PREPARING HEARTBEAT BILLS PART TWO

PREPARING HEARTBEAT BILLS PART TWO

We’re continuing with the EFFECTIVE PREPARATION part of our series to cement the conclusions we came to in Part 1, which you can find HERE.

We’ll start with the conclusion we drew in Part 1 before moving on.

 

INEFFECTIVELY PREPARED

It is a very SHORT bill.  The bill contains just 12 lines of text across just two pages.  Other Heartbeat bills range from nine to 25 pages.  While it’s true that economy of words is often a good thing, including key components of a bill is critical to effectively preparing legislation to be debated and signed into law.

 

LACKING  KEY  COMPONENTS

It LACKS  enforcement and penalties.  Without enforcement and penalties, laws become recommendations.  We’ve been recommending to abortionists that they stop killing babies for over 50 years – only when there’s a way to enforce the law and provide penalties equal to the crime of killing babies do you have even a hint of a complete bill. 

For more from Part 1, go HERE.

 

LACKING  RESEARCH  &  FACTS

 

t LACKS  enforcement and penalties.  Without enforcement and penalties, laws become recommendations.  We’ve been recommending to abortionists that they stop killing babies for over 50 years – only when there’s a way to enforce the law and provide penalties equal to the crime of killing babies do you have even a hint of a complete bill. 

For more from Part 1, go HERE.

 

LACKING  RESEARCH  &  FACTS

 

It LACKS research and facts.  The bill states, “a person may not knowingly perform an abortion after a health care provider detects a fetal heartbeat…” 

1.  If the bill doesn’t regulate how the heartbeat will be found and by whom – and specify what kind of equipment will be used, specifically what parts of the mother’s abdomen will be scanned, and what specific parts of the baby’s body will be examined, then there’s no reason to believe the heartbeat is detectable by the ultrasound machine, nor that the technician will actually search for the baby’s heart.

For the rest of the points of RESEARCH & FACTS, go HERE.

 

COMPLIES  WITH  DOE  WHILE  IT  CHALLENGES  ROE

 

This is an important distinction:  heartbeat bills provide a direct challenge to a component of Roe v Wade, specifically state regulation of abortion in the first trimester.

For more from Part 1, go HERE.

 

EXERCISES  LEGISLATIVE  CONFUSION

 

Before we go any further, let’s look a the text of the bill together:
 
          “Section 1. AS 18.16 is amended by adding a new section to read:
           Sec. 18.16.055. Abortion after fetal heartbeat detected.”

This means they want to amend existing abortion law to reflect what’s in the bill.  So what do you see here?
 
“Abortion after fetal heartbeat detected.”

We’re continuing with the EFFECTIVE PREPARATION part of our series to cement the conclusions we came to in Part 1, which you can find HERE.

We’ll start with the conclusion we drew in Part 1 before moving on.

 

INEFFECTIVELY PREPARED

It is a very SHORT bill.  The bill contains just 12 lines of text across just two pages.  Other Heartbeat bills range from nine to 25 pages.  While it’s true that economy of words is often a good thing, including key components of a bill is critical to effectively preparing legislation to be debated and signed into law.

 

LACKING  KEY  COMPONENTS

It LACKS  enforcement and penalties.  Without enforcement and penalties, laws become recommendations.  We’ve been recommending to abortionists that they stop killing babies for over 50 years – only when there’s a way to enforce the law and provide penalties equal to the crime of killing babies do you have even a hint of a complete bill. 

For more from Part 1, go HERE.

 

LACKING  RESEARCH  &  FACTS

 

t LACKS  enforcement and penalties.  Without enforcement and penalties, laws become recommendations.  We’ve been recommending to abortionists that they stop killing babies for over 50 years – only when there’s a way to enforce the law and provide penalties equal to the crime of killing babies do you have even a hint of a complete bill. 

For more from Part 1, go HERE.

 

LACKING  RESEARCH  &  FACTS

 

It LACKS research and facts.  The bill states, “a person may not knowingly perform an abortion after a health care provider detects a fetal heartbeat…” 

1.  If the bill doesn’t regulate how the heartbeat will be found and by whom – and specify what kind of equipment will be used, specifically what parts of the mother’s abdomen will be scanned, and what specific parts of the baby’s body will be examined, then there’s no reason to believe the heartbeat is detectable by the ultrasound machine, nor that the technician will actually search for the baby’s heart.

