The pro-life movement may be one step closer to another victory with news out of Wyoming today. Two new bills were introduced, both focusing on fetal heartbeats. These bills, if passed, would deliver a devastating blow to the pro-abortion movement, which is already on the verge of having a meltdown over the news.
The first bill would outlaw all abortions in the state of Wyoming after a fetal heartbeat is detected:
The bill substitutes two words in current state law with four words. Current law says abortions are prohibited after the embryo or fetus has “reached viability.” The proposed law removes “reached viability” and adds “a detectable fetal heartbeat.
The bill defines a “legal heart beat” as “cardiac activity or steady and repetitive rhythmic contraction of the fetal heart within the gestational sac that is detectable using standard medical equipment.”
So basically, once a heartbeat is detectable, abortionists will no longer be able to stop it from beating. Katie Backer, pro-abortion blogger for Jezebel, quipped that the right to kill your baby is more important than the fact that you’d be killing a human being with a beating heart.
The potential switch from “viability” to “fetal heartbeat” would be a gigantic coup for anti-abortion advocates — what’s more heartbreaking than “killing” a being with a heartbeat? We can think of something: preventing women from making their own reproductive choices by further limiting the situations in which they’re “allowed” to get an abortion.
So she is basically admitting that women should be allowed to kill their babies, and she’s acknowledging that it’s heartbreaking to know that your baby has a heartbeat and you’d be stopping it. But, you know, ignore that you’re stopping a beating heart. Ignore that you’re killing your child, a completely independent being which just happens to reside within your womb. Your convenience is more important.
The next bill ensures that women are fully informed, something abortionists don’t seem to be that concerned with.
In addition to presenting pregnant women the option of listening to the heartbeat, SF88 requires physicians to tell the women at least 24 hours before the abortion about the abortion method that will be used, medications, side effects and risks including “infection, hemorrhage, cervical or uterine perforation, danger to subsequent pregnancies, the increased risk of breast cancer and the death of the unborn fetus.”
Furthermore, a doctor would have to explain alternatives to abortion. Doctors would have to describe the age and anatomic and physiologic characteristics from ultrasound. Doctors would have to offer the woman the opportunity to view the ultrasound image. The woman would have to sign a document saying she’s been notified of her opportunity to view and hear the heartbeat.
If a pregnancy threatens the life of a woman, she would be able to receive an abortion immediately, the bill says.
A bill like this should be relatively uncontroversial. Any other medical procedure requires exactly this same brand of informed consent. But pro-aborts wail about this as well, because they know full well that the more informed women are, the less likely they are to have abortions. If you know your baby has a beating heart, has little fingernails and toenails, and that abortion can be extremely risky for the mother, you’re obviously going to have second thoughts. This just does not sit well with abortion advocates, because anything that might diminish the number of abortions is a bad thing. Informed consent means nothing at the altar of abortion, after all.