Loveland Magazine

LOVELAND MAGAZINE

News and Events from the Loveland, Ohio Area

Without fear or favor

Since 2004

Tag: reproductive rights amendment

Ohio Dems try to repeal laws conflicting with reproductive rights amendment during lame duck

By: Susan Tebben – Ohio Capital Journal

Ohio Democratic lawmakers are asking the state legislature to undo laws on the books that they say conflict with the reproductive rights amendment passed by voters in 2023 that’s now part of the Ohio Constitution.

Several of those laws have been struck down by judges, either temporarily as a lawsuit continues or in official court rulings, but the laws remain part of the Ohio Revised Code.

Sponsors of the bills say the constitutional amendment passed last year negates these laws, therefore necessitating the repeal of regulations that require 24-hour waiting periods for abortions and transfer agreements of certain distances for physicians and hospitals who work with abortion clinics, for example.

“We, the legislature, should not be making choices for all women in the state,” said state Rep. Beth Liston, D-Dublin. “The people of Ohio have said they want these decisions for themselves.”

Republicans hold a 67-32 majority in the Ohio House and a 25-7 majority in the Ohio Senate, and state Republican leaders opposed the amendment.

State Rep. Beth Liston, D-Dublin, speaks at a rally to protect abortion rights. (Photo from General Assembly website.)

Liston and fellow state Rep. Anita Somani, D-Dublin, both of whom are physicians, brought House Bill 343 to the House Public Health Policy Committee in hopes of “simply ensuring that all of our state laws are now in agreement with that amendment.”

“Removing these barriers to care will reduce delays in care and actually allow health care providers to serve their patients properly,” Somani told the committee on Wednesday. “We have a health care access problem in Ohio and restrictive laws like these are part of the problem.”

H.B. 343 wasn’t the only bill Somani presented to the Public Health Policy Committee in an effort to protect reproductive rights.

House Bill 502, which also saw its first hearing in the committee on Wednesday, would protect access to “assistive reproductive technology,” which includes in-vitro fertilization. Fertility treatments were also listed as one of the rights covered by the constitutional amendment approved by 57% of Ohio voters last year.

But an Alabama Supreme Court case from this year has caused nationwide concerns about the future of IVF and embryos saved by individuals going through fertility treatments. State supreme court justices in that case ruled that frozen embryos could still be considered children, an issue that has come to be known as “personhood” as federal and state-level entities debate fetal viability and regulation as a whole.

The “personhood” issue is not foreign to Ohio, which saw a 2022 bill in which state Rep. Gary Click, R-Vickery, said “the unborn” is a “class of people” who have “erroneously been denied their constitutional rights.”

Click said his legislation would consider a “zygote, embryo or whichever depersonalizing term you choose” a “human with potential” from the moment of fertilization.

That bill died in the previous General Assembly, though Click has not ruled out bringing the idea back in a future GA.

Back in March, after the Alabama decision came about, Senate President Matt Huffman, who will soon become Ohio’s House Speaker, said there hadn’t been “any discussion by any member of my caucus or anybody else as far as in the state of Ohio as far as I know” regarding “personhood” or IVF regulations.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

But Somani said protection of the technology around IVF “should be explicitly stated in state law so that there is no confusion about the legality of the practice.”

“We don’t want to make the same mistakes as other states,” she told the committee on Wednesday. “Equating embryos with people confuses those who practice evidence-based medicine and the reproductive care that they can provide.”

The sponsors cited CDC statistics which showed 2,226 births in Ohio in which IVF was used in 2021. In that same year, more than 86,000 births nationally were attributed to IVF, with 42% of adults saying they have used fertility treatments or know someone who has, according to the CDC.

“Experiencing infertility can be a mentally, emotionally and physically exhausting journey and we as lawmakers should not be doing anything to increase that stress,” Somani said.

H.B. 502 would also prevent health care providers from “being compelled to release patient records to third parties, including out-of-state entities or law enforcement,’ and allow lawsuits from individuals who feel their privacy rights are violate with regard to medical information.

