishnah asserts the following: “If a woman is having difficulty in giving birth [and her life is in danger], one cuts up the fetus within her womb and extracts it limb by limb, because her life takes precedence over that of the fetus. But if the greater part was already born, one may not touch it, for one may not set aside one person’s life for that of another.”
Rabbi Yom Tov Lippman Heller, known as Tosafot Yom Tov, in his commentary on this passage in the Mishnah, explains that the fetus is not considered a nefesh until it has egressed into the air of the world and, therefore, one is permitted to destroy it to save the mother’s life. Similar reasoning is found in Rashi’s commentary on the talmudic discussion of this mishnaic passage, where Rashi states that as long as the child has not come out into the world, it is not called a living being, i.e., nefesh. Once the head of the child has come out, the child may not be harmed because it is considered as fully born, and one life may not be taken to save another.
The Mishnah elsewhere states: “If a pregnant woman is taken out to be executed, one does not wait for her to give birth; bu
A pertinent scriptural passage is Leviticus 24:17, where it states: “And he that smiteth any person mortally shall surely be put to death.” However, an unborn fetus is not considered a person or nefesh and, therefore, its destruction does not incur the death penalty.
Turning to talmudic sources, the Mishnah asserts the following: “If a woman is having difficulty in giving birth [and her life is in danger], one cuts up the fetus within her womb and extracts it limb by limb, because her life takes precedence over that of the fetus. But if the greater part was already born, one may not touch it, for one may not set aside one person’s life for that of another.”
Rabbi Yom Tov Lippman Heller, known as Tosafot Yom Tov, in his commentary on this passage in the Mishnah, explains that the fetus is not considered a nefesh until it has egressed into the air of the world and, therefore, one is permitted to destroy it to save the mother’s life. Similar reasoning is found in Rashi’s commentary on the talmudic discussion of this mishnaic passage, where Rashi states that as long as the child has not come out into the world, it is not called a living being, i.e., nefesh. Once the head of the child has come out, the child may not be harmed because it is considered as fully born, and one life may not be taken to save another.
The Mishnah elsewhere states: “If a pregnant woman is taken out to be executed, one does not wait for her to give birth; bu
I believe that it's a good thing. Maybe then the woman seeking an abortion will see the reality of the situation. A heartbeat is a definate indication of life, and no one has the right to take one but God. It's murder in the first. You, me and everyone on this planet is alive today and we all started out with a heartbeat. Would you want to have been aborted??????? Think about it.
CONTD
The answer is no! The foetus has its own separate & distinct energy source. It is not dependant on its mother for the energy of LIFE. It is just dependant on its mother for DEVELOPMENT of its BODY, just like any child is.
Your heart is the energy that energizes our bodies. Once there is a heartbeat, there is life no matter what stage of life or death you are at.
Heather
I agree with you. I know that we cannot stop ALL abortions but I just believe that there should be more responsibility with this entire issue, & that more control need to be in place. As I said before there are many honorable & wonderful women who will have abortions because of the right reasons. But there are also many wome out there who will just dont care at all & will do it to spite men. Problem is that we dont know who is who.
Robert
No scientist or doctor can tell you what really causes life, what it really is & were it comes from. They can only say that it is there & that it is an energy that infuses & animates a body at rest. So we know that life is an energy that infuses & animates the body. This is important because this says when life begins. Obviously life begins when the body becomes energized & infused with energy.
So how do we know when any body at rest becomes energized or infused, whether it is a toy, a machine...or a foetus?
The answer is that it moves. And independent movement means independent life, ergo, a separate living, energized entity.
So the answer to when a foetus is alive is obviously when the foetus becomes energized with its own source of energy separate & distinct from the mother. Independently energized.
But how should this energy be translated? Must it only be when the foetus is able to eat, drink & walk & jump & dance ON ITS OWN? What is it that really energizes the body? When a person is unconscious how do we know that he is not dead? How about when he is in a coma?
Is it the brain? Is it the stomach or the hands or the feet...or the mouth? Hmmmm...is it your mother?
Women believe that the foetus is part of their body & they should be able to do what they like with it. But is the woman really in control of the foetus? Is she the source of its energy? Is her energy source shared between the two?
The ans
login to add your comment
use your care2 login
add your comment