Ohio Gov. Kasich Signs 20-Week Abortion Limit

[Gandalf]

Ohio Gov. John Kasich signed a 20-week gestation limit for abortions into law Tuesday, while separately vetoing a measure that would have banned abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detectable.

The so-called heartbeat bill, which Kasich rejected, was considered more vulnerable to legal challenge. Provisions of the measure would have essentially limited the period during which women could get an abortion to about six weeks, when many women don't even realize they're pregnant, reports the Associated Press.

Similar measures have faced legal challenges in other states, the news service goes on to say, a fact weighing heavily in Kasich's veto defense. Kasich, himself an abortion-rights opponent, noted bans in two other states had been declared unconstitutional.

"The State of Ohio will be the losing party in that lawsuit and, as the losing party, the State of Ohio will be forced to pay hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to cover the legal fees for the pro-choice activists' lawyers. Furthermore, such a defeat invites additional challenges to Ohio's strong legal protections for unborn life," the Republican governor said in a statement.

Fifteen other states have 20-week bans, the AP says.

Furthermore, unlike the so-called heartbeat ban, the 20-week ban had the support of the state's most prominent anti-abortion-rights group, who praised the governor for signing the legislation.

"The 20-week ban was nationally designed to be the vehicle to end abortion in America," said Ohio Right to Life in a statement.

Abortion-rights supporters were quick to decry both bans.

"[Kasich] may hope that by vetoing a six-week ban — which would have virtually banned abortion with almost no exceptions — he comes off as moderate," said Dawn Laguens of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. "The 20-week ban will force women to travel long distances and cross state lines in order to access safe, legal abortion."

Also on Tuesday, anti-abortion rules in Oklahoma underwent two drastically different fates Tuesday.

The state's Supreme Court threw out a law requiring hospital admitting privileges for doctors working at clinics that perform abortions. The challenge to the law came on behalf of Dr. Larry Burns, who, the AP reports, performs nearly half of all abortions in the state.

According to the news service, Burns had applied for admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, but was turned down.

Another ruling, from the Oklahoma Board of Health, mandated signs in public restrooms in hospitals, nursing homes, schools and even restaurants directing pregnant woman to services that could reduce their likelihood of seeking an abortion, the AP reports:

"The provision mandating the signs was tucked into a measure the Legislature passed this year that requires the state to develop informational material 'for the purpose of achieving an abortion-free society.'
"The board passed the rules Tuesday. Businesses and other organizations estimate they will have to pay $2.3 million to put up the signs because the Legislature approved no funding for them.
"Board attorney Donald Maisch says the Legislature and governor must ratify the board's signage rules before they are scheduled to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2018."

Looks like after getting whomped in the primaries while trying to look "moderate," Kasich isn't hiding his angry misogynist politics any more, presumably to the joy of his fans.

[bilateralrope]

What are the statistics regarding how many weeks into a pregnancy an abortion happens ?

[The Romulan Republic]

Just remember- John Kasich is what passes for a sane, ethical Republican in national American politics.

Let that sink in.

[His Divine Shadow]

I have to say 20 weeks doesn't sound extreme or anything to me. Same in Finland, from wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Finland
Reference to Valvira for review and decision is needed in all cases between 13-20 weeks; or when there are grounds that the fetus is abnormal (in which case the 20 weeks is extended to 24 weeks); or in any case where the doctor has given a negative decision. Above 20 weeks, a threat to the physical life of the mother is the only valid reason for terminating a pregnancy.

12 weeks in france and germany and UK 24 weeks.


TBH, this smacks of tribalist thought modes to me.

[Grumman]

Just remember- John Kasich is what passes for a sane, ethical Republican in national American politics.

Let that sink in.

He's not the crazy one. What's both insane and unethical is the inability to even comprehend why pro-life people might hold the position they do. If a baby can be born at 21 weeks, 5 days and grow up to be a healthy adult, it is neither insane or unethical to set the date at which a parent can have their healthy child killed on a whim before that date.

[Iroscato]

I'm not seeing the insanity - if anything this strikes me as a surprisingly effective compromise. Can anyone help me out here?

[AniThyng]

Just remember- John Kasich is what passes for a sane, ethical Republican in national American politics.

Let that sink in.

He's not the crazy one. What's both insane and unethical is the inability to even comprehend why pro-life people might hold the position they do. If a baby can be born at 21 weeks, 5 days and grow up to be a healthy adult, it is neither insane or unethical to set the date at which a parent can have their healthy child killed on a whim before that date.

"only with medical intervention", is the counter argument, i suppose?

[His Divine Shadow]

I'm not seeing the insanity - if anything this strikes me as a surprisingly effective compromise. Can anyone help me out here?