The bill’s co-sponsor, state Rep. Beryl Brown Piccolantonio, D-Gahanna, acknowledged the tight timeline the bill is now under with less than a month before the current General Assembly ends, and all unapproved bills must be reintroduced in the new year. But, she said she hoped the committee would allow supporters of the bill to speak on IVF’s importance, especially with the possible impact of the Alabama Supreme Court ruling.

“This decision has significant implications for reproductive rights and the legal status of embryos, influencing legislation and public policy across multiple states, including Ohio,” Piccolantonio said.

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

Dec 7, 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
Ohio Issue 1’s reproductive rights amendment and protection of access to contraception

Getty Image

BY: SUSAN TEBBEN – Ohio Capital Journal

Editor’s Note: This article is part of a series looking at the language of Ohio Issue 1 and the reproductive rights it would impact. The full language of the amendment can be found here.

In the Nov. 7 general election, Ohioans will decide whether or not to approve Issue 1, a constitutional amendment for reproductive rights.

While the language of the amendment focuses primarily on abortion, it also lists other rights that would be cemented into the state constitution, including miscarriage care, fertility treatments, contraception, and the right to continue one’s own pregnancy. Today we will look at how and why the proposed amendment seeks to protect access to contraception.

The use of contraception is not illegal in Ohio, and though it’s commonly called “birth control,” the medications are also used for other conditions, like ovarian cysts, polycystic ovary syndrome and endometriosis symptoms.

Push to ‘reconsider’ contraception case

Contraception has long been a target of debate, with fears of further regulations increasing after U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas brought up Griswold v. Connecticut during his concurrence to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, the 2022 decision that overturned the half-century of abortion legalization given in Roe v. Wade.

The ruling in Griswold overturned a Connecticut law from the 1800s that banned the use of “any drug, medical device or other instrument in furthering contraception,” particularly in marriages. The question at the heart of the Griswold case: “Does the Constitution protect the right to marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple’s ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives?”

The court found that the right to privacy held in the Bill of Rights prohibited states from banning contraception for married couples.

However, in agreeing with the Dobbs decision, Thomas said the nation’s highest court should also “reconsider” cases such as Griswold, with new reflection on the 14th Amendment.

“After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated,” Thomas wrote in his 2022 concurrence.

A congressional effort that was put forth in July 2022 to codify birth control access passed the U.S. House. The effort had unanimous Democratic support, but only had the support of one Ohio GOP representative, former Rep. Anthony Gonzalez.

The effort was blocked by the U.S. Senate that same month.

There is federal law that requires health insurance coverage for prescription female contraceptives, but federal law also allows for a refusal clause “that allows churches, associations of churches, religiously affiliated elementary and secondary schools and, potentially, some religious charities and universities to refuse,” according to an analysis by the Guttmacher Institute.

The institute’s analysis also showed that, as of September 2023, Ohio’s only state-level regulation is an insurance coverage requirement for extended supplies of contraception.

“The state’s law allows pharmacists to dispense the full amount of a prescription at one time, including contraception, but there is no requirement that health insurance plans cover the cost of accessing a year’s worth of contraceptives at one time,” the Guttmacher research stated.

Medicaid recipients are allowed access to “pregnancy prevention services” under the Ohio Administrative Code, including “contraceptive management,” along with “fertility awareness, natural family planning (the use of fertility awareness to track ovulation), and risk factor reduction,” according to the code.

In an August debate on the previous Issue 1, Secretary of State Frank LaRose joined Ohio Right to Life leader Mike Gonidakis in calling claims that contraception regulations could be on the table in the state “fear-mongering,” saying “no reasonable person is talking about banning the use of contraceptives.”

Back in 2022, state Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Loveland, who introduced a bill that, if passed, would have banned all abortions in Ohio without exceptions for rape or incest, said she would “listen to both sides of that debate” over whether to ban contraceptions during a July 2022 radio interview.

