Loveland Magazine

LOVELAND MAGAZINE

News and Events from the Loveland, Ohio Area

Without fear or favor

Since 2004

Tag: abortion rights

Ohio’s pro-abortion rights groups plan fights against total abortion ban bill

By: Susan Tebben – Ohio Capital Journal

Pro-abortion rights advocates are taking a proposed total abortion ban in Ohio to heart. Noting the celebration of Juneteenth and Black emancipation, they say the use of the 14th Amendment to try to exert state control over individual freedom and bodily autonomy is vile.

The new bill a pair of freshman Republican House lawmakers are planning to introduce would ban abortion and criminalize it, along with in-vitro fertilization and certain types of contraception. The measure’s filing was first reported by WEWS.

The bill is meant as a direct challenge to the state reproductive rights amendment passed by 57% of Ohio voters in 2023.

Bill supporters say the current constitutional amendment that enshrined reproductive rights into the Ohio Constitution “should be treated as null and void” because, they claim, it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment “by denying pre-born persons the right to life.”

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects citizenship and due process, along with equal protection under the law.

“In appealing to the 14th Amendment, the Ohio Prenatal Equal Protection Act appeals to a higher law; the U.S. Constitution,” the anti-abortion group End Abortion Ohio, who is leading the charge on the bill, said in a statement.

Austin Biegel, a member of End Abortion Ohio, argued that yes, the bill would go against the majority public opinion of Ohioans, but he justified it by arguing that slavery was once also supported and legal in the U.S.

Lexi Dotson-Dufault, executive director of the resource and referral service Abortion Fund Ohio, called the use of the 14th Amendment as part of an abortion ban bill “vile.”

“A bill that bans abortion while citing the 14th Amendment misuses a civil rights protection to justify state control over our marginalized community members, especially Black people,” Dotson-Dufault said.

A report from the National Partnership for Women & Families in May of last year found that state abortion bans “exacerbate the existing Black maternal mortality crisis,” and “threaten” 7 million Black women nationwide.

The study found that mothers who can’t access abortion care see negative impacts to their “economic security and development of their existing children.”

‘Canary in the coal mine’

Dotson-Dufault and Ohio Women’s Alliance Deputy Director Jordyn Close believe Republican legislators are emboldened to attempt anti-abortion measures in part because of a Missouri Supreme Court ruling that reinstated a “de facto abortion ban” in May, lifting an injunction that had blocked abortion restrictions.

Lexi Dotson-Dufault, executive director of Abortion Fund Ohio. Photo courtesy of Lexi Doston-Dufault.

The decision came months after that state also approved an amendment to its constitution that protected reproductive rights.

The pro-abortion rights advocates see no legal standing for the new abortion ban bill, but they also see abortion rights as “the canary in the coal mine when it comes to … rights being stripped away from people.”

“I don’t think that this bill has any legs to stand on, but I do think that it’s very important to highlight just how gross it is that they would even try it,” Close said. “Because if it’s not this bill, it will be another one introduced in the next session … it just continues because they do not respect Ohioans.”

Ohio’s constitutional amendment, passed in 2023, protects abortion and other types of reproductive health like fertility treatments and miscarriage care, but more than 30 other regulations still sit on the books in Ohio law.

Those statutes would have to be undone one by one, even though state courts have blocked some of the laws, as well as a six-week abortion ban that was on the books before Roe v. Wade was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

But Republicans in the state legislature are also trying to double-down on such regulations.

State Reps. Mike Odioso and Josh Williams have already filed House Bill 347, a bill which targets informed consent, requiring that 24 hours before an abortion doctors provide not only “medically accurate information that a reasonable patient would consider material to the decision of whether to undergo the elective abortion” — which abortion providers have said they are already required to do — but also “alternatives to abortion, including adoption and parenting.”

H.B. 347 also puts into law medically controversial and unproven language that “it may be possible to reverse the effects of the abortion-inducing drug” if a medication abortion is taking place.

This isn’t the first time Ohio lawmakers have attempted to include this language in state law.

The bill also requires a physician to notify the pregnant person, except in the case of rape or incest, “that the unborn child’s father has a child support obligation, even if the father has offered to pay for the elective abortion.”

According to a recent midyear analysis from the Guttmacher Institute, 13 states have total abortion bans on the books, with another 28 that have bans between six weeks of gestation and “viability.”

Ohio’s constitutional amendment places abortion legality at viability, as determined by an individual’s physician.

The institute’s report also said the first half of 2025 has given rise to anti-abortion state lawmakers who “have continued to push the envelope toward pregnancy criminalization, restrictions on bodily autonomy and laws that recognize fetal and embryonic personhood,” while also reducing funding for resources like sex education.

Jordyn Close, deputy director of Ohio Women’s Alliance. (Photo by Graham Stokes for Ohio Capital Journal. Republish photo only with original article.)