For the rest of the points of RESEARCH & FACTS, go HERE.

 

COMPLIES  WITH  DOE  WHILE  IT  CHALLENGES  ROE

 

This is an important distinction:  heartbeat bills provide a direct challenge to a component of Roe v Wade, specifically state regulation of abortion in the first trimester.

For more from Part 1, go HERE.

 

EXERCISES  LEGISLATIVE  CONFUSION

 

Before we go any further, let’s look a the text of the bill together:
 
          “Section 1. AS 18.16 is amended by adding a new section to read:
           Sec. 18.16.055. Abortion after fetal heartbeat detected.”

This means they want to amend existing abortion law to reflect what’s in the bill.  So what do you see here?
 
“Abortion after fetal heartbeat detected.”

Not a promising start!  Let’s continue.
 
“(a) Notwithstanding compliance with AS 18.16.010, a person may not knowingly perform an abortion after a health care provider detects a fetal heartbeat unless the abortion is medically necessary.”
 
Let’s begin by defining terms.  What does the law mean by abortion?

“abortion” means the use or prescription of an instrument, medicine, drug, or other substance or device to terminate the pregnancy of a woman [kill a baby] known to be pregnant, except that “abortion” does not include the termination of a pregnancy if done with the intent to save the life or preserve the health of the unborn child; deliver the unborn child prematurely to preserve the health of both the pregnant woman and the woman’s child; or remove a dead unborn child [a miscarriage].

Not a promising start!  Let’s continue.
 
“(a) Notwithstanding compliance with AS 18.16.010, a person may not knowingly perform an abortion after a health care provider detects a fetal heartbeat unless the abortion is medically necessary.”
 
Let’s begin by defining terms.  What does the law mean by abortion?

“abortion” means the use or prescription of an instrument, medicine, drug, or other substance or device to terminate the pregnancy of a woman [kill a baby] known to be pregnant, except that “abortion” does not include the termination of a pregnancy if done with the intent to save the life or preserve the health of the unborn child; deliver the unborn child prematurely to preserve the health of both the pregnant woman and the woman’s child; or remove a dead unborn child [a miscarriage].

ABORTION:
TO KILL A BABY BEFORE HE IS BORN.
NO MORE. NO LESS.
NO OTHER.
ALASKA STATUTE
18.16.090
ABORTION:
TO KILL A BABY BEFORE HE IS BORN.
NO MORE. NO LESS.
NO OTHER.
ALASKA STATUTE
18.16.090

So Let’s look at a couple problems:
 

  1. Compliance with AS (Alaska Statute) 18.16.010 (Alaska’s abortion law) means that they’re seeking to regulate the killing of babies, not eliminate the killing of babies.

 

  1. Does anybody unknowingly “perform an abortion?” Put more directly, does anybody accidently use an instrument, medicine, drug or other substance to purposefully and exclusively kill a baby unknowingly?  I’ll let you decide.

 

  1. What if a person performs an abortion BEFORE they detect a fetal heartbeat?  Does the bill seek to protect all lives – before AND after a fetal heartbeat is detected? 

 

  1. When is a procedure or drug used to purposefully and exclusively kill a baby medically necessary?

So Let’s look at a couple problems:
 

  1. Compliance with AS (Alaska Statute) 18.16.010 (Alaska’s abortion law) means that they’re seeking to regulate the killing of babies, not eliminate the killing of babies.

 

  1. Does anybody unknowingly “perform an abortion?” Put more directly, does anybody accidently use an instrument, medicine, drug or other substance to purposefully and exclusively kill a baby unknowingly?  I’ll let you decide.

 

  1. What if a person performs an abortion BEFORE they detect a fetal heartbeat?  Does the bill seek to protect all lives – before AND after a fetal heartbeat is detected? 

 

  1. When is a procedure or drug used to purposefully and exclusively kill a baby medically necessary?

WHEN IS IT "MEDICALLY NECESSARY"
TO KILL A BABY?

WHEN IS IT "MEDICALLY NECESSARY"
TO KILL A BABY?

Let’s just start by saying it is never medically necessary to kill a baby before he is born.

PERIOD.

