WHEN he was running for president earlier this year, John Kasich held great appeal for moderate Republicans. The governor of Ohio is open to immigration reform, backs Common Core, a set of national educational standards, and expanded Medicaid, a health-care programme for the poor, in his state. One exception is his stance on abortion. During his governorship, he signed no fewer than 17 bills containing restrictions on abortions into law. 

On December 13th the governor approved another such bill. Senate bill 127 bans abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, a point at which supporters of the bill say a fetus experiences pain, with no exceptions for cases of rape or incest. More than a dozen states already have such a ban even though it is inconsistent with Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court’s abortion-rights ruling from 1973, which gives women the right to have an abortion until about 24 weeks of a pregnancy. On the same day he vetoed a so-called heartbeat bill that was tucked in as an amendment into proposed legislation on child abuse. The bill bans abortions from the moment a fetal heartbeat can be detected, which tends to be at around the sixth week of a pregnancy (when some women are not even aware that they are pregnant); it also didn’t allow any exceptions.

In a statement the governor explained his motivation to fellow members of the pro-life community as mainly pragmatic. Heartbeat bills are clearly contrary to the Supreme Court’s current rulings on abortion, said Mr Kasich, so lower courts have struck down similar bills in North Dakota and Arkansas and the Supreme Court refused to review either decision earlier this year. Trying to fight legal challenges of an Ohio version of a heartbeat bill would cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands at a time when Ohio can ill afford extra cost. Moreover, a defeat in court could have invited further challenges of Ohio’s robust abortion laws, according to the governor.

Supporters of abortion rights, including Ohio’s association of physicians, had pleaded with Mr Kasich to veto both bills. The 16,000-member Ohio State Medical Association says it doesn’t take positions on abortion but opposes both bills for criminalising or otherwise penalising a procedure that is part of standard care. Democratic lawmakers have been up in arms since the bills were voted by the Republican-controlled houses of parliament. Greta Johnson, a state representative, recounted how during the ten years she spent prosecuting rape and incest cases she once encountered a 12-year-old who had been impregnated by her brother. The young victim would not have been allowed to terminate her pregnancy under the law Mr Kasich vetoed. Charleta Taveres, a state senator, said she was especially upset that the heartbeat bill was sneaked into a bill on child abuse that nearly everyone agreed on. Ms Taveres said she could not vote for legislation that she otherwise wholeheartedly backed thanks to the amendment.

Mr Kasich’s veto is unlikely to be the end of Ohio’s heartbeat bill. Ms Johnson predicts that supporters of the bill will reintroduce it after January 3rd next year when the general assembly is in session again. On December 13th Janet Porter, the head of Faith2Action, a radical religious lobby, who was the author of Ohio’s first heartbeat bill in 2011, asked Cliff Rosenberg, the speaker of the state house, to bring to the house floor a vote to override the veto. “While Governor Kasich betrayed life, broke his pro-life promises, and turned his back on 20,000 babies whose heartbeats can be heard, the battle is not over,” said Ms Porter who claims supporters of the bill are just two votes away from overriding Mr Kasich’s veto. To be successful the override requires three-fifths of the votes in both houses of parliament. 

Why did Ohio’s Republican lawmakers suddenly rush to push through two contradictory abortion bills? Keith Faber, the president of the senate, used to oppose the heartbeat bill because it is so clearly unconstitutional. But now, Mr Faber argues, the dynamics have changed and the bills have a better chance of surviving thanks to the prospect of Donald Trump appointing a pro-life Supreme Court judge soon after his inauguration in January. 

A ninth Supreme Court judge who is pro-life will not immediately endanger Roe because five of the court’s judges are reliably standing up for the ruling. Yet two of the five are octogenarians and may not survive the end of the Trump presidency. A couple of pro-life nominations to the court could spell the end of Roe and return abortion legislation to states’ jurisdictions. During the campaign Mr Trump said that women who have abortions should face some kind of punishment. For some, the uncertainty about the future of abortion rights already feels like a form of retribution.