The state-level action comes as the Trump administration spent its first few months in office revoking Biden-era executive orders on abortion, including patient privacy protections, and rolling back guidance on access to emergency abortion care under the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act.

President Donald Trump also pardoned nearly two dozen people convicted under a federal law that bans threats, physical obstruction or force at the entrances to reproductive health clinics.

The language of that federal law for which Trump issued pardons also bars interference, injury or intimidation for any exercise of First Amendment religious freedom, including at places of worship.

Efforts to slash federal funding have also touched reproductive health, with cuts to Title X, which funds “family planning” grants and other reproductive health services for low-income individuals, including many services in Ohio.

Pro-abortion rights groups have already started their fight against the total abortion ban bill with a demonstration on Wednesday that interrupted an anti-abortion gathering in the Statehouse.

They want to spend more time not only raising their voices in the halls of the legislature, but also educating the voters going into 2026 elections.

“Even though we had a moment of victory in 2023, the fight is far from over,” Close said. “We have to look toward the next electoral (cycle) to protect our courts, because inevitably when we have these showdowns in the state legislature, the courts is where everything ends up.”

A spokesperson for Oho House Speaker Matt Huffman said Huffman’s focus remains on the state operating budget until its July 1 deadline, and had no other information on the bill’s introduction or timeline.

A request for comment from Senate President Rob McColley on whether he would consider such a bill went unanswered on Wednesday.

Back in November 2024, just before he began his tenure as Senate president, McColley told the Capital Journal “the inaction on the issue kind of speaks for itself,” referring to any effort to undermine the constitutional amendment. He also said since the issue had passed the year before, “there really hasn’t been a lot of discussion about it.”

“I think, by and large, people realize Ohioans spoke, and that’s the way it is right now,” McColley said then.

The Ohio Democratic Party said they were staunchly against the abortion ban measure, questioning the priorities of state Republicans, and saying the party with the Statehouse supermajority is attempting to “drag our state into the past.”

“Ohio women would die under this cruel, disastrous legislation,” said Ohio Democratic Party Chair Kathleen Clyde.

Susan Tebben

Susan Tebben is an award-winning journalist with a decade of experience covering Ohio news, including courts and crime, Appalachian social issues, government, education, diversity and culture. She has worked for The Newark Advocate, The Glasgow (KY) Daily Times, The Athens Messenger, and WOUB Public Media. She has also had work featured on National Public Radio.

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.

MORE FROM AUTHOR

Jun 22, 2025
Ohio attorney general appeals decision that struck down state’s six-week abortion ban

By: Susan Tebben – Ohio Capital Journal

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost will appeal a Hamilton County court’s decision to strike down the state’s six-week abortion ban with no exceptions for rape or incest that was put into effect for several months after Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022.

Yost, along with Ohio Department of Health director Bruce Vanderhoff and the State Medical Board of Ohio’s Kim Rothermel and Bruce Saferin, were listed in the notice of appeal filed this week in the 1st District Court of Appeals. The 1st District is the appellate court that oversees Hamilton County.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

Ohio Attorney General Dave YostThe state attorney general is appealing Hamilton County Judge Christian Jenkins’ decision in October which struck down a 2019 law that banned abortions after six weeks gestation, a time at which supporters of the law said fetal cardiac activity could be detected.

The law was blocked in court almost from the moment it was enacted, with abortion rights advocates suing to stop enforcement of the law.

When the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in the summer of 2022, Yost asked a federal court the same day for the law to be released from its injunction.

The law then went into effect for several months, but was then tied up in court again after abortion rights advocates like Preterm Cleveland and Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region asked the Ohio Supreme Court, and then a Hamilton County court, to stop the law once again.

When 57% of Ohio voters approved a reproductive rights constitutional amendment in November 2023, attorneys for the abortions rights groups sought to get the law permanently overturned, with the rights enshrined in the new amendment.

During the case, after the amendment was passed by voters, Yost argued that the law shouldn’t be thrown out entirely. He argued that some provisions didn’t conflict with the amendment passed by voters and should be kept, such as mandatory waiting periods and multiple appointments required for abortion care.

This past October, Jenkins agreed with the groups, saying the new amendment “now unequivocally protects the right to abortion” and that the law should be permanently overturned “to give meaning to the voice of Ohio’s voters.”

“Unlike the Ohio Attorney General, this court will uphold the Ohio Constitution’s protection of abortion rights,” Jenkins wrote in his decision. “The will of the people of Ohio will be given effect.”

Jenkins used Yost’s own legal analysis of the amendment (written prior to its passage) against him in the ruling. Yost wrote in the analysis that the amendment “would give greater protection to abortion to be free from regulation than at any time in Ohio’s history.”

“Ohio would no longer have the ability to limit abortions at any time before a fetus is viable,” Yost wrote. “Passage of Issue 1 would invalidate the Heartbeat Act, which restricts abortions (with health and other exceptions) after a fetal heartbeat is detected, which is usually at about six weeks.”

Jessie Hill, cooperating attorney for the ACLU of Ohio, who represented abortion rights groups in the case, said they intend to “keep fighting to ensure that the amendment is enforced, and Ohioans’ rights are protected.”

“We are disappointed that the attorney general continues to spend taxpayer money on this lawsuit and disregard the very clear message that Ohioans sent when an overwhelming majority approved the Reproductive Freedom Amendment to our constitution,” Hill said in a statement Tuesday afternoon.

The Capital Journal has reached out to the Attorney General’s Office for comment.

YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.

__________

Susan Tebben

Susan Tebben is an award-winning journalist with a decade of experience covering Ohio news, including courts and crime, Appalachian social issues, government, education, diversity and culture. She has worked for The Newark Advocate, The Glasgow (KY) Daily Times, The Athens Messenger, and WOUB Public Media. She has also had work featured on National Public Radio.

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.

MORE FROM AUTHOR

Nov 26, 2024
Ohio’s six-week abortion ban overturned by Hamilton County judge

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in June 2022 ended federal abortion rights. (Photo by Sofia Resnick/States Newsroom.)

By: Susan Tebben – Ohio Capital Journal

The Ohio Attorney General’s Office says state has 30 days to “determine next steps.” The law will remain struck down unless Attorney General Dave Yost appeals the decision

A Hamilton County judge has permanently overturned Ohio’s six-week abortion ban that had been tied up in court since its inception in 2019, but was put into effect for several months after Roe. v. Wade was overturned.

Hamilton County Judge Christian A. Jenkins had already temporarily stopped enforcement of the law when the case entered his courtroom in the fall of 2022 several months after the Dobbs decision overturning national abortion rights established in Roe.

Thursday’s decision means the law is struck down unless the Ohio Attorney General decides to appeal the decision.

In November 2023, Ohio voters passed a reproductive rights amendment with 57% support.

“Ohio’s Attorney General evidently didn’t get the memo,” Jenkins wrote. “For even after a large majority of Ohio’s voters … presumably both women and men — approved an amendment to the Ohio Constitution protecting the right to pre-viability abortion on November 8, 2023, the Attorney General urges this court to leave ‘untouched’ all but one provision of the so-called ‘Heartbeat Act’ clearly rejected by Ohio voters.”

Hours after the Dobbs decision came down in June 2022, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost asked a federal court reinstate the six-week abortion ban law, which was approved by the court quickly after the request was made. The ban included no exceptions for rape or incest.

GET THE OHIO CAPITAL JOURNAL MORNING HEADLINES.

Just as quickly, though, the law was then shoved back into court by abortion rights advocates. At first, advocates asked the Ohio Supreme Court to rule on the case, but after a period of inaction by the state’s high court, they chose to challenge the law locally, specifically in Hamilton County.

A separate Hamilton County judge in September eliminated restrictions on telehealth abortion treatment.

With the approval of the reproductive rights amendment in Ohio, attorneys had a new avenue to challenge the six-week ban. They used the language — which allowed abortion to the point of fetal viability, a determination to be made by the pregnant person’s physician, rather than at a point determined by state law — as a tipping point for arguments that the six-week ban was now unconstitutional. Fetal viability typically comes in a range between 24 to 26 weeks.

Yost pushed back, saying the reproductive rights amendment could not be used to negate any law or provision that was remotely related to abortion rights.

However, he also acknowledged it would be quite a battle to argue that the six-week ban did not violate the new constitutional amendment.

In a legal analysis on the reproductive rights amendment before the vote, that has often been used against him in the year since, Yost said the amendment “will make it harder for Ohio to maintain the kinds of law already upheld as valid prior to last year’s decision in Dobbs.”

“In other words, the Amendment would give greater protection to abortion to be free from regulation than at any time in Ohio’s history,” Yost wrote.

He went on to say that “many Ohio laws would probably be invalidated,” and that “others might be at risk to varying degrees.”

That included the so-called Heartbeat Act, according to him.

“Ohio would no longer have the ability to limit abortions at any time before a fetus is viable,” he wrote. “Passage of Issue 1 would invalidate the Heartbeat Act, which restricts abortions (with health and other exceptions) after a fetal heartbeat is detected, which is usually at about six weeks.”

Even so, Yost attempted to argue in the case that certain provisions included in the law should be allowed to stand.

Jenkins disagreed, saying the state constitution “now unequivocally protects the right to abortion” and that “to give meaning to the voice of Ohio’s voters, the Amendment must be given full effect, and laws such as those enacted by (Senate Bill) 23 must be permanently enjoined.”

He said that if Ohio courts adopted the state’s arguments, Ohio doctors who provide abortion care would continue to be at risk of felony criminal charges, $20,000 fines, medical license suspensions and renovations, and civil claims for wrongful death.

