Proposed Indiana Bill Would Ban Abortions When Heartbeat Detected

Ultrasound-pdINDIANAPOLIS, Ind. — A proposed bill in Indiana would ban abortions when a heartbeat is detected, and would create severe criminal penalties for abortionists who kill babies with a beating heart.

Senate Bill 144 is proposed by state Sen. Jim Banks, and “prohibits the performance or inducement of an abortion of an unborn human individual with a detectable heartbeat unless the medical procedure is designed or intended to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment
of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.”

Those who perform abortions without first performing an ultrasound, or who end the life of an unborn child in spite of the detected heartbeat, would be found guilty of a felony.

“[T]he following are Level 5 felonies: (1) Performing or inducing an abortion before determining whether the unborn human individual has a detectable heartbeat. (2) The performance or inducement of an abortion after the detection of a fetal heartbeat,” it reads.

While some say that the bill will prevent abortions as early as six weeks as a result, most fetal development experts outline that a baby’s heart begins beating in as little as 20-25 days after conception.

“We have over 8,000 children aborted every year in Indiana. This would deplete that number greatly,” Amy Schlichter, the woman who inspired the bill, told the Indianapolis Star. “The bill basically says if a heartbeat is detected, the baby is protected. The bill doesn’t put a woman before a child. Both should equally have rights. I believe it’s what women want.”

Senate Bill 144 would also establish an Interim Study Committee on adoption promotion and support.

  • Connect with Christian News

Sen. Banks says that the measure is necessary to protect life.

“This important legislation would protect unborn Hoosiers’ right to life and also includes important women’s health protections,” he remarked in a statement.

Sen. Jim Tomes has also introduced a separate bill increasing the penalties for selling baby bodily organs in the state.

“The mutilation of a little baby that’s never done anything wrong, I don’t know how anybody could make a good argument to support that,” he told reporters. “I can tell you now in our society today if someone were to do that to a puppy or a cat, the outrage would be enormous if someone were doing that.”

“That we even have reports and stories of this taking place now with little babies is just beyond the human mind to fully understand what a dastardly deed that is,” Tomes continued. “It would be nice to have something in place to prevent it from ever happening.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

    But what about the children? How are they going to kill the babies if this passes?

  • Nidalap

    These days, a law is only good until it meets the next activist judge. This war will have to be won in the hearts of mothers, or not at all…

    • afchief

      Yep, because there is no federal law allowing abortions

      • Elie Challita

        There is no federal law prohibiting them either. If there is no law specifically granting you a right, does that mean that you do not have that right?

        • afchief

          There are state laws banning abortions. Read!!!!

          http://law.jrank. org/pages/11829/Abortion-State-Statutes.html

          • Elie Challita

            And those laws were found unconstitutional under Roe v Wade. Case is settled, until a constitutional amendment or a new SCOTUS decision overturns Roe v Wade.

            In any case, answer this very simple question, please:
            If there is no law specifically granting you a right, does that mean that you do not have that right?

          • afchief

            Sorry Mr. Liar, SCOTUS ruling are only “opinions”. It changes nothing!!!! That is why states STILL have laws regarding abortions.

          • Elie Challita

            Alright, you and I are never going to agree on the proper role of SCOTUS so I’m going to ignore the issue from now on.

            You still haven’t answered:

            If there is no law specifically granting you a right, does that mean that you do not have that right?

          • afchief

            Our rights are unalienable! The Declaration asserts that:

            We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

            That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

            Government does not grant rights as government never possessed them in the first place. Government may grant privileges but it may not infringe (under natural law) on rights.

            This is the foundational principle of America. It does not matter if 51%, 66%, 75% or 99.999% of the people don’t want you to have one or more of your rights.

            There is no legitimate act, whether by Congress, law, the Constitution or any other means to deprive you of your natural rights, because you are endowed with them by virtue of being human.

            Government may disrespect those rights but it cannot change the fact that you have them, no matter how much disrespect it shows.

            No man can take or restrict that which was not his to bestow in the first place.

          • Elie Challita

            The constitution says nothing about your right to drive a car, or use a computer. Does that mean that your posting here is illegal?

          • afchief

            You are comparing apples and oranges i.e. a straw mans argument and you know it.

          • Elie Challita

            Not at all: The majority of the actions you perform every day, and the majority of rights you enjoy, were never codified into laws.
            The majority of our laws don’t grant you a particular right: They either prohibit you from doing something (like driving faster than 30 miles per hour in a neighborhood) or they prohibit the state from doing something to you (like searching your house without a warrant).

            And yet you claim that, because a state legislature doesn’t pass a law specifically allowing you a particular right, then you technically do not have that right. Are you an authoritarian, Chief? Are you for big government granting the peasant class only the rights it thinks they should have?

          • afchief

            Oh Please!! Use that little liberal cranium of yours and think!!!! Straw man argument!!!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            It’s not a matter of “agreement” because it’s not an opinion. The Supreme Court is going to continue to strike down unconstitutional laws, as it always has, and the majority of the country is going to respect those decisions, as we always have.

            Meanwhile, afchief is going to continue whining like a child that this is not how the government works, even though no one cares and we’ll all continue going about our business as he shouts into the wind.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            If case law is meaningless, as you keep insisting, why do lawyers cite cases in every single brief and every single motion before every single court in this entire country? Why do you suppose that is?

            And don’t say to me 10 pages of copy and paste. Just answer the question.

          • afchief

            Ahhh Mr. Make believe lawyer who has NO understanding of Constitutional law. I have told you before WHY people/lawyers do this!!!! They are repeating lies! We have all been programmed with cleverly crafted lies and propaganda. It has often been stated that if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. Until we are willing to challenge the lies that we’ve been taught and fight back on the proper premise, we will continue running around the tree trying to head off the wolf at the pass.

            Remember, the “Supreme” Court does not make, change OR strike down laws, it simply offers opinions on whether or not a “law” meets Constitutional muster. If the law violates the Constitution, then the law is remanded back to the Legislative branch so that the law can be re-written to fall in line with the Constitution. This is how our government is supposed to create laws.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Okay, so you admit that all lawyers do this. Are all lawyers “fake lawyers?”

          • afchief

            Yes they do. They have been programmed/manipulated to believe lies. When a lawyer is using a SCOTUS ruling as law it is a lie!!!

  • 201821208 :)

    “Thou shalt not kill.” Exodus 20:13 & Deuteronomy 5:17
    “Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment” Matthew 5:21

  • BarkingDawg

    So if there are two babies with beating hearts, and one resorbs the other (the Vanishing twin Syndrome) will the surviving twin be criminally charged?

  • Elie Challita

    This law will very probably be found to be unconstitutional since heartbeats predate viability by a 12-13 weeks, and the federal standard for restricting abortions centers on viability according to Roe v Wade.