That being said, there could be countless procedures, medicines, drugs, etc. that, when used to save the mother’s life could – or do – kill her baby.

A couple defining differences could include:
  1. Knowledge of the baby’s existence (really not likely at all).
  2. Intent of the mother and physicians.
  3. The legal concepts and definitions that define the killing.

While we love digging into the details and difficult topics like this one, we’ll have to wait for another day: the topic here is Heartbeat bills, specifically HB 302, and how INEFFECTIVELY it was PREPARED.

Regarding this component of “medically necessary abortions,” this portion of the bill simply copies what’s included in many other bills without any real research or examination of the facts.

The “medical necessity comes from Doe v Bolton, where the mother’s health is placed as the paramount concern, and her health is to be determined – AND DEFINED – by the abortionist. 

That means if the abortionist determines that a 14 year-old girl’s relationship with the boy who got her pregnant is important enough, then continuing the pregnancy affects their “relationship”; he has “medical justification” for killing her baby.

With this understanding in mind, it’s easy to see that the heartbeat bill:
 
  • Fails to recognize that on both federal and state levels, the only person with the authority to determine “medical necessity” is the abortionist himself. 
  • Fails to recognize that when making $500 for 5 minutes of work, abortionists will declare every abortion to be medically necessary.  For example:

This part is a bit difficult to follow, so I’ll break down the example above just a bit:

Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton

Most people know Roe.  It was argued by Sarah Weddington who was recently celebrated by New York Governor Cuomo when he signed New York’s Infanticide bill in 2019.
Let’s just start by saying it is never medically necessary to kill a baby before he is born.

PERIOD.

That being said, there could be countless procedures, medicines, drugs, etc. that, when used to save the mother’s life could – or do – kill her baby.

A couple defining differences could include:
  1. Knowledge of the baby’s existence (really not likely at all).
  2. Intent of the mother and physicians.
  3. The legal concepts and definitions that define the killing.

While we love digging into the details and difficult topics like this one, we’ll have to wait for another day: the topic here is Heartbeat bills, specifically HB 302, and how INEFFECTIVELY it was PREPARED.

Regarding this component of “medically necessary abortions,” this portion of the bill simply copies what’s included in many other bills without any real research or examination of the facts.

The “medical necessity comes from Doe v Bolton, where the mother’s health is placed as the paramount concern, and her health is to be determined – AND DEFINED – by the abortionist. 

That means if the abortionist determines that a 14 year-old girl’s relationship with the boy who got her pregnant is important enough, then continuing the pregnancy affects their “relationship”; he has “medical justification” for killing her baby.

With this understanding in mind, it’s easy to see that the heartbeat bill:
 
  • Fails to recognize that on both federal and state levels, the only person with the authority to determine “medical necessity” is the abortionist himself. 
  • Fails to recognize that when making $500 for 5 minutes of work, abortionists will declare every abortion to be medically necessary.  For example:

This part is a bit difficult to follow, so I’ll break down the example above just a bit:

Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton

Most people know Roe.  It was argued by Sarah Weddington who was recently celebrated by New York Governor Cuomo when he signed New York’s Infanticide bill in 2019.
Roe v Wade 

Roe attacked several key portions of constitutional and statutory law, primarily:
 
  1. Children in the womb have no constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment.  They are not PERSONS.
  2. States have no compelling interest in regulating abortion until the child can be demonstrated to be “viable,” or be able to live outside her mother’s womb.
  3. States cannot regulate abortion – AT ALL – during the first trimester FOR ANY REASON.
  4. States cannot regulate abortion during the second trimester except “in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.”
  5. States cannot regulate abortion after “viability,” except “for the preservation of the health of the mother.”
  6. Wherever abortion statutes are considered, Roe and Doe are, “of course, to be read together.”
 

Doe v Bolton

Doe is the little known companion case from Georgia that was argued and decided at the same time as Roe v Wade.  Strangely, much of Doe was actually kept from public record until 2012.

