Heartbeat Bill Tabled In Committee; Some Members Quietly Express Concerns
by February 5, 2013 6:16 pm 130 views
Today, the House Public Health Committee put the brakes on Sen. Jason Rapert’s Heartbeat Bill – SB134 – when the committee tabled the bill during the meeting. Chairman John Burris moved to have the bill tabled and his motion was approved by the committee. Sen. Rapert requested a special order of business, but Burris said the details of when to do this needed to be worked out.
Now, those are the facts of what happened, but what does it mean?
I noted yesterday that I heard some rumblings among House members in leadership roles that they were concerned about the Heartbeat Bill, specifically whether the bill had a chance to withstand a court challenge. The bill goes much further than Rep. Mayberry’s Fetal Pain Bill, which bans abortions at the point in which the unborn baby can experience pain – around 20 weeks. The Heartbeat Bill bans abortions when a heartbeat can be detected – as early as 6 weeks.
It is important to understand the distinction between the two bills. The Fetal Pain Bill chips slightly back at the viability standard set in the Supreme Court 1992 decision, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which upheld state restrictions around 23 weeks. It is reasonable to argue that a ban at 20 weeks could be upheld by the courts within its existing legal framework.
On the other hand, the Heartbeat Bill would challenge existing court precedents and could only be upheld if the Supreme Court were to reverse or at least re-visit its previous decisions in Roe v. Wade and subsequent decisions.
To put it another way, the Fetal Pain Bill would be a base hit for pro-lifers, while the Heartbeat would be a homerun. Now, there is nothing wrong with swinging for the fences. Overturning Roe is the long-term goal of the pro-life community.
But the Heartbeat Bill would be the most restrictive abortion law in the country. The Ohio state legislature considered a similar ban, but backed off due to the same legal concerns being expressed by some here in Arkansas. In Ohio, the House passed the bill before the Republican dominated Senate tabled the measure. Several other states are considering the bill, including North Dakota and Mississippi.
Since Arkansas would be the first in the United States to pass the law, it would be the prime target of legal action from abortion rights groups across the country. This means that the law needs to be crafted as carefully as possible. Any chink in the armor will give those opposing the measure greater leverage in court.
Rep. Burris tells me this is the reason for the bills to be table today. He expects that the bill will be brought back up with an amendment that will improve the bill.
It is also of note that Arkansas Right to Life has been focusing on the Fetal Pain Bill – as well as two other bills on their agenda – but they have not been openly advocating for the Heartbeat Bill.
In Ohio, their state right to life group took a similarly neutral position and even expressed concerns that the bill could hand abortion rights groups an easy court victory and be a setback for the pro-life movement.
It will be interesting to see what happens in Arkansas. Many House members have expressed concerns over the bill, but also are reluctant to vote against any pro-life measure. In this respect, Arkansas Right to Life could be pivotal in Arkansas as it was in Ohio.
For now, the bill remains tabled in the House Public Health Committee and it will take a majority of a quorum to bring the bill back up. This could allow for the bill to die without a vote taken which might be the result some are quietly hoping for.
On the other hand, if a vote is forced, it will be tough for any pro-life member to vote against it.
Right now it appears it will return with an amendment but this one is one to keep an eye on.
UPDATE – Sources further tell me that the amendment will primarily have to do with the manner in which the heartbeat is detected making the procedure less invasion. This likely will also move the ban to around 12 weeks instead of 6 weeks. In short, the bill will return with a great chance of withstanding a lawsuit that is likely to come from the abortion rights groups.