Ohio

Janet Porter is pulling out all the stops to pass her anti-choice Heartbeat Bill in Ohio, using children with teddy bears, fetus testimony, prayer rallies and planes to urge the State Senate to vote on her bill, which has already passed the State House. But so far, her only accomplishment appears to be dividing anti-choice activists and irritating Republican lawmakers.

To show popular support for her legislation, Porter’s group Faith 2 Action commissioned a poll which showed a that whopping “64 percent of Ohioans agreed with the Heartbeat Bill while only 20 percent disagreed with it—more than a three to one margin.” The group used Wenzel Strategies, a polling company that claims Sarah Palin had a good chance at becoming the Democratic nominee for president, which also found that pluralities of Democrats, independents and Republicans alike all backed the Heartbeat bill. According to Porter, the legislation’s broad support is reason to give to put it up for a vote in the State Senate:

"Two-thirds of Ohioans, 8 out of 10 Republicans, 7 out of 10 Independents, and Democrats by a 5-3 margin favor the Heartbeat Bill (H.B. 125) becoming law," said Janet Porter, president of Faith2Action. "The people have spoken across the board: It's time to bring the Heartbeat Bill to a committee and to a vote."

Fritz Wenzel, president of Wenzel Strategies stated, “Given today’s deeply divided political climate, it is unusual and remarkable when a public opinion survey finds a huge majority supporting one side of a political issue, but that’s exactly what we have in these results regarding the Heartbeat Bill in Ohio. The popularity of this measure crosses all political, gender, age, and regional boundaries in Ohio, and is indicative of deep support for this issue...

"Election history teaches us that leaders who ignore such strong public opinion do so at their own political peril. The fact that more likely voting Democrats, Republicans, and independents support the bill than oppose it, and the fact that the intensity of support in favor of this issue far outstrips the intensity of those who oppose it is a strong indication there are many more reasons for Ohio state senators to support it than to oppose it,” added Wenzel.

Contrast those striking findings with the poll released today by Quinnipiac University, which found that not only do “fifty percent of Ohio voters say abortion should be legal in all or most cases” but that forty-six percent of voters oppose the Heartbeat bill, while forty-five percent favor it.

While the Quinnipiac poll, which Porter derided as “biased,” still shows a statistical tie on the public’s view of the legislation, it completely undermines Porter’s claim that “the people have spoken across the board”:

Ohio voters are divided 45 - 46 percent in their support for a bill before the State Legislature that would ban abortions once a fetal heartbeat can be detected, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

Republicans support the measure 63 - 31 percent, while Democrats are opposed by a mirror-image 62 - 30 percent, with independent voters split 47 - 46 percent, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds. There is no gender or age gap.

…

"Abortion remains perhaps the most divisive issue in the nation and there is an almost even split among Ohio voters over the fetal heartbeat bill," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "Despite a partisan split over the issue, where Republicans support the measure 2-1 while Democrats oppose it 2-1, lower income voters, who tend to be Democrats, support the bill while high-income voters, who tend to be Republican, oppose it."

Fifty percent of Ohio voters say abortion should be legal in all or most cases while 44 percent say it should be illegal in all or most cases.

A member of Nebraska’s unicameral legislature is introducing two of the most radical anti-choice bills in the country, a personhood measure to give legal status to zygotes and a ‘heartbeat law’ that would also effectively ban abortion. Like in Ohio, more established anti-choice groups are wary of passing such clearly unconstitutional laws and are instead encouraging the legislature to defund Planned Parenthood. The Omaha World Herald reports that State Sen. Mark Christensen is proposing both measures, and that the “heartbeat bill is expected to be introduced in the Kansas Legislature next month”:

At least one Nebraska lawmaker is looking at proposals for the new legislative session that would drastically limit legal abortion in the state.

One measure would declare that life — and legal status — begins at fertilization. The other would ban abortions once a fetal heartbeat can be detected, which is usually six to eight weeks into pregnancy.

"I'm more than willing to introduce them," said State Sen. Mark Christensen of Imperial. "I'm willing to take on a fight."

The Heartbeat bill, crafted by Religious Right activist Janet Porter, has yet to face a vote in the Ohio State Senate because supporters amended the bill to make the bill even more onerous:

The proposed changes include the deletion of the word “viability” from a section of the bill. That would mean the heartbeat is the only indicator needed to prevent an abortion, not whether the fetus would survive outside the womb.

…

That change seems to run counter to testimony from obstetricians opposed to the bill who said in some births a fetus has been detected to have little if any chance of surviving once born. Other proposed changes:

• Add language that the state has a legitimate interest “from the outset of the pregnancy” in protecting the health of a woman and “the life of the fetus that may become a child.” Forte said the principle comes from a U.S. Supreme Court decision. However, the language possibly could be read to mean the state’s interest starts at conception.

• Clarifies that for a woman to make “an informed choice about whether to continue her pregnancy, the pregnant woman has a legitimate interest in knowing the likelihood of the fetus surviving to full term birth based upon the presence of cardiac activity.”

• Requires the presence or absence of a fetal heartbeat be recorded in a pregnant woman’s medical record, along with the methods used to test for a heartbeat, the date and time of the test, and the results.

Meanwhile, trouble in the legislature for the Heartbeat bill hasn’t slowed down efforts by Personhood Ohio to put the anti-choice law on the ballot in 2012:

Campaign officials have submitted the first round of signatures to Attorney General Mike DeWine, who has said he will certify it. "By law, he has to certify it within a couple of weeks," reports Dr. Michael Johnston, who is heading up the campaign. "So by the beginning of 2012, we'll be ready for our statewide campaign to gather the 380,000 signatures necessary to put the Ohio personhood amendment on the ballot."