“Patients seeking abortion-care would still be required to make two in-person visits to their provider, wait twenty-four hours to receive abortion care, receive state-mandated information designed to discourage abortion and have the reason for their abortion recorded and reprinted,” Jenkins wrote. “Unlike the Ohio Attorney General, this Court will uphold the Ohio Constitution’s protection of abortion rights. The will of the people of Ohio will be given effect.”

ACLU of Ohio cooperating attorney Jessie Hill, who led the legal challenge in the case, called the ruling “momentous” and a show of “the power of Ohio’s new Reproductive Freedom Amendment in practice.”

Dr. Sharon Liner, medical director for Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region and one of the parties in the case, said the ruling was “an important step in the right direction for access.”

“The permanent blocking of the six-week ban brings us one step closer to getting our patients the access they deserve,” Liner wrote in a statement.

A spokesperson for Yost’s office said in a Friday morning statement that the state has up to 30 days to “determine next steps.”

“This is a very long, complicated decision covering many issues, many of which are issues of first impression,” spokesperson Hannah Hundley told the Capital Journal.

Ohio Right to Life and the Center for Christian Virtue were contacted and have not yet provided a response.

Asked if Gov. Mike DeWine had any comment on the ruling, a spokesperson stated, “No.”

Susan Tebben

Susan Tebben is an award-winning journalist with a decade of experience covering Ohio news, including courts and crime, Appalachian social issues, government, education, diversity and culture. She has worked for The Newark Advocate, The Glasgow (KY) Daily Times, The Athens Messenger, and WOUB Public Media. She has also had work featured on National Public Radio.

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.

MORE FROM AUTHOR

Oct 25, 2024
Abortion amendment ballot language submitted, Ballot Board set to meet Thursday

Abortion rights groups request full text on November ballots

BY: SUSAN TEBBEN – Ohio Capital Journal

Gearing up for an Ohio Ballot Board meeting where constitutional amendment language regarding reproductive health will be considered, groups pushing for the measure want to see the entire text of the amendment on November ballots.

In a letter received by the Ohio Secretary of State on Monday, attorney Donald McTigue represented petitioners for the constitutional amendment in asking the board to use full text of the proposed amendment or a condensed version, so that voters can read the entire thing on their ballots in the general election this year.

“By using the full text, voters will see for themselves the language they are being asked to approve and can make a free and independent decision on this fundamental question,” McTigue wrote.

The abortion rights groups also argued that, in using the full text, “there can be no dispute about whether legal standards have been satisfied or whether the condensed text misleads, deceives or defrauds voters,” according to the letter.

The ballot measure’s title, as submitted by the groups for approval by the ballot board, is “To Establish the Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety.”

Because of the rejection of Issue 1 earlier this month at the polls, which would have raised the threshold to approve a constitutional amendment, a simple majority is needed to pass the measure.

In the language of the amendment, it specifies that “every individual has a right to make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions, including but not limited to” contraception, fertility treatments, pregnancy, miscarriage care and abortion.

It prohibits the state from doing anything to “directly or indirectly burden, penalize, prohibit, interfere with or discriminate against” the exercise of the rights in the amendment, or those who assist in the exercise of the rights.

The amendment makes exceptions in terms of abortion, in which it would be “prohibited after fetal viability.”

“But in no case may such an abortion be prohibited if in the professional judgment of the pregnant patient’s treating physician it is necessary to protect the pregnant patient’s life or health,” the amendment states.

“Any attempt to alter wording away from the text of the amendment should be seen for what it is: an attempt to confuse and mislead voters,” said Lauren Blauvelt, of Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights, in a statement announcing the submission of the ballot language.

Opposition groups have claimed the amendment would impact parental rights and allow “late-term abortion,” neither of which are included in the language submitted to the ballot board. “Late-term abortion” is not considered a legitimate medical term.

Two different lawsuits attempting to keep the amendment from going before voters have been rejected by the Ohio Supreme Court.

Most recently, a former state legislator and a Catholic Ohio resident asked that the measure be blocked because it was unclear what laws it sought to change. A separate previous lawsuit argued the Ohio Ballot Board abused its power by improperly considering, and thus moving the ballot measure forward so that signatures could be collected in support of it.

That signature collection amounted to nearly 500,000 valid Ohio voter signatures, which allowed the measure to head to the ballot.

Another abortion-related lawsuit is still in the process of making it through the state’s highest court. That lawsuit was filed by Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, challenging a Hamilton County court’s right to pause a six-week abortion ban implemented almost immediately after the Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade.

That law was passed in 2019, but has since been entangled in court cases. It bans abortion after six weeks gestation and was in place for several months following the Dobbs decision before being halted by the courts.

The Ohio Ballot Board is scheduled to consider and vote on the language on Thursday, where they will also consider language regarding a proposed statute for recreational marijuana.

