During the last campaign, this blog made note of the sadly monotonous trend: politicians will claim the prolife flag during the campaign but, after getting into office, they will eventually let the issue of abortion recede, until the next campaign.
This abandonment of the prolife imperative is reluctantly done by some as their genuine efforts go nowhere.
For others, it’s all part of the plan. They want the votes they can get for being prolife. But they never really intend to go to the mat, or even dress for competition, once in the “hallowed halls” of government.
But this election cycle in Ohio, it looks like some are determined to make a difference.
Soon after the Republicans gained control of both houses and the governor’s office, efforts to fight abortion were predicted. They have come to fruition. The House recently passed three abortion-related bills.
One of the bills was so substantial that Ohio Right to Life voiced its reservation. What that says about ORTL or the bill remains something to ponder.
It is this bill that has been called the most stringent in the nation. It will instantly be ruled unconstitutional, critics claim, so why bother?
Yes, why bother to challenge the status quo? No great advances in life – no pun intended — have ever been made in this manner, right?
This bill takes the startling position that a baby should be protected from abortion when a heartbeat can be detected. Imagine that. The same protection given all of us, that no one is allowed to stop our hearts from beating, will be extended to the unborn.
The reaction of Janet Folger Porter, who used to work for ORTL, to the bill’s passing in the House summed up how much the bill matters in the long slog since Roe:
“For every battle-weary pro-lifer who didn’t see how children were going to be protected in our lifetime, come see what God is doing in Ohio.”
Contrast that with the unbelievable – in both its vacuity and immaturity – comment of a state representative who opposed protecting young humans whose beating hearts can be heard:
“Look around, women. You are surrounded by men making decisions about your future … barefoot and pregnant, that’s where they want you, raising the kids while we are making a living.”
Really? This is what’s offered as a serious argument in such a critical debate? Of course, all one is left with when opposing such an eminently proper act is appeal to absurdity.
Now we will see if the bill moves beyond the House.
We will learn if the House vote was a game-changer or an exercise in futility.
We will find out if yet again hopes raised of Roe’s defeat collapse with the weight of legislators too fearful or too selfish to do the right thing.