Sex ed

Researchers and advocacy groups say abstinence-only education and anti-abortion politics have already had their impact in the state, and the need to keep contraception at the forefront continues.

Even in his analysis of Issue 1, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost spoke of access to contraception (and other rights listed in the proposed amendment), saying those topics “are harder to assess because Ohio does not have specific statutes addressing minors’ access to these medical treatments or products.”

When Roe v. Wade — the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that legalized abortion nationwide — was overturned in 2022, Ohio groups immediately feared the already inconsistent sex education standards in the state would take a hit as well.

State law requires Ohio schools to emphasize abstinence, but does not require them to include lessons on consent, sexual orientation, or gender identity, according to a review by the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS).

In fact, Ohio House GOP members introduced a bill in 2022 that would ban the use of sexual orientation and gender identity as a topic in Ohio schools. State Rep. Mike Loychik, R-Bazetta, the bill’s co-sponsor, said at the time that the bill would “ensure that sexual orientation and gender ideology are not taught in kindergarten through third grade.”

But bills like House Bill 616 could also “impact age-appropriate sex education,” according to SEICUS, which said those and other policies pushing abstinence-only or no education at all to certain ages can result in district-by-district decisions on sex education.

“Local control over sex education presents unique challenges that have resulted in glaring disparities in the quality of sex education that students receive,” SEICUS said in an Ohio analysis.

The March 2023 research used CDC data from the 2019-2020 school year that showed only 38.3% of Ohio’s schools required a course on methods of contraception other than condoms in grades 6, 7 or 8, whereas 82.5% taught high schoolers about methods other than condoms.

According to the CDC data, only 37% of Ohio schools grades 6 through 12 require more than one health education course.

The impact of a lack of standardized sex education could have longterm effects, advocates suggest, particularly in the area of unintended pregnancies.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services encourages the use of contraception in its “Healthy People 2030” objective, to help with pregnancy planning and prevention of unintended pregnancies.

“Nearly half of pregnancies in the United States are unintended, and unintended pregnancy is linked to many negative outcomes for both women and infants,” the federal agency stated on its Healthy People 2030 website.

Though they acknowledge that teen pregnancy has gone down in the U.S., they cite data that shows “close to 200,000 babies are born to teen mothers every year in the United States.”

“Adolescents are at especially high risk for unintended pregnancy,” HHS stated.

This article clarifies the vote of Ohio’s U.S. Representatives on the federal birth control bill.

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

Oct 11, 2023
Split ballot board approves reproductive rights amendment summary written by Ohio Sec. of State

In a 3-2 decision, the Ohio Ballot Board rejected using the full amendment proposal text for voters to see, and the approved summary language leaves out protecting contraception, fertility treatment and miscarriage care

BY: SUSAN TEBBEN – Ohio Capital Journal

In a 3-2 split decision Thursday, the Ohio Ballot Board rejected using the full text of a proposed reproductive rights amendment on the ballot in November, adopting instead summary language written by the Ohio Secretary of State’s Office that was criticized for being incomplete and inaccurate.

The board’s approval of the language – which is now titled Issue 1 for the November general election – was the next step in the process of voters deciding whether or not the Ohio Constitution will include the right to abortion, as well as contraception, fertility treatment, miscarriage care, and continuing one’s own pregnancy. Those last four items were all left out of the language approved by the ballot board majority.

The summary language does not change what the actual amendment would state in the constitution, but would be the last representation of the amendment voters read before the casting their approval or rejection.

The full text of the amendment will be available at boards of elections during the election, but not in the ballot booths with voters. LaRose said posters with the text will be accessible at voting locations.

In the summary language approved by the board, the medical term “fetus” is changed to “unborn child,” and the amendment’s “decision” language is changed to “medical treatment.”

The leader of the Ohio Ballot Board, Secretary of State Frank LaRose, said the changes were made by “staff” of the board, though Democratic board member and state Rep. Elliot Forhan said “I would assume that the buck stops with the secretary of state.”

