Wyoming introduces two heartbeat bills

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.

heart-babyThe 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.

ultrasoundThe 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.

  • A woman’s “reproductive” choice begins with sex and ends with sex. What do women think sex is for? Their mere entertainment? It’s designed to get you pregnant. Don’t want to get pregnant? Use contraceptives or don’t have sex. Obviously, I’m posting only in regard to consensual sex where contraceptives and choice have a factor. I do believe though that taking a life of a child that’s the product of a rape is an unconscionable thing to do.

    It’s true; the more knowledge a woman has about what she’s about to do to her unborn child, the less likely she’ll want to do it. They don’t want to think about their baby as a baby or any sort of human life because then it would be the same as murdering anyone, but worse because it’s of her own flesh and blood. Many abortionists seem think of children as being as good as cancer, something that could ultimately ruin your life if you don’t get rid of it, a woman’s bane, or at least, that’s what they seem to imply when they write.

  • AWESOME!!! Thank God!!! Yesterday i read that although a baby’s heartbeat isn’t usually detected before the 6th week, yet the heart is beating at 22 days! Even though it would be better to have no abortion at all but still – AWESOME if this happens!! Would save so many lives! …and they need to add something else to the list of side-effects for mothers: depression/severe depression resultng from guilt of killing the child – there are books and videos about the effects of abortion on woman, how severly depressed – even to the point of attempting/committing suicide – some women become. (And it makes sense because a mother cannot forget her own child …not if she’s mentally ok anyway…) Thanks for the article and work!

  • This is great news, but I wish that abortians would be outlawed, period. But it’s a start, and I hope there is such a stigma attached to abortions that very few will ever walk that walk in the future. But all of this can’t happen fast enough, all the lost children ever day breaks my heart. My greatest hope is that, as a society, people will become more responsible in thier birth control ( like they used to be ) and quit this barbaric practice on our most cherished members of our society.

    • The way people used to be more responsible was to, generally, wait until after marriage to have sex.

      • Deege

        Or they had lots of sexual activity that didn’t include intercourse or the risk of pregnancy. Your comment reminds me that while the prolife movement is about preventing abortion, it seems to be regularly infiltrated by people that have an agenda to limit or restrict people’s sex lives or impose so-called traditional values about sex. I’m not saying you’re one of them, necessarily. There are plenty of ways to enjoy sexual activities, even without contraception, that won’t result in a child. I don’t want to have to make a list, but creativity abounds. So the agenda to limit sex to marriage is something completely separate from being prolife. I am a little tired of statements about sexual mores being inserted (ha ha) into the fight against abortion. They are two different things. Also, people who become pregnant in a marriage do indeed have abortions, ya know.

        • Calvin Freiburger

          First, what do you mean by “imposed” and “restrict”? It can’t be the words’ literal meanings, because there’s no such movement to control people’s sex lives in this country. Put Tony Perkins in the presidency, make James Dobson the Speaker of the House, give them Republican majorities in Congress and on the Supreme Court, and it would still be perfectly legal to have sex out of wedlock.

          Second, the relation between one’s views on abortion and sex is pretty straightforward. and to see it as some sort of “infiltration” seems bizarre. Because pro-lifers recognize the sanctity of an unborn life and the gravity of abortion, they understand that there’s a certain level of responsibility inherent to the act that creates babies, and so they infer from that a more balanced view of sex’s role in one’s life.

          • Deege

            Legally imposed abstinence-only education is a perfect example, just to give you an idea of what I mean.
            If your definition of sex is limited to sexual intercourse, then your post makes sense, Calvin. Otherwise it doesn’t. It would also make me feel very sorry for you.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            That’s your definition of “imposing”? Really?


          • Deege

            For a moderator, you sure seem to enjoy denigrating people who support the same cause you do. I’ve seen it in your other posts. Yes, abstinence only education legally IMPOSES (the correct word) a viewpoint through the public education process and allows no others to be taught. In fact, many abstinence education laws stipulate that teachers be fired for teaching any other view. That is an actual fact. And while abstaining from sexual intercourse is a proven strategy for avoiding pregnancy, abstaining from sexual activity entirely is not required to prevent pregnancy. That is also a fact. The point I have made stands. I do not think the prolife movement needs to be concerned with whether people are married or not, or meet some other acceptable context, before they engage in sexual activity that does not risk or produce pregnancy. The concern is pregnancy and preventing unborn children from being killed.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            You see me enjoy denigrating other pro-lifers? Is this in the same world where putting certain requirements into the job description for a public position constitutes “restricting people’s sex lives”? And in which teaching children to be sexually responsible has no conceivable connection to the finding themselves facing the temptation to lethally dispose of one of sex’s consequences?

            It’s one thing to disagree with pro-lifers about abstinence, but the offense and indignation in your writing comes off as if you’re attacking a line of pro-life thought you’ve never actually tried to understand or familiarize yourself with. For a pro-lifer, that’s a big problem.

            You may have converted to the pro-life cause, and I congratulate and thank you for that. But your comments history’s fixation with bashing pro-lifers with many of the same talking points from the pro-abortion movement’s list seems to indicate that you still haven’t shed all of pro-choice culture’s assumptions, caricatures, and fallacies about pro-life people and thought.

          • Amy

            I go to a public high school in Seattle. It’s pretty nuts out here, what with pot just becoming legal and whatnot, so don’t think of me as some sheltered Christian girl who doesn’t know what she’s talking about beyond, “SEX IS BAD! BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAID SO!” (Which it doesn’t, by the way).

            What you suggest is that the pro-life movement have a double standard: be as irresponsible with your sex life as you want, but be responsible and don’t abort the baby. While I want nobody to abort their baby, it is only logical to ask people to have sex in the safest context possible (meaning marriage). And if you’re going to talk about couples finding alternatives to baby-making sex, that is no guarantee that they won’t get carried away and go on to get pregnant. And you can’t assume that, just because some married couples have abortions, our abstinence argument is false is a very illogical way to read all of this.

            At a gymnastics meet two years ago, I heard two girls, one a sophomore, one a freshman, talking about their abortions. You might say it is tragic they had the abortions, and I would agree, but I think it’s tragic they put their bodies in that situation in the first place. 14-year-old girls shouldn’t be getting abortions because our culture says it’s fine to have sex with your boyfriend once you feel comfortable with him. We shouldn’t be introducing those risks to such young people—that’s irresponsible on OUR part.

            And this, my dear Deege, is why I can’t agree with your viewpoint except that neither of us want babies to be aborted. And sorry for the essay :)

  • Deege

    The heartbeat bill flouts the Supreme Court’s existing ruling regarding viability. Not sure why the Wyoming legislature thinks it’s smart to waste taxpayer time and money on a bill that directly contradicts an existing Supreme Court ruling. It wouldn’t be a good test case for Roe because it doesn’t present any new information; the justices already knew that pre-viability fetuses had heartbeats when they decided Roe. The bill seems like a public gesture that if passed will be struck down in the courts. Time wasted that could be spent on better-crafted legislation that might actually accomplish something.
    The informed consent bill makes sense and is a no-brainer.

  • Yes, there’s something about the heart beat, I agree. Very happy news, even if it doesn’t pass (as someone pointed out, it’s null and void if it contradicts the Supreme Court.)