Ludicrous Legislation

House Bill 214

Short Title: Prohibit abortion if unborn has or may have Down Syndrome

Long Title: To amend section 3701.79 and to enact sections 2919.10 and 2919.101 of the Revised Code to prohibit a person from performing, inducing, or attempting to perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman who is seeking the abortion because an unborn child has or may have Down Syndrome.


OK, I cannot help but rant a bit after seeing this!
What kind of discriminatory non-sensical law is this? I can’t believe it got this far (not that I don’t think the world would surely be a better place with more gentle souls in it, but I somehow doubt that was the legislators’ motive…).

I thought maybe it was a misinterpretation by the media, so I went and looked at the actual legislation (see quoted section below). Guess Kasich wasn’t as moderate (or sane) as he seemed because, no matter which side of the choice issue you stand on, this distinction just doesn’t make any sense! Beyond that, it is written in a way that it is basically unenforceable (or, conversely, overenforceable), which of course means the lawyers must LOVE it since you can argue it all day long (cha-ching)!

  • What makes a fetus with Down syndrome some sort of special class to be distinguished from any other fetus? Surely not an extra chromosome??
  • What makes Down syndrome any different than any other condition that will impact the unborn for life if born?
  • What if a woman or an “unmarried, unemancipated minor” (who may petition to have an abortion without notice to parent, guardian or custodian in Ohio) seeks an abortion for any other reason and the fetus has by chance been diagnosed with (or is suspected of having) Down syndrome? What if she tells the doctor it is for a different reason, but the doctor “suspects” it is because of Down syndrome?

If all these questions arise in my mind immediately upon reading an article of a few paragraphs, how is all of it completely ignored by legislators and a government when enacting legislation? I thought our part-time Nevada legislature wasted valuable time on ridiculous legislation at times, but perhaps it is not so bad after all. In any case, wasting valuable time on such ludicrous legislation does make me sick when so many immediate needs have yet to be addressed (e.g., education, homelessness, poverty, hunger, ..).

Actual language in legislation:
“The attending physician shall indicate that the attending physician does not have knowledge that the pregnant woman was seeking the abortion, in whole or in part, because of any of the following: (1) A test result indicating Down syndrome in an unborn child; (2) A prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome in an unborn child; (3) Any other reason to believe that an unborn child has Down syndrome. (The woman cannot be held to violate the law.)”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *