Heavier-than-normal turnout is expected Wednesday as early voting begins in Ohio’s closely watched off-year election to decide the future of abortion access and marijuana legalization in the state.
Of greatest interest nationally is Issue 1, a proposed constitutional amendment giving every person “the right to make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions.” The effort comes on the heels of a string of victories for abortion rights proponents around the country who have been winning in both Democratic and deeply Republican states since the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion was overturned.
Both sides tried to gin up enthusiasm over the past week as they hosted rallies and canvassing events across the state.
Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights, the yes campaign, emphasizes the measure’s ability to keep Ohio’s ban on most abortions after fetal cardiac activity is detected from taking effect. A judge’s order has placed the 2019 law on hold, but the Ohio Supreme Court is considering whether to lift that stay.
Can anyone explain why fetal cardiac activity is an appropriate delimiter?
It’s not. It’s a disingenuous way to enact early abortion bans that targets people’s emotions, but is meaningless from a healthcare perspective. We don’t treat heartbeat as the ultimate arbiter of “life” in fully grown adults; we use brain function.
If we want to apply a similar standard for determining the cutoff for elective abortions, it’s more complicated because the fetal brain assembles itself slowly. Hearing starts to become intact some time in the late second trimester, but the capacity to experience pain doesn’t develop until after viability (the point in development when a fetus can be sustained medically outside the womb.)
https://www.acog.org/advocacy/facts-are-important/gestational-development-capacity-for-pain
Even using those potential physiological markers can’t be relied on to enact a full permanent ban without exceptions because a fetus can develop defects that are incompatible with life, such as severe hydrocephalus or anencephaly, which complicate the process of gestation and birth in such a way that a late term abortion may be medically appropriate considering the fetus will not develop the ability to live independently outside the womb anyway.
And the real kicker here: Doctors are already very good at making these kinds of nuanced distinctions and making decisions in consultation with their pregnant patients and their families. We do not need legal regulation to do what medical ethics regulations already do very well.
Amazingly well-said and reasoned
Also, determining viability isn’t so cut and dry.
It’s only a good delimiter if you want to prevent women from exercising their bodily autonomy.
No.
Not without waving at a book written by guys who thought bronze tools were high-tech.
(A book that says first breath, not first heartbeat, means someone is alive. But it’s not like they read it.)