If my pet theory is correct, then very possibly: Ohio legislators will be unveiling today the Heartbeat Bill, which would ban abortions where a fetal heartbeat can be detected (H/T: Weasel Zippers). This would effectively put the cap on abortions in Ohio at being absolutely no later than six weeks, and quite possibly earlier: pro-choice agitators are already simultaneously claiming that the proposed law is intolerably restrictive and that almost nobody in Ohio needs later term abortions anyway. That these claims are at least potentially contradictory to each other is… pretty much standard for pro-choicers, actually.
At any rate, this bill has a decent chance of passing. Ohio abruptly flipped over to full Republican control of the state government last November, with the GOP taking control of the General Assembly and the governorship (we already had the state Senate): the sponsor of the Heartbeat Bill (state representative Lynn Wachtmann) has 40 (out of 99) of her fellow-representatives already signed on. And, of course, Governor Kasich is pro-life. But it’s a very serious and meaningful piece of pro-life legislation; which means that there’s going to be significant push-back on it. The question is, does Live Action have something to push back on the push-back?
Moe Lane (crosspost)
That’s pretty plainly in direct contravention of Roe. Roe explicitly declares that personhood under the 14th is the standard, and this bill – at least from description in the linked article – doesn’t appear to address that. If this bill passes, it won’t stand scrutiny for as long as it takes for the ink to dry.
Incidentally, I’m making a descriptive claim, not a normative one.