While Roe is much more widely known and is very damaging to children’s rights, Doe puts the nail in the coffin.
Roe v Wade 

Roe attacked several key portions of constitutional and statutory law, primarily:
 
  1. Children in the womb have no constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment.  They are not PERSONS.
  2. States have no compelling interest in regulating abortion until the child can be demonstrated to be “viable,” or be able to live outside her mother’s womb.
  3. States cannot regulate abortion – AT ALL – during the first trimester FOR ANY REASON.
  4. States cannot regulate abortion during the second trimester except “in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.”
  5. States cannot regulate abortion after “viability,” except “for the preservation of the health of the mother.”
  6. Wherever abortion statutes are considered, Roe and Doe are, “of course, to be read together.”
 

Doe v Bolton

Doe is the little known companion case from Georgia that was argued and decided at the same time as Roe v Wade.  Strangely, much of Doe was actually kept from public record until 2012.

While Roe is much more widely known and is very damaging to children’s rights, Doe puts the nail in the coffin.

45% OF ALL ABORTIONS ARE
"MEDICALLY NECESSARY."

45% OF ALL ABORTIONS ARE
"MEDICALLY NECESSARY."

A LOOK INTO “MEDICAL NECESSITY”

Since states don’t collect – and Planned Parenthood would never report the “reason” they think a mother’s life or health was so at risk as to justify killing her baby, we have very little insight into except those the State of Alaska pays for.

Since 2012, Alaska’s abortionists have submitted the form below with every abortion invoice they submit to the State for payment.

A LOOK INTO “MEDICAL NECESSITY”

Since states don’t collect – and Planned Parenthood would never report the “reason” they think a mother’s life or health was so at risk as to justify killing her baby, we have very little insight into except those the State of Alaska pays for.

Since 2012, Alaska’s abortionists have submitted the form below with every abortion invoice they submit to the State for payment.

This form directs Alaska’s Department of Health and Social Services to route the invoice for payment based on the box checked:
  1. The Federal Government will pay for the abortion if the child’s condition includes those listed.
  2. The State of Alaska will pay for the abortion if the “abortion procedure was medically necessary.”
Of the 571 abortions paid for in 2019, every single baby’s killing was “medically necessary.

Sources within HSS report they have no record of ever rejecting one of these payment forms, or of ever seeking clarification on the “medical necessity” of the abortion.

Those same sources tell us they have no record of ever receiving or forwarding an invoice for the Federal Government to pay.

 

What we learn from this is that when the State of Alaska regulates abortion – as they do in the case of State funded abortions, EVERY ABORTION is “MEDICALLY NECESSARY.”

The logical application of the history of abortion in Alaska is that, under this Heartbeat bill, HB 302, should the baby’s heartbeat be detected before he is killed, that beating heart won’t have any effect on the killer’s decision to perform the abortion, as that baby’s death has already been deemed to be medically necessary.

Finally, why would the man or woman who is going to earn $500 for a 5 minute procedure consider the life, health, or rights of the baby, who has no rights to either life or health in comparison to his mother’s “constitutional right” to her health?
This form directs Alaska’s Department of Health and Social Services to route the invoice for payment based on the box checked:
  1. The Federal Government will pay for the abortion if the child’s condition includes those listed.
  2. The State of Alaska will pay for the abortion if the “abortion procedure was medically necessary.”
Of the 571 abortions paid for in 2019, every single baby’s killing was “medically necessary.

Sources within HSS report they have no record of ever rejecting one of these payment forms, or of ever seeking clarification on the “medical necessity” of the abortion.

Those same sources tell us they have no record of ever receiving or forwarding an invoice for the Federal Government to pay.

 

What we learn from this is that when the State of Alaska regulates abortion – as they do in the case of State funded abortions, EVERY ABORTION is “MEDICALLY NECESSARY.”

The logical application of the history of abortion in Alaska is that, under this Heartbeat bill, HB 302, should the baby’s heartbeat be detected before he is killed, that beating heart won’t have any effect on the killer’s decision to perform the abortion, as that baby’s death has already been deemed to be medically necessary.

Finally, why would the man or woman who is going to earn $500 for a 5 minute procedure consider the life, health, or rights of the baby, who has no rights to either life or health in comparison to his mother’s “constitutional right” to her health?

HEALTH RIGHTS
VS
LIFE RIGHTS

HEALTH RIGHTS
VS
LIFE RIGHTS

HEALTH OF THE MOTHER

Doe makes it clear that the paramount concern in Roe and Doe is the mother’s health.

Under Roe and Doe, the competition between the baby’s statutory rights vs his mother’s constitutional rights ends in defeat of the baby’s rights every time.