Like I said, it smacks of tribalism. It came from the republican side, ergo bad. That's what it looks like. And lets be honest, liberals are no more immune to it than right wingers.

[Broomstick]

Looks like after getting whomped in the primaries while trying to look "moderate," Kasich isn't hiding his angry misogynist politics any more, presumably to the joy of his fans.

Unless you're in the camp that insists a woman be able to abort up until the moment she goes into labor, 20 weeks is actually seen as a reasonable compromise by most pro-choice people. That's 5 months. Most women known if they're pregnant or not by then.

[His Divine Shadow]

I'd say, it's about twice as generous than what several European countries allows.

[Gandalf]

Just remember- John Kasich is what passes for a sane, ethical Republican in national American politics.

Let that sink in.

He's got quite the history.

I'm not seeing the insanity - if anything this strikes me as a surprisingly effective compromise. Can anyone help me out here?

A compromise between whom, exactly?

[Zaune]

It's also worth noting that he vetoed something a lot worse, so let's be grateful for small mercies. There aren't likely to be many large ones in the near future.

[Dragon Angel]

I am ... instinctively very uncomfortable with "but there could have been something much worse, so we should accept this 'reasonable compromise' and be happy with it" as a statement. You could then suggest any sort of destructive extreme position, create a new position only a little distance away from it, and go "But the alternative was worse! Just accept what we have given you, peasants!"

In fact I'm pretty sure this is one of the linchpins Hillary's candidacy relied on. That went well, did it.

And the Overton window moves ever so rightward, and we wonder why there is no functioning left in this country.

[Zaune]

I'm not saying you have to be happy with it. I'm just saying it could be worse.

[Alferd Packer]

Yeah, this is a shitty law, and not a compromise of any sort. Some fatal fetal defects aren't apparent until after 20 weeks--why should a woman be forced to carry to term and give birth to a stillborn baby or, worse yet, a baby who will only survive for a few minutes?

[Dragon Angel]

I'm not saying you have to be happy with it. I'm just saying it could be worse.

I know, but I'm remembering history where people had ultimate faith in Obama and the Democrats in Congress to make serious and needed changes to the government, but in the end they compromised themselves into the status quo in certain areas, and took even worse positions in others than Bush and the Republicans under him. And people stopped fighting because they had this ultimate, undeserved faith.

I'm not saying Obama did not make any positive changes whatsoever under his leadership, but there could have been so much more that him and his Democratic colleagues could have done. Instead, we only have watered down incremental reforms scattered about such as the ACA. A lot of that can be blamed on the Republicans locking down the government, but a lot too can be blamed on the Democrats not fighting hard enough for what their party's platform should have accomplished in its first four years.

Just taking any "compromise" as godsends should not mean we should stop fighting. I had enough of the people who kept telling me "just give Obama a chance, he's only been in office for x years" where x had often been past the end of his first term. Never give up, because you know the Republicans will not.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I'm not seeing the insanity - if anything this strikes me as a surprisingly effective compromise. Can anyone help me out here?

It is only a compromise compared to the bill that he vetoed, i.e. the so-called heartbeat bill (where abortion would've been banned if there was a detectable fetal heartbeat. This happens at about six weeks, which is (entirely not coincidentally) about how long it takes for the average woman to work out that she's pregnant ... i.e. the heartbeat bill is an abortion ban in all but name.)

Even the 20 week abortion ban isn't really a compromise. It's a deliberate stepping stone established by the pro-fetal-life movement (the bill Kaisch signed has the full support of pro-fetal-life groups, since it's likely to stand up to legal challenges,) designed to eventually eliminate all abortions. Most (99% according to Planned Parenthood) abortions occur before 21 weeks, since they become more difficult and dangerous after that timeframe.

So 20 week bans are designed to move the starting point of negotiations regarding abortions, and are meant to sound reasonable. Once abortion bans become common enough to establish legal precedent; the next "surprisingly effective" compromise won't eliminate just 1% of abortions, but some significant fraction of abortions.

[Kingmaker]

It sounds to me like Kasich fatally compromised his values by prescribing an interval in which child murder is legal.

Abortion is not really an issue that encourages moderation and compromise.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

It sounds to me like Kasich fatally compromised his values by prescribing an interval in which child murder is legal.

Abortion is not really an issue that encourages moderation and compromise.

He did no such thing. Many pro-fetal-life advocates have taken to playing the long game. If enough states pass twenty week bans, and enough of them survive legal challenges, then the abortion protection offered by Roe vs. Wade becomes fatally compromised. The next ban that comes before 20 weeks will be the first one that will dramatically impact a woman's choices vis-à-vis abortion, and it will be presented as the "reasonable" compromise compared to, say, a six-week (a total abortion ban by any other name) ban.