SUSAN TEBBEN

Susan Tebben is an award-winning journalist with a decade of experience covering Ohio news, including courts and crime, Appalachian social issues, government, education, diversity and culture. She has worked for The Newark Advocate, The Glasgow (KY) Daily Times, The Athens Messenger, and WOUB Public Media. She has also had work featured on National Public Radio.

MORE FROM AUTHOR

___________________

[pdf-embedder url=”https://lovelandmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/The-Right-to-Reproductive-Freedom-with-Protections-for-Health-and-Safety.pdf”]

Aug 22, 2023
[Video Interview] Jane Gonzales and Patty Lawrence talk about reproductive and voting rights ballot issues

David Miller is the Managing Editor of Loveland Magazine

by David Miller

Loveland, Ohio – Jane Gonzales from Loveland and Patty Lawrence from Miami Township sat with me this morning in the LOVELAND MAGAZINE TV studio to talk about current politics and the activities they have been engaged in in recent months in the community.

Both have circulated petitions to place a constitutional amendment on the Ohio ballot that they say if passed would protect women’s reproductive rights and health. The petitions they asked local residents to sign were earlier in the week delivered to the Ohio Secretary of State where it will be determined if the petitions contain enough valid signatures to place the amendment before voters in the November general election. (Ohio abortion rights supporters submit signatures for November ballot)

After Ohio citizens began collecting signatures, the Ohio legislature passed their own legislation, Issue 1, which will be before voters in a special election in August that directly affects the amendment both Lawrence and Gonzales have collected signatures for.

Issue 1 will be the only issue on the August special election ballot.

Aug 4, 2023
Loveland Magazine seeking Issue 1 proponents for video interview

Loveland, Ohio – Loveland Magazine seeking Issue 1 proponents for a sit-down video interview in our LOVELAND MAGAZINE TV studio. Must be a Loveland Area resident and preferably actively working in the community to get Issue 1 passed.

Ohio Issue 1, is a ballot measure regarding the process for proposing and approving amendments to the Ohio state constitution. It will be before voters in a special election on August 8.

Reply with an email.

Background

[Video Interview] Jane Gonzales and Patty Lawrence talk about reproductive and voting rights ballot issues

Jul 15, 2023
[Video Interview] Jane Gonzales and Patty Lawrence talk about reproductive and voting rights ballot issues

David Miller is the Managing Editor of Loveland Magazine

by David Miller

Loveland, Ohio – Jane Gonzales from Loveland and Patty Lawrence from Miami Township sat with me this morning in the LOVELAND MAGAZINE TV studio to talk about current politics and the activities they have been engaged in in recent months in the community.

Both have circulated petitions to place a constitutional amendment on the Ohio ballot that they say if passed would protect women’s reproductive rights and health. The petitions they asked local residents to sign were earlier in the week delivered to the Ohio Secretary of State where it will be determined if the petitions contain enough valid signatures to place the amendment before voters in the November general election. (Ohio abortion rights supporters submit signatures for November ballot)

After Ohio citizens began collecting signatures, the Ohio legislature passed their own legislation, Issue 1, which will be before voters in a special election in August that directly affects the amendment both Lawrence and Gonzales have collected signatures for.

Issue 1 will be the only issue on the August special election ballot.

Jul 14, 2023
Ohio House committee narrowly advances 60% supermajority provision despite opposition

House Speaker Stephens cancels Wednesday session

BY: NICK EVANS – Ohio Capital Journal

In an Ohio House committee, witnesses pleaded with lawmakers to reject the effort to install a 60% threshold for future constitutional amendments. The joint resolution they’re considering would put the question to voters on an upcoming ballot. After breaking for an extended recess around lunch time, lawmakers heard more testimony and voted to advance the resolution.

But the 7-6 margin was probably tighter than supporters wanted. All five Democrats on the committee voted against it, and of the eight Republicans on the committee, only state Rep. Brett Hudson Hillyer, R-Ulrichsville, who previously floated amendments to make the resolution more palatable to opponents, voted against it.

Elsewhere in the Statehouse, a different House committee set to vote on restoring August elections Tuesday morning delayed its start. Almost six hours later, the chair canceled the hearing.

The same conservative lawmakers pushing to bring back August elections got rid of them just a few months ago. At the time, they argued they’re too costly and generate meager voter turnout. But now, an August election day suits their plan to advance the supermajority amendment.

Taken together the two proposals represent a last-ditch effort by some Republican lawmakers to hobble an abortion rights amendment ahead of November’s election. More than 200 interest groups have come out against the effort. Four previous governors and five previous attorneys general — Republican and Democratic — have also publicly criticized the plan.

But the proposal’s opponents got a reprieve of sorts from House Speaker Jason Stephens. The Kitts Hill Republican scrapped Wednesday’s House session after declining to schedule the 60% supermajority or August special election measures.

That puts an exceptional amount of pressure on the House session scheduled for May 10 — the last day lawmakers can approve the measures in time for an August election.

