For the better part of five years, veteran religious right activist Janet Porter has tried to get state legislatures to pass a bill that would all but ban abortions in cases where the fetus’ heartbeat can be detected. This is extremely problematic on several counts. Not only can a heartbeat be detected at points before a woman is even aware that she is pregnant, but not all heartbeats can be detected at the same time in every mother. Porter briefly succeeded in getting her adopted home state of Ohio to pass this monstrosity, but Governor John Kasich vetoed it.
Porter’s response? She took her crusade national. Last week, she announced that when she heads to Washington for Trump’s inauguration, she will drum up support in Congress for a federal version of the “heartbeat bill.” Well, one of the most wingnutty members of the House decided not to wait that long. On Thursday, Congressman Steve King of Iowa introduced a federal version of the heartbeat bill.
To give you an idea how loony King is, he openly admitted the Senate GOP’s tantrum over the replacement of Antonin Scalia–led by his state’s senior Senator, Chuck Grassley–had nothing to do with constitutional precedent and everything to do with politics. This is a guy who openly questioned whether nonwhites made any significant contributions to society. So it should surprise no one that he jumped at the chance to help Porter make this monstrosity law.
In announcing his bill, known as the “Heartbeat Protection Act,” King declared that Roe v. Wade had been “unconstitutionally decided,” and his bill was necessary to “protect the lives of voiceless innocents.” He made no bones about what this bill would do.
“My legislation will require all physicians, before conducting an abortion, to detect the heartbeat of the unborn child. If a heartbeat is detected, the baby is protected.
America was founded on the concept that our rights come from God. All human persons have a right to life. How then could we confer that those rights allow the killing of a baby?”
Rewire obtained a copy of the bill’s text. Read it here. It would ban doctors from performing abortions if they determine “according to standard medical practice, that the fetus has a detectable heartbeat.” Violations would be punishable by up to five years in prison. From the looks of it, the sole exception would be if an abortion were necessary to protect the mother’s life.
This bill is troubling on several counts. For one thing, it doesn’t include any exceptions for rape or incest, which could potentially give even pro-life Republicans pause. Indeed, even though you can count the number of pro-choice Republicans in the House on one hand, King only managed to recruit one cosponsor at the outset–the equally loony Trent Franks of Arizona.
The lack of an exception for rape or incest could also doom the bill’s chances in the Senate. All three anti-abortion Democrats in the Senate–Joe Donnelly, Joe Manchin, and Bob Casey–would allow abortion under those circumstances. Assuming that the three pro-choice Republicans–Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Shelley Moore Capito–all defect, this bill goes down, 51-49.
Moreover, this bill is very similar to the numerous personhood measures that have been proposed at the state level. As former federal magistrate Vanzetta Penn McPherson noted last spring, personhood bills are a legal and moral nightmare. For one thing, King’s bill, like the numerous personhood bills, would have the effect of tying doctors’ hands in cases where medical opinion is unanimous that a pregnancy must be ended.
Such little details never deterred Porter over the last five-plus years, and they haven’t deterred her now. Indeed, when Porter learned the bill had finally been introduced, she essentially jumped up and applauded in an audio message to her followers at Faith2Action.
For all of King’s bleating and screeting about abortion being unconstitutional, this bill is a court challenge waiting to happen. Indeed, this heartbeat bill is so outrageously unconstitutional that if this bill is enacted–and it’s a very big “if” even with a Republican trifecta at the federal level–King ought to agree to pay for the costs of defending it out of his own pocket. Unless he is willing to do so, he should do us all a favor and yank this monstrosity.
Perhaps we should ask him if he’s willing to pay for defending it in court–politely, of course. Let him know what you think of this misbegotten bill on Facebook and on Twitter.