LaRose during the meeting also said that, “having worked extensively on drafting this, I do believe it’s fair and accurate.”

LaRose has been vocal in his opposition of the amendment, even saying the effort around the previous Issue 1, which would have changed the threshold to approve a constitutional amendment had it not been roundly defeated, was targeting the abortion rights fight specifically.

At the beginning of Thursday’s meeting, he prefaced the board’s activity by saying the group was not there to “debate the merits” of the amendment or the marijuana ballot initiative also on the table at the meeting.

Ohio Ballot Board member, State Sen. Theresa Gavarone, R-Bowling Green, speaks at the Ballot Board meeting Thursday. (Photo by Graham Stokes for Ohio Capital Journal. Republish photo only with original article.)

Board member and state Sen. Theresa Gavarone, however, gave a speech in the middle of the meeting harshly criticizing the amendment and calling it “a bridge too far,” even after multiple comments by LaRose about the neutrality with which the board was supposed to conduct their business.

“This is a dangerous amendment that I’m going to fight tirelessly against,” Gavarone said. “But that’s not why we’re here today.”

Gavarone also claimed, as anti-abortion groups throughout the state do as well, that the amendment is “an assault on parental rights.” Neither the amendment nor the summary approved by the board mention parental rights of any kind.

The senator continued her comments during the board meeting, saying the true nature of the amendment “is hidden behind overly broad language,” despite the fact that the board summary took out pieces of the full text.

The summary passed by the board does not include a list of the rights to “reproductive decisions” spelled out in the ballot measure, including contraception, fertility treatment, continuing one’s own pregnancy, and miscarriage care, all of which would be impacted under the new constitutional amendment.

A clause in the proposed amendment that says “the state shall not, directly or indirectly, burden, penalize, prohibit, interfere with, or discriminate against” the exercise of the amendment by an individual or an assistant of the individual was reduced to “the citizens of the state of Ohio” in the summary.

The phrase “the citizens of the state of Ohio” is also used in the clause summarizing a prohibition of abortion that would only happen if a pregnant patient’s physician finds the pregnancy to be viable.

The phrase “pregnant patient” in the ballot measure was changed to “pregnant woman” in the summary.

Ohio Ballot Board member, State Sen. Paula Hicks-Hudson, D-Toledo, speaks at the Ballot Board meeting Thursday. (Photo by Graham Stokes for Ohio Capital Journal. Republish photo only with original article.)

State Sen. Paula Hicks-Hudson, the other Democratic member of the ballot board, made two motions to change the language of the summary to bring back the full text or certain clauses of the actual amendment text into the approved language.

“The full text is clear, it’s concise and it’s direct, which is one of the requirements that’s needed for us to present to voters in the state of Ohio,” Hicks-Hudson said.

Both motions were rejected 3-2, with LaRose, Gavarone and the final board member, Bill Morgan, voting against the motions.

Morgan didn’t speak during the meeting other than to register his votes, and didn’t specifically comment on the amendment discussion or language afterward.

“I think it’s what we were supposed to do, what the ballot board does,” Morgan told the OCJ.

Groups for and against the initiative anticipated potential issues with the board’s decision, with pro-abortion rights group Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights requesting that the ballot language mirror the amendment itself, so voters could see the entire constitutional change when they vote in November.

Lauren Blauvelt, a member of the coalition, decried the changes made to the language, and said the group is considering a lawsuit to fight back.

“The entire summary is really propaganda and we are going to talk about all of the reasons why Ohio voters should just be able to see the language for what it is,” Blauvelt said after the board meeting.

Anti-abortion groups argued against using the full text, saying it was unnecessary, and Ohio Right to Life president Mike Gonidakis pushed back on calls for a lawsuit against the summary.

“Any litigation filed on this is going to be thrown out by the Ohio Supreme Court because the statutory responsibility of the ballot board is to provide a fair and accurate representation. That’s what the law requires, and that’s what they did today,” Gonidakis said.