SJR 2 opposition

During Tuesday’s hearing, opponents harped on what they called the hypocrisy of lawmakers pushing the supermajority resolution forward. From the outset, Republicans backing the proposal have contended their effort is a way to discourage “out of state special interests” from buying the state constitution, and that it has nothing to do with undermining an abortion rights amendment on the horizon.

A group called Save Our Constitution PAC is now running ads targeting five GOP members perceived as insufficiently supportive. The funding for those ads comes, not from Ohio, but from Illinois billionaire Richard Uihlein. The owner of the shipping supplies company Uline, has previously funded far-right candidates around the country and groups promoting election denialism.

Dorsey Hager from the Columbus Central Ohio Building and Construction Trades Council criticized Uihlein’s involvement.

“An idea introduced to protect the Ohio constitution — our Constitution — from special interest is actually being promoted by a group funded by an Illinois billionaire who’s trying to change Ohio’s constitution,” he said.

Save Our Constituion PAC’s treasurer is David Langdon, the same Cincinnati attorney who’s behind the non-profit Protect Women Ohio. That organization is currently running spurious attack ads against the abortion rights amendment.

The ACLU’s Gary Daniels drew a bright line between efforts in favor of the joint resolution and those in opposition of abortion rights.

“Soda taxes, casinos, former House Speakers, monopolies and evil special interests are among the list of reasons supporters have cooked up to argue SJR 2 is necessary,” Daniels argued.

“But Ohioans know — and very few supporters are left pretending — this involves anything but abortion and gerrymandering.”

All 88 Counties

Opponents also keyed in on a less discussed, but potentially even more consequential set of restrictions added to the resolution.

Not only would organizers seeking a constitutional amendment need to clear 60% at the ballot, they’d first need to gather signatures from 5% of the electorate in all of Ohio’s 88 counties. Current law requires that percentage from at least 44 counties and grants organizers a “cure period” to gather valid signatures if the ones they turn get rejected.

“To cover all 88 counties, and then be denied that cure period,” Trevor Martin argued, “is again, it’s devastating to the citizen initiative process.”

Mia Lewis from Common Cause Ohio explained legitimate signatures can get rejected for mundane discrepancies. Say you’ve moved but haven’t updated your voter registration — using your current address would scrap your signature. Sometimes organizers gather signatures for close to year. If you move in the interim and update your registration, that old signature gets thrown out.

“It’s blindfolding the people that are trying to collect the signatures and telling them to take this leap of faith,” she argued. “There is no way for them to know how many of those signatures won’t be valid. They don’t know how many people are going to move. They don’t know how many people have put the wrong address that doesn’t match the registration.”

She called requiring signatures from all 88 counties and eliminating the cure period “punitive.”

Bonds

Opponents also took aim at the supermajority threshold’s impact on bond issues. Hager, from the Trades Council, brought up a school bond issue in his hometown of Marysville.

“If this passes, they’re gonna be able to add on to the STEM school in Marysville where they’ll be able to produce more kids in science, technology that will go to work at Scott’s, go to work at Honda (and) keep those industries growing and thriving,” Hager argued.

Requiring a 60% supermajority, he contended, would endanger those investments.

But Rep. Brian Stewart, R-Ashville, argued bonds aren’t a big issue. Stewart, who’s sponsoring the House version of the 60% threshold measure, argued every bond for the last 15 years would clear the bar.

“Why are you in your sort of fear mongering over 1990 bond issues when we’ve passed every bond issue for the last 15 years with over 60% of the vote?” Stewart asked Jen Miller from the Leauge of Women Voters of Ohio.

Miller acknowledged Stewart is correct about the most recent bond proposals. But taking a longer view the track record gets murky.

Former state representative and Dispatch editor Mike Curtin analyzed bond issues going back to 1980. Under a simple majority, two thirds passed, but with a 60% supermajority the record flips. Of the eighteen bond issues only eight would pass, and two of those just barely.

Noting how that picture changes with a broader view, Miller pressed Stewart on the growing opposition for his legislation.

“If this were such a great proposal, would we have so many former AGs and governors of both political parties coming out in opposition? Would you have to 240 organizations and growing come out in opposition? Would you need a million dollars from an out-of-state megadonor billionaire?” Miller asked.

“You wouldn’t.”

Follow OCJ Reporter Nick Evans on Twitter.

______________________

NICK EVANS

Nick Evans has spent the past seven years reporting for NPR member stations in Florida and Ohio. He got his start in Tallahassee, covering issues like redistricting, same sex marriage and medical marijuana. Since arriving in Columbus in 2018, he has covered everything from city council to football. His work on Ohio politics and local policing have been featured numerous times on NPR.

MORE FROM AUTHOR

May 3, 2023
In GOP flip, August special election will return

Voters casting ballots. | Mario Tama/Getty Images

Bill, along with SJR 2 constitutional amendment bill, directly impact abortion rights ballot initiative

BY: SUSAN TEBBEN – Ohio Capital Journal

Less than half a year after proclaiming August elections to be too expensive for the turnout they attract, the Senate Republican majority expanded the use of a special election this year, complete with $20 million in funding.

