The OH heartbeat bill is back again for consideration in the OH assembly, and has started on the House side as HB 248.
While it offers much value overall, it still does has some flaws both in specific definition of terminology and some specific sections that emit odors of weakness, to wit:
Sec. 2919.192 2919.194. (A) If a person who intends to perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman has determined, under section 2919.191 2919.192 of the Revised Code, that the unborn human individual the pregnant woman is carrying has a detectable heartbeat, the person shall not, except as provided in division (B) of this section, perform or induce the abortion until all of the following requirements have been met and at least twenty-four hours have elapsed after the last of the requirements is met:
(1) The person intending to perform or induce the abortion shall inform the pregnant woman in writing that the unborn human individual the pregnant woman is carrying has a fetal heartbeat.
(2) The person intending to perform or induce the abortion shall inform the pregnant woman, to the best of the person’s knowledge, of the statistical probability of bringing the unborn human individual possessing a detectable fetal heartbeat to term based on the gestational age of the unborn human individual or, if the director of health has specified statistical probability information pursuant to rules adopted under division (C) of this section, shall provide to the pregnant woman that information.
(3) The pregnant woman shall sign a form acknowledging that the pregnant woman has received information from the person intending to perform or induce the abortion that the unborn human individual the pregnant woman is carrying has a fetal heartbeat and that the pregnant woman is aware of the statistical probability of bringing the unborn human individual the pregnant woman is carrying to term.
(B) Division (A) of this section does not apply if the person who intends to perform or induce the abortion believes that a medical emergency exists that prevents compliance with that division.
ESH gives the emphasis to the pertinent language of Division A and B of this section of the Bill. It appears to give abortionists and the left the “out” language they could want and live with in a heartbeat bill that ostensibly blocks abortions after a heartbeat is detected in the preborn baby.
As for language problems, some select terms and definitions:
Sec. 2919.19. (A) As used in this section and sections 2919.191 to 2919.193 2919.1910 of the Revised Code:
(A)(1) “Conception” means fertilization.
(J)(15) “Unborn human individual” means an individual organism of the species homo sapiens from fertilization until live birth.
These definitions do not comport with accepted embrology standards in employ for the past 100 years or so, and the Carnegie Stages of Embryology since at least 1942. Many babies are not created at “conception” or “fertilization” especially when created in the lab by one of many artificial means (eg SCNT, ART, etc). Nor would this apply to natural twinning since in identical twins, the second twin isn’t created by fertilization or conception, but rather the natural cloning process of the human body.
Once introduced in the Senate, or sooner, these and some other errors need correction before the final bill is voted upon. As Aristotle stated, small errors in the beginning lead to large errors in the end.
ESH wonders if the Assembly, dominated by the GOP on both sides with a GOP governor, can get the bill right the 2nd time around?