The mother’s right to “health” is superior to the baby’s right to life.

We’ll see that the right to health supersedes all others under Doe, and this right to health, has its own definition.

Beginning at 192 in Doe v Bolton, 410 US 179 (1973):

“medical judgement may be exercised in light of all factors…”
HEALTH OF THE MOTHER

Doe makes it clear that the paramount concern in Roe and Doe is the mother’s health.

Under Roe and Doe, the competition between the baby’s statutory rights vs his mother’s constitutional rights ends in defeat of the baby’s rights every time.

The mother’s right to “health” is superior to the baby’s right to life.

We’ll see that the right to health supersedes all others under Doe, and this right to health, has its own definition.

Beginning at 192 in Doe v Bolton, 410 US 179 (1973):

“medical judgement may be exercised in light of all factors…”

MEDICAL JUDGMENT
IN LIGHT OF ALL FACTORS

MEDICAL JUDGMENT
IN LIGHT OF ALL FACTORS

So what did they mean by “all factors?”  How did the Justices define the mother’s health?

“…medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors —physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.

 

Again, what did they mean by “all factors?”  How did the Justices define the mother’s health?

“…medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors”
  • Physical
  • Emotional
  • Psychological
  • Familial
  • Age
All these factors may relate to health.

“This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment. And it is room that operates for the benefit, not the disadvantage, of the pregnant woman.” 
 

So what is the effect of these factors upon which the abortionist’s medical judgement may be exercised?  

If the mother is physically injured, ill, or simply uncomfortable, then in the abortionist’s “medical judgement,” the baby must die in order to restore or preserve her physical “wellbeing.”

If the mother is emotionally upset, then the baby must die in order to restore or preserve her emotional “wellbeing.”

If the baby’s mother is phytologically distressed, then the abortionist must kill her baby in order to restore or preserve her psychological “wellbeing.”

If the pregnant mother is experiencing any relational difficulties within her family -and the baby’s father, then the family and relationships will be restored or preserved once her baby is put to death.

The last is rather difficult to summarize without a healthy dose of satire:  the abortionist’s “medical judgment” declares that the pregnant mother’s youth will be preserved or enhanced by killing her baby.

The absurdity of these examples paints the absurd picture that a baby must die to protect or enhance his mother’s life in any way.

But as we have seen in Alaska’s abortion funding example, the abortionist’s “medical judgment” leads to a dead baby 100% of the time.

As we see here in Alaska’s Heartbeat bill, HB 302, any time the bill’s sponsors regulate killing babies with the “medically necessary,” clause, then they have given their consent every time an abortionist’s medical judgement leads to a dead baby.

So what did they mean by “all factors?”  How did the Justices define the mother’s health?

“…medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors —physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.

 

Again, what did they mean by “all factors?”  How did the Justices define the mother’s health?

“…medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors”
  • Physical
  • Emotional
  • Psychological
  • Familial
  • Age
All these factors may relate to health.

“This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment. And it is room that operates for the benefit, not the disadvantage, of the pregnant woman.” 
 

So what is the effect of these factors upon which the abortionist’s medical judgement may be exercised?  

If the mother is physically injured, ill, or simply uncomfortable, then in the abortionist’s “medical judgement,” the baby must die in order to restore or preserve her physical “wellbeing.”

If the mother is emotionally upset, then the baby must die in order to restore or preserve her emotional “wellbeing.”

If the baby’s mother is phytologically distressed, then the abortionist must kill her baby in order to restore or preserve her psychological “wellbeing.”

If the pregnant mother is experiencing any relational difficulties within her family -and the baby’s father, then the family and relationships will be restored or preserved once her baby is put to death.

The last is rather difficult to summarize without a healthy dose of satire:  the abortionist’s “medical judgment” declares that the pregnant mother’s youth will be preserved or enhanced by killing her baby.

The absurdity of these examples paints the absurd picture that a baby must die to protect or enhance his mother’s life in any way.

But as we have seen in Alaska’s abortion funding example, the abortionist’s “medical judgment” leads to a dead baby 100% of the time.

As we see here in Alaska’s Heartbeat bill, HB 302, any time the bill’s sponsors regulate killing babies with the “medically necessary,” clause, then they have given their consent every time an abortionist’s medical judgement leads to a dead baby.

