H.B. 182 introduced into the House of the Ohio General Assembly by Republican members has attracted a good deal of negative press because it outlaws the termination of an ectopic pregnancy unless the procedure “is intended to reimplant the fertilized ovum into the pregnant woman’s uterus.” However, we owe a H/T to Charles Gaba who has pointed out in May that H.B. 182 does far more and is more onerous than just that one provision.
First, H.B. 182 defines the term “abortion” so broadly that it includes the use of IUDs and the use of such drugs as Levonorgestrel (the active drug in the morning-after pill).
Then, the bill would both prohibit both state and local government insurance policies in Ohio and any insurance policy issued in that state from providing coverage for “abortions” as that term is defined in the statute. (Presumably, the use of separate provisions for government provided insurance and all policies of insurance is to make the provisions severable, so that if the blanket prohibition against any insurance coverage is judicially overturned, the government-employee insurance prohibition might still withstand scrutiny.)
Finally, even if an abortion is allowable under the statute, a burdensome reporting requirement is imposed on any physician who performs the procedure before the physician is paid with “state or local funds.”
I have posted a copy of H.B. 182 with markups highlighting the issues noted above.
Query: Does anyone think that this will drive women to vote Republican?
4 thoughts on “The Ohio Anti-Abortion Bill”
Unfortunately, a more pertinent question is,
“Does anyone think this will drive women who voted for Trump in 2016 to vote Democratic in 2020?”
Obviously, the answer is not “Yes, because of this one bill.” Rather, it is “Yes, because of the many bills, attacks on Planned Parenthood, etc., of which is but one of the more extreme expressions of anti-female public policy.”
Worth underlining that gynaecologists have stated thst the reimplantation in the womb of a ectopic embryo is medically impossible in the current state of science. I’d be surprised if anyone is working to make it feasible.
That, of course, is the rationale behind the provision. The way the statute would work would be to allow the the termination of an ectopic pregnancy only if the procedure satisfies a condition that, at least under the current state of science, is impossible to satisfy. Thus, the provision, de facto, outlaws any procedure that would terminate an ectopic pregnancy other than when the physician performing the procedure follows the provision requiring certification that “the woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion was performed.” And, as I noted, the manner in which the physician’s certification has to be made is burdensome and intrudes on the physician/patient relationship.
Comments are closed.