Kasich. Should we be mad at him?

[dUSt]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ohio-abortion-idUSKBN1422PT

Out of all the presidential nominees who seemed to have a shot at becoming president, Kasich was my favorite.

Now, I don't know if I should be mad at him. He signed a 20-week abortion ban, but vetoed the "heartbeat" ban. I haven't studied the issue enough to know if this was the best move for pro-life causes.

Someone tell me how to feel about this.

Thanks.

[dominicansoul]

He's a coward.

[Peace]

I would be interested in knowing whether the two provisions would fall or stand together. You don't want to lose 20 weeks because you went for 6 weeks.

I would think that you want to wait for Scalia to get replaced and perhaps one more liberal justice getting replaced, before going for six weeks.

Perhaps you don't want to go for six weeks now and have the SC issue a bad opinion against you, which subsequent courts would feel obligated to give some deference to under stare decisis type principles.

Otherwise, he should have signed it.

[Anomaly]

It seems to be a good strategic move.  The 20 week (able to sense pain) law is similar to some other state's and less likely to be successfully challenged on constitutional grounds.  

The heart beat ban was / is very problematic on constitutional grounds and very restrictive so had garnered a lot of attention and ire from Democratic politicians and ALCU.

The way to stem Roe v Wade laws is to establish Personhood for fetuses which allows States to then set up their own laws to balance protection and rights for mothers and fetuses. Unfortunately, in this day and age of hyper sensitivity to infringement on rights, any protection for fetuses is seen as an infringement on women's rights. Society also is reluctant to promote self responsibility for both DNA contributors to the child. 

I think Kasich did pretty well.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i heard he just didn't want to waste money fighting it in courts since it's obviously unconstitutional.

[Basilisa Marie]

I'm with Anomaly on this one, plus it's too much too fast. He's right, it'll get struck down easily and we're better off in the long run by getting the courts to recognize the legal rights of fetuses (aka Personhood stuff). You know how we say that the Church defines freedom as freedom "for" good things and society defines freedom as freedom "from" restriction aka the ability to make a seemingly infinite number of personal choices? It's getting worse. Personhood movements would not only help change the law but also the culture, and changing the culture results in much more lasting and valuable changes. 

[Anomaly]

1 hour ago, dairygirl4u2c said:

i heard he just didn't want to waste money fighting it in courts since it's obviously unconstitutional.

I almost hate to engage.  

Exactly what aspect of the heartbeat law is "obviously" unconstitutional?

[Maggyie]

Ohio Right to Life was against the heartbeat bill. Although obviously  well meaning, the time is not right to get that through- it would smell of elderberries up a lot of pro life resources and almost certainly be overturned. The 20 week bill is our best chance of making sustainable progress against Roe. 

[Nihil Obstat]

If there is some consensus that the heartbeat bill would not have held up whereas the 20 week one would, then that seems like an acceptable strategic decision, with the caveat being that one does not thereby imply that abortion before 20 weeks is somehow acceptable. (Just as, with the heartbeat bill, one does not imply that abortion before the heartbeat is detectable is acceptable.)

In principle only a total ban on all abortion is truly equitable. But if it takes intermediate steps to reach that point, and if perhaps we never fully actualize a perfectly equitable state, we can still celebrate incremental victories.

Of course this is all assuming that the narrative is correct, that the heartbeat bill was doomed to fail and that his veto of it in some way protects the 20 week bill. Those are questions of fact and I cannot comment on them.

[Amppax]

1 hour ago, Maggyie said:

Ohio Right to Life was against the heartbeat bill. Although obviously  well meaning, the time is not right to get that through- it would smell of elderberries up a lot of pro life resources and almost certainly be overturned. The 20 week bill is our best chance of making sustainable progress against Roe. 

 

The fact that Ohio Right to Life was against the heartbeat bill makes me feel better about this whole situation. Otherwise, I'd be pretty upset. 

In other news, has anyone looked into/has thoughts about the whole lawsuit vs. Sofie Vergara situation? Apparently, she's being sued by a pro-life advocacy group, on behalf of frozen IVF embryos she and her ex-fiance had created. 

[Peace]

8 minutes ago, Amppax said:

In other news, has anyone looked into/has thoughts about the whole lawsuit vs. Sofie Vergara situation? Apparently, she's being sued by a pro-life advocacy group, on behalf of frozen IVF embryos she and her ex-fiance had created. 

Apparently they are suing for the right to be transferred to the uterus? People have way too much time on their hands.

Does the Church even allow for embryo adoption or transfer, from an ethical perspective? The last time I looked the answer seemed to be no.

[Papist]

Gutless.

[Peace]

2 hours ago, Papist said:

Gutless.

Alas. If only the rest of the world were as brave as our beloved Papist.

[Nihil Obstat]

2 hours ago, Peace said:

Apparently they are suing for the right to be transferred to the uterus? People have way too much time on their hands.

Does the Church even allow for embryo adoption or transfer, from an ethical perspective? The last time I looked the answer seemed to be no.

No. Frozen fertilized embryos are in a horrific situation of having no moral course of action to take on their behalf.

[Maggyie]

Actually, embryo adoption/donation is an area of gray. The Church issued a document pointing out the ethical problem involved, but did not clearly condemn the practice because the position is still being developed. When and if it is condemned, the language will not be ambiguous.