The Fetal Heartbeat Bill

There are forms of oppression and domination which become invisible  – the new normal. –Michel Foucault

The ethical resistance of the powerless others to our capacity to exert power over them is therefore what imposes unenforceable obligations on us. The obligations are unenforceable precisely because of the others lack of power. That actions are at once obligatory and at the same time unenforceable is what puts them in the category of the ethical. -David Couzens Hoy on our ethical obligation to protect the powerless.

Physico-chemical reductionism in biology is the orthodox view, and any resistance to it is regarded as not only scientifically but politically incorrect. –Thomas Nagel on the difficulty of challenging materialist naturalism as to why it cannot explain the existence of human consciousness.

Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself; -Isaiah 44:24

In the next few days the South Carolina House will debate the fetal heartbeat bill which requires doctors to conduct an ultrasound to detect a fetal heartbeat upon any mother seeking an abortion. If the doctor detects a fetal heartbeat, the unborn child cannot be aborted. The bill allows doctors to perform an abortion to protect the mother’s health and in the cases of rape and incest.

With advances in medical technology, doctors can detect fetal heartbeats as early as the 6th week of pregnancy. According to the CDC, 91% of all abortions are performed prior to the 13th week of pregnancy. If enacted this bill would save a significant number of lives.

We are not alone in our efforts to save lives. During the last decade, several states have passed fetal heartbeat legislation to reduce the number of abortions within their state borders. Most recently, the Georgia General Assembly passed a fetal heartbeat bill similar to ours that now awaits the signature of their Governor. These state efforts have not gone unchallenged from pro-choice advocates. Planned Parenthood has filed lawsuits opposing fetal heartbeat laws in state and federal courts across the country. So far, the various courts have found the fetal heartbeat laws unconstitutional or have put the laws on hold until the United States Supreme Court revisits Roe v. Wade. I expect the same outcome for our fetal heartbeat bill if enacted.

Before Planned Parenthood can challenge our fetal heartbeat bill, the bill must first become law. Pro-life bills are difficult to debate. Being in the minority, pro-choice supporters vilify pro-life supporters with a vehemence unmatched in other political subjects. The pro-life majority rarely answers the usual accusations of chauvinism, racism and hatred of the poor. We just listen to their outrage then vote the pro-life bill out to the Senate.

Sometimes the vilification gets to be a bit much and a few of us will respond. The first time I rose to speak against abortion was in 2010. We were debating at 3 am, which explains my groggy voice if you watch the below video..

The pro-choice crowd often accuses us of hypocrisy. They claim that we love the unborn child then ignore the child after it arrives. In other words, they point out what we have been saying for years – Republicans are not socialists. We do not believe in cradle to grave care by the government although I am not sure that all Republicans in the General Assembly know that.

However, since the pro-choice side accuses pro-lifer supporters of suffering from aporophobia (hatred of poor people – my word not theirs though the progressives will throw “xenophobia” on us during illegal alien debates) maybe we should look at some statistics. I normally use the opposition’s numbers just to avoid a debate over the legitimacy of data. 

The Guttmacher Institute. exists to promote sexual and reproductive health and rights in the United States. Their data should satisfy the pro-choice supporters.

Guttmacher reports that 75% of those who received an abortion are poor or low-income. The three main reasons given to have an abortion were that a new baby would interfere with their concern or responsibility for someone else, would cost too much, or would interfere with work, school or other commitments. Babies do tend to disrupt those things.

I have always been curious about the financial excuse. What is the currency exchange rate to prevent a baby’s death? What is the dollar amount that would change a mother’s mind to not abort her child? Getting back to the cradle to grave government safety net that progressives dream about, would free childcare from birth to age 4 make a difference? What if we threw in some universal basic income? Added more free education to the mix?

Federal courts have ruled that state pre-viability anti-abortion laws cannot put an “undue burden” on women seeking abortions. The “undue burden” standard was established in Planned Parenthood vs Casey (1992). It seems that a woman cannot be burdened by a baby that did not ask to be conceived or by any law that would require her to take responsibility for or even acknowledge the humanity of the life that was conceived in her.

Guttmacher also states that the majority of abortions were of unintended babies who were conceived due to a lack of contraception use by the parents. Apparently, undue burden extends to the minimal effort needed to use some type of birth control by either parent.

The fetal heartbeat bill was debated for seven hours before it was voted out of the House Judiciary Committee. During the coming debate before the full House I expect the pro-choice House members will file over one hundred amendments to the bill in an attempt to stop it. As we debate the amendments, pro-life members will witness self-righteous indignation, listen to sanctimonious oratory and suffer accusations of prejudice all in defense of a woman’s “right” to choose death over responsibility.

Below are a few words from 2010 –