Yeah, no way that’s being enforced on powerful men.
If it’s defined by gestational age though, that is self-reported.
The Iowa law does not say “six weeks”. It says:
“Fetal heartbeat” means cardiac activity, the steady and
repetitive rhythmic contraction of the fetal heart within the
gestational sac.
and
in testing for a fetal heartbeat, the physician shall perform an abdominal ultrasound …
Opponents say that there is no “heart” at that stage. It is just a clump of undifferentiated cells that will eventually develop into a heart. The untrasound is not picking up any noise, like we imagine with a doctor using a stethoscope.
Yeah, when things get bad, you can always go to Cancun.
3 Likes
The fetal heartbeat laws are just another way to force a super early decision under language disguised to sound like you are killing actual babies if you oppose it.
1 Like
Ah, so not defined by gestational age.
The heartbeat thing is a can of worms though. Does the heart start beating at six weeks or is that simply the earliest it can be detected … using current technology? And if the latter, what happens when the technology improves?
We literally had a Supreme Court decisiom talking about the “domestic supply of infants.”
3 Likes
It’s not a heartbeat. It’s electrical current in cells that will eventually become the heart.
4 Likes
And it can already be detected pretty much as soon as it begins happening. Which is well before there is a form that looks at all human. Certainly well before anything resembling a brain.
1 Like
I wonder if a plank in Pence’s presidential run would involve sex being for procreation only, and something that should be done through a hole in a sheet separating the parents-to-be.
Lol
In Ohio, there is a special election being held in August where the only thing to vote on is a measure to make it harder to amend the state constitution. The goal behind the measure is that Republicans want to prevent an amendment enshrining abortion rights, and they are holding it as a single issue special election b/c usually Republican turnout > Democratic turnout for such an election. This is obviously expensive, but who cares about fiscal responsibility.
Anyways, seems like people are pissed off and this might not work.
3 Likes
I hope this goes as well as it did when they tried something similar last year here in Kansas. I didn’t really know what to expect, but Kansas voted 59% to 41% to protect abortion. If Kansas can do it, I hope Ohio can do it.
Yes, but note the subtle difference: the current Ohio vote, in an election where likely few will vote, is not officially about abortion. Then if the measure passes in August, 59% of the Ohio voters later voted to protect abortion in the state constitution, that wouldn’t be enough.
1 Like
Honestly, amending the state constitution probably should require more than a 50% majority vote.
But if this August measure passes what percentage would be required?
If they made the Constitution harder to amend and then got abortion constitutionally protected anyway, that would be a great outcome. And one that would be hard to undo, since a simple 50.01% wouldn’t cut it.
Oh, looked it up. 60%
That actually sounds like a winner to me. Ohio is turning from purple to red, but it’s a lot bluer than Kansas. If Kansas can get 59%, Ohio should be able to get 60%.
I’m pretty conservative for a pro-choicer and I thought the proposed legislation was very reasonable. I bet they could get 60% on that, and if they did it would be virtually impossible to unwind if it also took 60% to undo it.
True, but amending the state constitution probably should only be done in a general election, not a special election.
2 Likes
Fair… I agree with that point.
Even if this change to what is required to amend the state constitution is not itself a constitutional amendment, it should not have been in a special election.
The reason why there is a special election in August is b/c abortion protection is on the ballot in November and they want to change the rules specifically for that vote.
The proposition also doubles the number of counties in which you need over 5% of the active vote in petition signatures (active vote = voted in last gubernatorial election), and it removes the ability to get new signatures to replace those that are thrown out. For an idea of the current signature requirement, this is a picture of the signatures being delivered for the November’s abortion ballot initiative:
2 Likes