Even while judicial setbacks in Ohio have discouraged pro-lifers in the state and across the country, the Ohio State Senate has been busy working on even more pro-life legislation. One such bill was passed in October, and the chamber passed an additional pro-life bill on Wednesday.
Senate Bill 155, the most recent of the two, requires doctors to inform mothers that it is within the realm of possibility to reverse a chemical abortion if they change their mind and no longer want to abort their child. The bill was passed 22-10. While most voted along party lines, one Republican voted against the bill with Senate Democrats.
Senator Peggy Lehner (R-Kettering), the bill’s sponsor, explained: “This legislation simply gives women information on an alternative choice if they change their mind and want to continue their pregnancy.”
The earlier bill, which passed in October with a party line vote, is the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act (Senate Bill 208). It would ensure proper reporting of and care for children who are born alive after an abortion attempt, and states:
No person shall purposely take the life of a child born by attempted abortion who is alive when removed from the uterus of the pregnant woman. No person who performs an abortion shall purposely fail to take the measures required by the exercise of medical judgment in light of the attending circumstances to preserve the health or life of a child who is alive when removed from the uterus of the pregnant woman. Whoever violates this section is guilty of abortion manslaughter, a felony of the first degree.
Again, not a single Senate Democrat voted for either bill.
Senator Terry Johnson (R-McDermott), the sponsor of SB208, stated: “It’s time that we make certain that those who are truly the most vulnerable citizens are protected.”
The two bills will now be taken up in the State House for consideration.
As of late, pro-life legislation in Ohio has been largely blocked by the courts. It is yet to be determined whether or not these bills, if passed and signed into law, would be able to stand up against the assumed legal challenges.
