Oklahoma Lawmaker Wants to Restrict Abortions After Upon Heartbeat Detection

By Staff Writer | Jan 23, 2017 12:20 AM EST

Oklahoma lawmaker, Sen. Paul Scott proposes a bill that bans abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected. (Photo : Win McNamee / Getty Images)

Senator Paul Scott wants to restrict abortions after a heartbeat is detected. The Oklahoma lawmaker filed a bill for the abortion ban which would prohibit physicians from performing abortions if the embryonic or fetal heartbeat is determined to be audible.

Scott justified his Senate Bill 710, explaining himself to be a pro-life that believes in the sanctity of life. He said he wants do all that he can within the constitutional rights to clearly and scientifically define that life begins with the first heartbeat, without having to go against the federal government. He further explained that a baby's heart, brains, spinal cord and organs are beginning to form during the fifth week of pregnancy.

"Our abortion laws are outdated and based on old technology and science. Roe v. Wade was settled 43 years ago. Now doctors possess the tools and knowledge to not only sustain life several weeks earlier than was possible back then but now they can even create life in the lab," Scott said. "We need to fight for that baby and acknowledge that it is in fact a human being with the right to live."

A similar bill was recently vetoed by the Ohio Governor, John Kasich. The bill banned abortions for about six weeks, which would have been the nation's strictest time-based legislation. However, certain provisions that were amended into Am. Sub HB 493 were found contradicting to the US Supreme Court's current rulings on abortion.

The amendment to Am. Sub. HB 493 is often struck down because the federal courts are bound to follow the Supreme Court's current rulings on abortion. Such defeats cost huge amounts of legal fees for the losing party.

Similar bills previously passed in Arkansas and North Dakota were also declared unconstitutional by the federal government. The Supreme Court declined to review those decisions.

More Sections