Ohio House approves abortion ban after heartbeat

COLUMBUS Tue Jun 28, 2011 7:56pm EDT

Related Topics

COLUMBUS (Reuters) - The Ohio House of Representatives on Tuesday voted to ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detectable, which can be as early as six weeks.

The House voted 54 to 43 for the ban, along party lines, with most Republicans voting in favor.

If enacted, the law would be a challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling which upheld a woman's right to an abortion until the fetus is viable outside the womb, usually at 22-24 weeks.

Republican Ohio House Speaker William Batchelder said he knows this bill will face a court challenge.

"We're writing bills for courts," he said.

The bill now goes to the Republican-dominated Ohio Senate.

The Ohio House also passed two other abortion restrictions Tuesday, one that would ban late-term abortions after 20 weeks if a doctor determines that the fetus is viable outside the womb. Another bill excludes abortion coverage from the state insurance exchange created by the federal health care law.

The late-term ban already was passed by the Ohio Senate.

Neither bill was as contentious as the heartbeat legislation, which does not contain exceptions for rape, incest or the life or health of the mother.

Republican Representative Danny Bubp said the bill is the will of the voters. He noted that Republicans, who tend to favor anti-abortion laws, became the majority in the state house last November.

"We have to reflect on what Ohio did on November 2nd of last year," said Bubp. "And that is they voted. And they voted for change. Today, we have three pro-life bills on the floor and I'm happy about that."

Democrats in the Ohio House said the heartbeat bill goes too far.

"This bill gives the government the ultimate power, the ultimate power to intrude upon the most personal and intimate decisions of our lives, of women's lives, frankly," said Rep. Connie Pillich.

Ohio Right to Life also has expressed concerns about the heartbeat bill. The organization said the bill is unconstitutional and believes it is not wise to spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayer's dollars defending it.

(Reporting by Jo Ingles; Writing by Mary Wisniewski; Editing by Jerry Norton and Peter Bohan)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (7)
tpartier wrote:
This is insane, of course, and a distraction to keep the religiously twisted enamored with those who give a rat’s behind about them on so many other things.

Indeed, Jefferson, Paine, Franklin, Adams and Madison would all be so deeply depressed at how the morons and gutless of the world today have gained such traction that laws are skewed by religious zealots. The very thing they were most ardently against.

Jun 28, 2011 7:02pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Good thing these Republicans are concerned about very, very, very young people. Now let’s see this state congress do something to create jobs, tax efficiently, and properly fund infrastructure and education.

Jun 28, 2011 10:23pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Marla wrote:
So more doctors will be performing “D&C’s,” for “excessive menstrual” bleeding. Don’t think this will for one minute keep a woman who wants an abortion, from getting one. My goodness, I wish people would stop enacting laws that take away a woman’s right to choose. I’m not pro-abortion, but I am pro-choice. It shouldn’t be up to anyone, but the woman involved.

Jun 28, 2011 10:50pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.