“This is legislative whiplash, and we do it really well here in Columbus,” said state Sen. Kent Smith, D-Euclid.

In a mostly party-line vote, Senate Bill 92 was passed Wednesday by the body. The only Republican to vote against SB 92 was state Sen. Nathan Manning, R-North Ridgeville.

The vote came immediately after the state senate also passed an increase in the threshold for passing a constitutional amendment from 50% to 60% along party lines.

The threshold bill, SJR 2, is a companion bill to HJR 1, which has been making its way through the Ohio House, but has yet to come up for a floor vote. The House resolution passed its committee after three hours of testimony on Wednesday, most of which spoke in opposition to the bill.

Both bills could lead to a ballot measure where voters would approve or deny a constitutional amendment to raise that threshold.

With the approval of SB 92, August special elections will now be held “for consideration of a General Assembly proposed constitutional amendment,” to fill a congressional vacancy or hold a special primary for congressional party candidates.

The bill also appropriates $20 million to conduct “a one-time August special election on August 8, 2023,” a funding influx made while the bill was in committee.

That August election would be to send a constitutional voter threshold to the ballot for voters to approve an legislature-initiated amendment to raise the threshold from 50% to 60%.

Republicans pushed back on comparisons between previous August elections, including last year’s that saw an abysmal 8% turnout, with the argument that this time around, voters will care.

“With this being a bonafide, statewide question, and with it being an important question … I would say the turnout is going to be markedly higher in this August election,” McColley told his colleagues on the Senate floor.

The legislative measures seem to be direct hits at a potential constitutional amendment that would codify abortion rights if it makes it to the ballot box and is approved by voters in November. Abortion rights advocates are currently collecting the needed signatures. State law currently requires more than 400,000 in 44 of the 88 states.

One of the pro-abortion rights groups helping with the ballot measure, Pro-Choice Ohio, called the passage of SB 92 “both expected and incredibly disappointing” in a post on Twitter.

Last year, after redistricting confusion rocked the legislature, Republicans all-but eliminated the August election in a move that they said would save the state money and get rid of an unneeded annual election date that historically had low voter turnout.

In August of last year, the special primary election included statehouse races because the redistricting maps were rejected by the Ohio Supreme Court before they could be included in the May election. A U.S. District Court then intervened in the legal snarl that swept up the redistricting process, and allowed the state to use a map previously deemed unconstitutional by the Ohio Supreme Court as the map for the August primary.

That map is still in effect currently.

Speaking in opposition for SB 92, state Sen. William DeMora, D-Columbus, quoted Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose who spoke in support of reducing August special election usage last year, when he said they “aren’t good for taxpayers, election officials, voters or the civic health of our state.”

“(SB 92) is so bad that (LaRose) Secretary LaRose couldn’t even find the time to come and testify about it in committee,” DeMora said.

State Sen. Theresa Gavarone, R-Bowling Green, said claims that the August special elections were eliminated last year was an exaggerated claim.

“We’re not reinventing the wheel on this legislation,” Gavarone said, pointing out that certain occasions allowed for an August special election.

SB 92 now moves to the House for consideration.

_____________________

Susan Tebben is an award-winning journalist with a decade of experience covering Ohio news, including courts and crime, Appalachian social issues, government, education, diversity and culture. She has worked for The Newark Advocate, The Glasgow (KY) Daily Times, The Athens Messenger, and WOUB Public Media. She has also had work featured on National Public Radio.

MORE FROM AUTHOR

Apr 22, 2023
Ohio Ballot Board moves abortion amendment initiative forward
Supporters now set sights on collecting enough signatures by July to put the measure to Ohio voters in November

Dr. Amy Burkett, OB/GYN and member of Ohio Physicians for Reproductive Rights, speaks to media Monday following the Ohio Ballot Board’s vote to verify the language of a proposed constitutional amendment on abortion. Photo: Susan Tebben, OCJ

This article has been updated to include the proposed constitutional amendment (bottom)

BY: SUSAN TEBBEN – Ohio Capital Journal

The Ohio Ballot Board verified Monday that a proposed amendment for the November ballot to cement abortion rights in the Ohio Constitution can now move forward to the full signature-gathering stage.

In a short Monday meeting, the board, composed of Secretary of State Frank LaRose; Republican state Sen. Theresa Gavarone, Democratic state Sen. Paula Hicks-Hudson, Democratic state Rep. Elliot Forhan, and Bill Morgan, voted unanimously that the proposed ballot initiative only involved one constitutional issue.

The board only heard from two people outside of the board after LaRose insisted that content be kept away from the merits of the amendment or opinions about abortion itself.

John Grove, of Cincinnati Right to Life, still took time to try to discredit the amendment itself, called it “intentionally unjust and misleading.”