[Rhadamantus]

It sounds to me like Kasich fatally compromised his values by prescribing an interval in which child murder is legal.

Abortion is not really an issue that encourages moderation and compromise.

He did no such thing. Many pro-fetal-life advocates have taken to playing the long game. If enough states pass twenty week bans, and enough of them survive legal challenges, then the abortion protection offered by Roe vs. Wade becomes fatally compromised. The next ban that comes before 20 weeks will be the first one that will dramatically impact a woman's choices vis-à-vis abortion, and it will be presented as the "reasonable" compromise compared to, say, a six-week (a total abortion ban by any other name) ban.

The original decision had it at 23/24 weeks, with the possibility of it moving back as viability advanced. Since viability is already possible at 21 weeks, how is 20 weeks crazy?

[Tribble]

So what should the reasonable limit for an abortion be, if any?

[Alferd Packer]

Also, remember that this only really restricts abortion access for the poor and middle class. States like New York and California will never impose such restrictions on abortion, so wealthy Ohioan women can, if they want or need to abort after week 20, take a "vacation" and receive safe, speedy, private, and legal access to abortion without any appreciable burden.

There are two forces at work here, each laboring towards the same goal, but for different reasons. You have the religious, who want to end abortion because God, and the rich, who want to "end" abortion because doing so reduces economic mobility. As long as the rich can continue to have access to abortion in other state or even another country, they're effectively having their cake and eating it too.

[Starglider]

and the rich, who want to "end" abortion because doing so reduces economic mobility.

Firstly, you are simply wrong, mindlessly delivering your standard rant without bothering yourself with even the barest minimum of research;



The correlation between wealth and abortion support has been consistently weak over the last 20 years of surveys, but to the extent that it exists, poor people are more pro-life and rich people are more pro-choice.

Secondly, almost no one is motivated by such a ridiculously abstract notion of self-interest; specifically, the few people who are split their time between posting sections of the communist manifesto into news site comment sections and working minimum wage jobs, not being part of 'the rich'. No one thinks 'well I make $1M a year but if I don't suppress abortion my grandchildren will face a 12% higher rate of competition from the children of the current poor children who will benefit from lower family sizes'. I mean, do you apply the slightest bit of reflection before trying to derrive the entire functioning of the world from some pathetically oversimplified class warfare narrative?

[Grumman]

If enough states pass twenty week bans, and enough of them survive legal challenges, then the abortion protection offered by Roe vs. Wade becomes fatally compromised.

Good. Roe vs. Wade shouldn't provide any abortion protection at all, because the logic that justifies the decision is complete nonsense. You want abortion to be legal? Do it properly, instead of building your house on a foundation of bullshit.

[Alferd Packer]

and the rich, who want to "end" abortion because doing so reduces economic mobility.

Firstly, you are simply wrong, mindlessly delivering your standard rant without bothering yourself with even the barest minimum of research;

[ximg]http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallup ... 5caxma.gif[/img]

Whose standard rant? Are you confusing me with someone else?

The correlation between wealth and abortion support has been consistently weak over the last 20 years of surveys, but to the extent that it exists, poor people are more pro-life and rich people are more pro-choice.

Well, much in the same way not all religious people are dogmatically opposed to abortion, not all rich people are opposed to abortion. So yes, the rich are no more a monolithic block on this issue than any other socio-economic group.

Secondly, almost no one is motivated by such a ridiculously abstract notion of self-interest; specifically, the few people who are split their time between posting sections of the communist manifesto into news site comment sections and working minimum wage jobs, not being part of 'the rich'. No one thinks 'well I make $1M a year but if I don't suppress abortion my grandchildren will face a 12% higher rate of competition from the children of the current poor children who will benefit from lower family sizes'.

Of course not, but rich people want to stay rich. Allying with the religious and supporting their agenda is a means to an end--the rich gain political power, and the ancillary benefits of reduced economic mobility. And a good number of the rich are religous and oppose abortion as well, so the alliance is not entirely one of convenience. So yes, I was wrong in stating that the rich support ending abortion for economic reasons; they do it for political/religious reasons, with the economic ones just being a cherry on top for them.

I mean, do you apply the slightest bit of reflection before trying to derrive the entire functioning of the world from some pathetically oversimplified class warfare narrative?

I'm well in the $75,000+ bracket and I want to stay there. If anything, my economic interests should favor the status quo. But then again, I don't consider myself rich, at least when it comes accumulated wealth. I don't even think I qualify as one of the oft-maligned 1%. Still, I can understand the appeal of reducing economic mobility through any method, because it makes it easier to stay where I am, and where I am is pretty good. I don't align myself with those positions or methods, and in fact oppose them, but I understand the appeal.