Trending
Many women don't know they are pregnant by the time a fetus has a heartbeat that's detectable to an obstetrician.
And by the time that heart is beating -- normally around 6 weeks into a pregnancy -- it would be illegal in Ohio to terminate that pregnancy, according to the controversial so-called 'heartbeat bill' that passed Dec. 14 in the Ohio legislature.
Abortion-rights advocates and medical professionals say the quick timeline would make it virtually impossible for most women to have access to abortion in Ohio.
Republican Gov. John Kasich vetoed the bill Friday, but lawmakers say they will return to session Thursday in an attempt to override that veto along with a few others the lame-duck governor dealt last week.
And right in the center of the heartbeat bill controversy is local legislator Rep. Glenn Holmes, D-Girard, who first voted yes on the bill in mid-November because he said he is inherently pro-life. But then Holmes voted no when the bill came back around about a month later, following some Senate changes.
He acknowledged getting some pressure about his vote that aligned mostly with Republicans (he was one of two Democrats to vote yes), but during our conversation, Holmes tried hard to persuade me that the pressure was not his reason for voting no.
Instead, he maintains he felt strongly that the bill's far-reaching abortion bans were being used specifically to trigger court challenges ultimately to test Roe v. Wade.
"The whole thing is written to contradict Roe v. Wade," Holmes said.
Primary sponsor of the bill, Republican Rep. Christina Hagan, of Stark County, has acknowledged that assessment publicly.
"This legislation is 100 percent crafted to be an arrow that goes at the heart of Roe v. Wade," Hagan said, according to Plain Dealer reports.
It's largely that ploy that Holmes says helped to convince him to vote no on the bill the second time around. Holmes told me one of his goals in voting yes initially was really to start conversation about this bill.
Well, mission accomplished.
But Holmes also said he does not want to be that swing vote allowing override of the governor's veto and likely triggering a lengthy, expensive U.S. Supreme Court battle over the law's constitutionality.
Kasich also said he sees a costly court battle -- one that would be fought largely with taxpayer money.
Think about this: if that were to happen, it wouldn't matter whether taxpayers like you or me agree or disagree with the bill's language. Either way, we'd be on the hook for the legal fees.
Here's how that could happen: Abortion-rights advocates would file a federal lawsuit and its constitutionality could be tested and appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court's changing political atmosphere has many pro-life advocates feeling more confident that such a law could stand up against a court challenge that could ultimately lead to a new decision on abortion access -- that is, if the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take the case.
In a veto message, Kasich said he, however, does not believe the heartbeat bill would stand up as constitutional.
"The State of Ohio will be the losing party in that lawsuit and, as the losing party, the State of Ohio will be forced to pay hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to cover the legal fees for the pro-choice activists' lawyers," Kasich wrote Friday.
It's questionable whether the law's supporters will have the votes to override the veto, due in large part to holiday vacations. But the fact is, they may not need the votes because, ultimately, incoming Gov. Mike DeWine, also a Republican, has said he will sign the heartbeat bill. That means the legislature need only reintroduce the bill and move it through the House, with likely repeat passage, after DeWine takes office.
In Holmes' words, "There's so many dynamics that fall into play."
Of course there are. It's politics. The problem is, those dynamics come at a high price that taxpayers pay.