If passed, the amendment would end abortion in the state.

"We are prayerfully doing what Ohio state law allows to defy judicial tyranny and to protect every unborn child in the state of Ohio," Johnston says.

After months of campaigning through prayer rallies and television, radio and even aerial advertisements, proponents of Ohio’s extreme anti-choice Heartbeat Bill finally inched the process forward this week as the Senate president Tom Niehaus and Health committee chairman Sen. Scott Oelslager held committee hearings on the legislation. But now, the bill’s future is in doubt after Niehaus abruptly postponed hearings on the bill, first proposed by Janet Porter and State Rep. Lynn Wachtmann, over intense infighting among anti-choice activists and last-minute changes to the bill:

Senate President Tom Niehaus, R-New Richmond, pulled the plug today on House Bill 125, the so-called heartbeat bill that would have been the nation’s strictest anti-abortion law. He suspended hearings on the controversial legislation until 2012.

…

Oelslager had planned to only take testimony on HB 125 and not make amendments to it. That indicated the bill would not get passed this year as Porter said she was promised by Niehaus.

Niehaus said he doesn’t remember making that promise only that there would be hearings before Christmas. He again blasted Porter and bill supporters for suggesting changes Tuesday after saying the Senate should pass HB 125 just as it was passed by the House in June. He discounted Porter’s contention that the changes were technical in nature.

“After five months of berating us and criticizing us, with no explanation they hand me a four-page document with 20 plus changes,” he said. “Where were they? It underscores how complicated and contentious this legislation is.”

The Dayton Daily News reports that the National Right to Life Committee’s James Bopp testified against the extreme legislation, which is also opposed by the Ohio Right to Life Society:

The bill has divided abortion opponents, and James Bopp Jr., general counsel to the National Right to Life Committee, testified against it Tuesday. He said in his prepared testimony that he believes the ban on abortions after a heartbeat would be unconstitutional under current court rulings and would not stand a U.S. Supreme Court challenge.

He said that the “informed consent” requirement in the bill — that a woman be informed that a heartbeat was detected — would be useful legislation that would be constitutional.

Porter, however, rejected Bopp’s argument and said taking the ban out of the bill would “take the heart out of the Heartbeat” bill. Ohio Right to Life does not support the bill for reasons similar to those outlined by Bopp, but Porter and supporters say now is the time to mount a challenge.

Linda Harvey of Mission America today accused gays and lesbians of “pitching a fit” and “constantly complaining” in order to promote “radical social change” and “destroy traditional values.” “Even if your cause is unworthy and your complaints have little merit, the way the media works today, you’ll still get publicity and it will seem as though you will need to be taken seriously,” Harvey said, who went on to argue that “homosexual activists” are using “baseless” cases of discrimination in order to squash the “constitutional religious or free speech liberties of other people.”

The first case Harvey cited were the demonstrations that took place near a private Christian school in Delaware, Ohio, after the school removed a Columbus radio talk show host from their prominent alumni page because he is openly gay, with the principal saying, “I cannot approve of the lifestyle he has chosen to endorse.”

Harvey’s second example of gays and lesbians “making a fuss” and “pitching a fit” was the recent brutal attack of an openly gay fifteen year-old student at a high school in Chillicothe, Ohio. The ABC affiliate WSYX posted video of the attack, which was captured on another student’s cellphone, and interviewed the victim and his mom who detailed the history of anti-gay bullying at the school. Just two days before he the assault, the perpetrator posted on his Facebook, “check out the definition of a faggot.”

Now, the American Civil Liberties Union and the victim’s family want to make sure that the school develops a policy that protects students from bullying and discrimination based on their sexual orientation.

But Harvey considered this a “baseless” case of “so-called homophobia,” dismissing claims that the attack was motivated by anti-gay bias.

While Harvey agreed that the perpetrator should be punished, she warned that the assault is going to be used to “institute pro-homosexual programs.” Harvey angrily claimed that the students involved have become “convenient tools for homosexual activism,” asking, “where do we stop at pushing homosexuality onto our kids?”

Listen:

Harvey: One of the most recognized methods for radical social change is to just keep making a fuss and keep pitching a fit. Even if your cause is unworthy and your complaints have little merit, the way the media works today, you’ll still get publicity and it will seem as though you will need to be taken seriously. And along the way you will attract some less informed people to the cause who are easy to manipulate and used for whatever purposes are needed. Again, this will make the movement seem valid, even if it is not. That’s what homosexual activists are doing today, constantly complaining about things that when investigated, are often baseless, and they will push aside the rights of others as if the constitutional religious or free speech liberties of other people don’t matter. It’s time for America to figure out that these folks are out to destroy traditional values, and all that talk about tolerance and respect only goes one way. Let me tell you about two recent situations in central Ohio that illustrate this.

…

Another incident in Chillicothe that is being used to pressure a school to institute pro-homosexual programs, a student at Union-Scioto high school was caught on video physically assaulting a student known to be openly homosexual. The first student has been charged by police and is being disciplined according to school guidelines, and all of this is appropriate for what he did, but the other student is now being represented by the ACLU, a group claiming this incident was based solely on so-called homophobia. It looks to me like two minor-age boys names are all over the national media as they become convenient tools for homosexual activism. There’s no excuse for viciously beating another student, but where do we stop at pushing homosexuality onto our kids?