REGULATING "MEDICAL JUDGMENT"
EQUALS CONSENT TO KILL

REGULATING "MEDICAL JUDGMENT"
EQUALS CONSENT TO KILL

Continuing on with Doe v Bolton, read in its entirety, Doe at 192 says:

“…medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors —physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment. And it is room that operates for the benefit, not the disadvantage, of the pregnant woman.”
Doe v Bolton 410 US 179 (1973) at 192

So what we see here is that under Doe v Bolton – which is included anytime any abortion statute is considered, is that:
  1. The abortionist has exclusive medical judgment and authority.
  2. The abortionist has nearly unlimited reasons to kill a baby.
  3. The abortionist’s medical judgement cannot be challenged.
Notably, the baby is not a consideration, nor is he given any.
Continuing on with Doe v Bolton, read in its entirety, Doe at 192 says:

“…medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors —physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment. And it is room that operates for the benefit, not the disadvantage, of the pregnant woman.”
Doe v Bolton 410 US 179 (1973) at 192

So what we see here is that under Doe v Bolton – which is included anytime any abortion statute is considered, is that:
  1. The abortionist has exclusive medical judgment and authority.
  2. The abortionist has nearly unlimited reasons to kill a baby.
  3. The abortionist’s medical judgement cannot be challenged.
Notably, the baby is not a consideration, nor is he given any.

THERE IS NO GREATER AUTHORITY
THAN THE ABORTIONIST

THERE IS NO GREATER AUTHORITY
THAN THE ABORTIONIST

As we wrap up Part 2 of Alaska’s Heartbeat bill, HB 302, we see how INEFFECTIVELY PREPARED it is to confront Alaska’s abortion laws, let alone Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton.  This Heartbeat bill suffers several critical failures:

ENABLES CONTINUED ABORTION by regulating “abortion after fetal heartbeat detected.”

EXERCISES LEGISLATIVE CONFUSION by permitting babies to be killed BEFORE their heartbeat is detected.

FAILS TO ADDRESS THE INTENT OF ABORTION which is to kill a baby before he is born.

PROMOTES “MEDICALLY NECESSARY” BABY KILLING by surrendering the authority to abortionists to decide when a baby should be killed [never].

IGNORES THE JUDICIAL REALITY OF ROE V WADE by attempting to regulate abortion during a period that Roe expressly prohibits.

And finally, the bill’s sponsors failed to recognize the reality that anytime a state tries to regulate abortion, Doe swoops in and EFFECTIVELY DESTROYS EVERY ATTEMPT.
 
Now that you’ve had a second, more thorough chance to consider how INNEFECTIVELY PREPARED this bill is, check in later this week to see how EFFECTIVELY PRINCIPLED this heartbeat bill is and how it reflects on the legislators who signed on to it.
 
Until then, let’s keep THE MAIN THING… THE MAIN THING!
As we wrap up Part 2 of Alaska’s Heartbeat bill, HB 302, we see how INEFFECTIVELY PREPARED it is to confront Alaska’s abortion laws, let alone Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton.  This Heartbeat bill suffers several critical failures:

ENABLES CONTINUED ABORTION by regulating “abortion after fetal heartbeat detected.”

EXERCISES LEGISLATIVE CONFUSION by permitting babies to be killed BEFORE their heartbeat is detected.

FAILS TO ADDRESS THE INTENT OF ABORTION which is to kill a baby before he is born.

PROMOTES “MEDICALLY NECESSARY” BABY KILLING by surrendering the authority to abortionists to decide when a baby should be killed [never].

IGNORES THE JUDICIAL REALITY OF ROE V WADE by attempting to regulate abortion during a period that Roe expressly prohibits.

And finally, the bill’s sponsors failed to recognize the reality that anytime a state tries to regulate abortion, Doe swoops in and EFFECTIVELY DESTROYS EVERY ATTEMPT.
 
Now that you’ve had a second, more thorough chance to consider how INNEFECTIVELY PREPARED this bill is, check in later this week to see how EFFECTIVELY PRINCIPLED this heartbeat bill is and how it reflects on the legislators who signed on to it.
 
Until then, let’s keep THE MAIN THING… THE MAIN THING!
PART THREE
PART THREE