Attorney Don McTigue spoke on behalf of the groups proposing the amendment, choosing not to dive into the legal aspects of the amendment, instead saying the “common purpose of the amendment” was individuals having control of one’s own reproductive decisions.

Gavarone acknowledged that the purpose of the Ballot Board business was “procedural,” but still input her opinion before the unanimous vote was recorded.

COLUMBUS, OH — FEBRUARY 22: State Sen. Theresa Gavarone, R-Bowling Green, during the Ohio Senate session, February 22, 2023, at the Statehouse in Columbus, Ohio. (Photo by Graham Stokes for Ohio Capital Journal. Republish photo only with original story.)

“I am horrified at the thought of this amendment, I mean, the right to kill babies being put into Ohio’s constitution,” Gavarone said.

Now that the proposal has been certified by the Ohio Attorney General and verified by the Ohio Ballot Board, groups attempting to get the measure on the ballot can move forward with collecting the more than 400,000 valid signatures needed to officially get the measure to statewide voters.

Laura Strietmann, executive director for Cincinnati Right to Life, said pro-life organizations throughout the state have joined together as well, with a full strategy to fight against the measure.

“We are unified in protecting women in Ohio, in stopping this bill from becoming law,” Strietmann said after the vote.

Abortion rights groups say they are prepared to go forward with field planning, volunteers and petition circulators as early as the end of this week, according to Jordyn Close, deputy director for the Ohio Women’s Alliance and board president for Abortion Fund of Ohio.

The organizations are planning to hit the ground running to get more than enough signatures in a short amount of time. The deadline to submit signatures so the proposal can appear on the November ballot is July.

Part of the plan to bring support to the measure includes informing voters about the true aims of the constitutional amendment on which they would be voting. Claims have already been made by opposition groups that the amendment would bar all abortions, including for baby’s who have reached full term, something supporters of the amendment say won’t happen.

“We are not interested in doing full-term abortion,” said Dr. Amy Burkett, board-certified OB/GYN in northeast Ohio, and member of Ohio Physicians for Reproductive Rights. “This is about protecting the rights to reproductive health care including abortion, up to viability.”

Viability, Burkett said, should be determined by the physician and patient “based on the technology that is available at the time.”

Amendment supporters aren’t shying away from their pro-abortion stance, despite the trend toward using “pro-choice” as a way of including all options.

“When we talk about reproductive freedom and bodily autonomy, we have to be really specific about what (opposition groups) are attacking,” Close said. “And that is abortion access.”

————————-

Amendment Summary and Text:

TITLE: The Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety

SUMMARY
The Amendment would amend Article I of the Ohio Constitution by adding Section 22, titled “The Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety.”

The Amendment provides that:
1. Every individual has a right to make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions, including but not limited to decisions on contraception, fertility treatment, continuing one’s own pregnancy, miscarriage care, and abortion.
2. The State shall not, directly or indirectly, burden, penalize, prohibit, interfere with, or discriminate against either an individual’s voluntary exercise of this right or a person or entity that assists an individual exercising this right, unless the State demonstrates that it is using the least restrictive means to advance the individual’s health in accordance with widely accepted and evidence-based standards of care.
3. However, abortion may be prohibited after fetal viability. But in no case may such an abortion be prohibited if in the professional judgment of the pregnant patient’s treating physician it is necessary to protect the pregnant patient’s life or health.
4. As used in this Section, “Fetal viability” means “the point in a pregnancy when, in the professional judgment of the pregnant patient’s treating physician, the fetus has a significant likelihood of survival outside the uterus with reasonable measures. This is determined on a case-by-case basis”; and “State” includes any governmental entity and political subdivision.
5. This Section is self-executing.

FULL TEXT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT

Be it Resolved by the People of the State of Ohio that Article I of the Ohio Constitution is amended to add the following Section: Article I, Section 22. The Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety

A. Every individual has a right to make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions, including but not limited to decisions on:
1. contraception;
2. fertility treatment;
3. continuing one’s own pregnancy;
4. miscarriage care; and
5. abortion.
B. The State shall not, directly or indirectly, burden, penalize, prohibit, interfere with, or discriminate against either:
1. An individual’s voluntary exercise of this right or
2. A person or entity that assists an individual exercising this right, unless the State demonstrates that it is using the least restrictive means to advance the individual’s health in accordance with widely accepted and evidence-based standards of care. However, abortion may be prohibited after fetal viability. But in no case may such an abortion be prohibited if in the professional judgment of the pregnant patient’s treating physician it is necessary to protect the pregnant patient’s life or health.
C. As used in this Section:
1. “Fetal viability” means “the point in a pregnancy when, in the professional judgment of the pregnant patient’s treating physician, the fetus has a significant likelihood of survival outside the uterus with reasonable measures. This is determined on a case-by-case basis.”
2. “State” includes any governmental entity and any political subdivision.
D. This Section is self-executing.
Mar 14, 2023