Repro Wrap: Re-Runs Already? New Abortion Bills Look a Lot Like Old Ones

Well, it must be almost Valentine’s Day. How do I know? Ohio is getting ready for another heartbeat ban battle. For two consecutive legislative sessions the abortion ban has failed to make it to a full senate vote. Republican Senators who haven’t been supportive of the ban are being targeted in primaries, and with Valentine’s Day around the corner, one can expect some sort of traditional heart or flower-based floor shenanigan in support of a new bill. If it is roses, they’d better get in line, though, since Oklahoma anti-choice activists claimed the “rose as pro-life prop at the capitol“ mantle first.

Meanwhile, Ohio has also been considering a number of adoption “reforms,” most of which seem to be more interested in ensuring adopting families receive lots of financial and legal support while pregnant people lose resources. But one “reform” that everyone can probably agree on? A law against “re-homing” adopted children. It’s the least that can be done, especially as the “reforms” they are proposing are the sort that lead to free-for-all adoption in the first place.

Speaking of bills that come back over and over again, Washington state is engaging in its annual attempt to pass a Women’s Reproductive Parity Act, a bill that would require insurance companies that pay for maternity care to also cover abortion services. Like usual, the bill looks destined to die in the Senate. Kentucky is also doing its annual attempt to pass a mandatory ultrasound and 24 hour waiting period bill. It passed the Senate but is expected to get blocked in a House committee.

An attempt to ban telemed abortions in Iowa via the Board of Medicine got blocked by a judge, so lawmakers are trying again, this time through a legislative bill. Why won’t the legislators let it go? Because God. “My Creator, God, gave me a law-abiding focus on how I’m going to proceed on this,” said subcommittee Chairman Kevin Koester, R-Ankeny, prior to the committee meeting on the bill.

West Virginia, Mississippi, South Carolina all proposed 20 week bans on abortion this week, and the Oklahoma house proposed a bill to ensure abortion providers tell patients whose fetuses have fatal genetic anomalies that there are perinatal hospices if they would rather give birth. In Virginia, abortion rights advocates are trying to push through bills that will undo some of the restrictive abortion laws passed over the last few years, and a new attempt to use a city council to close an abortion clinic was rebuked. A South Dakota ban on “dismembering” during an abortion could potentially end all second trimester abortions in the state.

North Carolina’s governor said he had no interest in appealing a ruling saying the 2011 mandatory ultrasound law was unconstitutional, but the state’s Attorney General has decided to appeal it anyway. Missouri legislators want to micromanage women’s lives to the point where they are even debating how long they should breastfeed.

Those “emergency” abortion restriction rules that Louisiana attempted to pass are now all being put on the back burner, not just the “30 day wait” that had reproductive rights and civil rights advocates aghast. That means the state’s abortion clinics can stay open for now — until the next time they think no one is watching and try to shove them through again.

Ever wonder where all the signatures for those “grassroots” anti-choice ballot amendment petitions come from? Surprise, they are from Catholic churches. Oh, wait, not a surprise. Also not a surprise? Anti-choice protest organizers claim “half a million” came out to march against a relaxing of French abortion restrictions. News organizations say the number didn’t even reach 100,000. Then again, that’s near the amount that came out in Spain to rally against that country’s decision to restrict abortion even further, so maybe it evens out.

The Lean In foundation says this congresswoman is an inspiring feminist. Too bad she’s always voting against bills that actually help women, like reproductive rights and equal pay.

Finally, in good news, another study proves that HPV vaccines don’t lead to girls being more promiscuous. Go figure.

Photo credit: Thinkstock


Jim Ven
Jim Ven9 months ago


Jerome S
Jerome S9 months ago

thanks for sharing.

janice b.
jan b4 years ago

Who knows why mainly it's men who are obsessed with women's reproduction in DC. When they vote to cut food stamps that feed children and didn't even want children to have has to wonder....what are the motives anyway ?

pam w.
pam w4 years ago

Vasu...the issue is NOT ''when life begins." The issue is that women have the right to make these decisions BY themselves and FOR themselves.

You can argue that a TUMOR has ''life'' but nobody questions ending it. So, too, does an embryo have the POTENTIAL to become a human being....when it's capable of maintaining its ''life'' outside the maternal body.

Until should NEVER have special status or Constitutional protections or anything else which automatically puts ''second class'' status on the mother.

These are NOT the Christian or Hindu or Muslim or THEISTIC United States of America. And nobody else gets to decide whether or not I continue a pregnancy.

Not now...not ever.

Carole R.
Carole R4 years ago

We all have to make choices in life. Let US make them.

A F.
Athena F4 years ago

Stop the madness. Our bodies are our own.

Vasu M.
.4 years ago

Ron C., you write:

"Rights and freedoms cannot be taken away by majority vote..."

If rights can be granted by majority vote, can they be taken away as well? Through the amendment process we extended rights to the previously excluded and/or oppressed.

In previous centuries, Native Americans were killed for "sport," blacks were three-fifths of a person, slavery was legal, women were the property of their husbands, there was child labor, sweatshops, etc.

Why should rights and justice end with the human species?

If "rights and freedoms cannot be taken away by majority vote" then freedom to kill the unborn, like freedom to kill animals cannot be taken away, until we extend Constitutional rights to these excluded classes of beings.

In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court noted that the 14th Amendment (ironically the same amendment passed to abolish slavery) referred to persons as "citizens born or naturalized," and thus excluding the unborn. Abortion rights were established on a "technicality* and "cannot be taken away by majority vote" as you insist.

Vasu M.
.4 years ago

Ron C., you write:

"To all those groups that think it is okay to impose their values upon others... how would you like others forcing their values upon you?"

Agreed. Pro-choicers argue "no one knows" when life begins (actually, no one can agree on when human rights or personhood begins).

If that's true, then *any* ruling on abortion one way or the other will impose one people's morality upon another!

The abortion-rights crowd will be imposing their denial of rights to the unborn upon everyone else, whereas abortion opponents will be forcing prenatal rights upon others unwilling to extend rights to the unborn.

Ron C.
Ron C4 years ago

Rights and freedoms cannot be taken away by majority vote..that is the way it must be.
To all those groups that think it is okay to impose their values upon would you like if others could force you to get an abortion by forcing their values upon would you like if others forced you to eat meat because they dont believe it is right to be would you like if others banned your freedom of choice of see...if you think it is ok to force your values on others then it follows it is ok for others to do that to you.

Vasu M.
.4 years ago

No sincere believer in karma and reincarnation can take a stand against abortion without simultaneously taking a stand against the killing of animals.

If pro-lifers were told they're unknowingly or unwittingly doing business with a corporation that contributes to Planned Parenthood, and that they should stop doing business with that particular corporation, they would appreciate the friendly advice, and would change their course of action accordingly.

They would *not* childishly cry, "Never!"

So when pro-lifers are told abortion and war are the karma for killing animals, and that the reincarnationist strategy for ending abortion and war is that we cease to kill animals, why should they be offended?

You'll notice opponents of global hunger, global warming, the energy, environmental, population, and water crises aren't offended when told veganism (ceasing to kill animals) is the solution to each of their respective crises.

Pro-lifers show greater hostility when told not to kill animals than pro-choicers show when told not to kill the unborn! That kind of response is completely irrational! And it merely proves Pythagoras' words from 2,500 years ago:

"Those who kill animals for food will be more prone than vegetarians to torture and kill their fellow men."