I hate it when lawmakers will “sneak” in addendums to bills that sometimes have nothing to do with the provision being voted on.
Without going into my personal feelings about the right to terminate a pregnancy or pro-life … I…
Megan Charles

I suspect that the report in ThinkProgress was not being entirely open with the truth.

Just after that bit about ‘sneaking’ the matter into this Bill, was this sentence:

Anti-abortion group Ohio Right to Life previously said the bill would not stand up to a constitutional challenge.

Now, just how could this anti-abortion group have ‘previously’ made a comment, unless the provision was already in there in time for them to comment on it?

I haven’t looked into exactly when the stages of the bill went through and with what language but clearly this wasn’t such a shocker as the writer would like to suggest.

Aside from that, I agree with you on the issue of laws containing things that are unconnected but personally, I see child care as starting in the womb (just try insisting to a happy expectant mother that what she is carrying is not her child), so a law covering child care seems relevant enough to me in covering care prior to birth. I realise that is not the position of an abortionist, who would say that until birth the mother is just carrying a bunch of meaningless cells.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.