As you can guess, this is an abortion bill. The bill requires that any woman seeking an abortion after 20 weeks (5 months) of pregnancy must be informed of the fact that they may be causing physical harm. I assume this is because, at this point, the pain portions of the brain are developed. The bill also points out that the woman should be made aware of anesthetics that could be delivered to the unborn child – but that there are medical risks associated with that.

Now, as I feel is necessary with all abortion bills, I am not here to discuss if abortion should be legal or banned, nor do I feel that anyone is going to change their mind on the topic after reading a random blog post. Please be respectful of the other sides opinion and do not use this blog to push a particular agenda.

That being said, this bill is an utter waste of the states time. What is this bill designed to accomplish, exactly? Does it in any way prevent unwanted pregnancies? Does it protect the rights of the unborn child? Is it a subtle attempt to pick away at a woman’s right to choose? Does it guilt women into having a child they would not normally want? The answers: No, No, Kinda, and Yes.

Honestly, is any woman who is in the middle of impregnation thinking “golly, if I want to abort this child between five and six months (abortions being illegal due to the viability of the fetus after the sixth months), the baby may feel pain?” Of course not. Does this protect the rights of the unborn child? No, technically the fetus does not have any legal rights until the third trimester, therefore it is not an act of cruelty. Is this an attempt to chip away at Roe? Somewhat, insomuch as any bill making abortion more difficult is chipping away at Roe. And, finally, we all know that this bill is a guilt tactic to make women feel even worse about an already difficult decision.

So, I ask again, what is the purpose of the bill? I submit to you that this is a de facto anti-Roe law that is designed to have a chilling effect on abortions and that the state is, once again, wasting time on an issue that must be decided on a federal level. Way to go Carl Wimmer, you are wasting the states time when we really should be discussing things such as, oh I don’t know, our budget deficit or deteriorating roads.

Oh, and finally Representative Wimmer, the term “act” is a specific legal term that generally establishes a new section of law to protect some class of people. All you are doing is expanding current code, not creating an act. Your misuse of simple legislative terms makes me wonder if you really should be a legislator in the first place.