Gonidakis said he did not work with anyone on the ballot board on the summary language, but he wished the language was “stronger.”

Mike Gonidakis, president of Ohio Right to Life, talks to the press after the Ohio Ballot Board meeting Thursday. (Photo by Graham Stokes for Ohio Capital Journal. Republish photo only with original article.)

“Look, at the end of the day, people are going to make up their minds before they go in the ballot box anyways, and they’re not going to go in and then try to figure out what they want to do by reading something on a screen,” he said.

The proposed amendment has gone through a rollercoaster of activity since the Ohio Ballot Board approved the measure in March as compliant with the regulations for a constitutional amendment proposal, allowing a petition campaign that resulted in nearly 500,000 supporting signatures from Ohio voters.

Amid all the necessary hoops through which the abortion rights campaign has jumped, abortion rights groups have also had to battle against lawsuits attempting to block the amendment from voters. Another lawsuit alleged the Ohio Ballot Board hadn’t taken enough time or consideration before certifying that the amendment was compliant.

The Ohio Supreme Court rejected both lawsuits, clearing the way for voters to see the issue in the Nov. 7 general election.

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

Aug 26, 2023
Issue 1 is designed to protect the Ohio Constitution from the will of Ohio voters

Issue 1 does not “protect our constitution;” it does the opposite.

Jennifer Ginder is a writing consultant, wife and mother of two college-aged daughters in Loveland, Ohio.

by Jennifer Ginder

I voted no last week on Issue 1 because it would end simple majority rule, making my vote matter less.

The language on the actual ballot is confusing, so it’s important to know the facts. Issue 1 would make it harder for citizen groups to change the Ohio Constitution by raising the percentage of people who have to vote “yes” to future proposed amendments from 50% +1 (majority) to 60% (super majority). It would also require that petition signatures be obtained from all of Ohio’s 88 counties rather than the current 44. This means a single county without enough signatures could kill an entire initiative. Issue 1 also eliminates the 10-day “cure” period, during which amendment campaigns can collect additional signatures if needed due to invalid signatures being tossed out.

The “Vote Yes” campaign rhetoric is misleading and designed to divide and create fear. While proponents initially insisted Issue 1 was only about protecting the integrity of the constitution, they now say the quiet part out loud: they want to stop the popular reproductive rights amendment from passing.

So, Issue 1 is designed to protect the Ohio Constitution from the will of Ohio voters.

● Issue 1 does not “protect our constitution;” it does the opposite. The campaign itself is funded by an Illinois billionaire and supported by a handful of powerful interest groups. Issue 1’s onerous requirements would make it nearly impossible for citizen groups to get an amendment on the ballot and passed. This would invite more – not less – influence by wealthy, out-of-state interests because they will be the only forces that can afford to participate in the process. The current citizen-led amendment process is ambitious and comprehensive.

● Rather than wait for the general election in November, where we typically vote on important, statewide questions, we are having a special election on August 8 for this proposal only. Lawmakers voted for this even though it will cost taxpayers $20 million, and even though they passed a law last December prohibiting special elections in August.

● Some say the constitution has been amended too many times already. But most of those changes were initiated by the legislature, not citizen groups. Over the last 111 years, only 19 of 71 citizen-initiated amendments have been adopted.

● Opposition to Issue 1 is widespread and bipartisan. It includes all of Ohio’s living former governors and five attorneys general, mayors and local leaders, as well as more than 200 hundred organizations.

Issue 1 is not about reproductive rights or any other, single issue. It’s about control, and would effectively eliminate citizen-led amendments in Ohio, regardless of their objective. When legislators are not responsive on issues important to us – like school funding, responsible gun ownership, minimum wage, or gerrymandering – we will have no recourse if Issue 1 passes. No checks and balances. Please join me in voting no on Issue 1.

Jul 31, 2023
Ohio Right to Life makes spurious, anti-trans argument in favor of supermajority amendment

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Ohio Right to Life CEO Peter Range speaking before the Senate General Government committee in favor of SJR 2. (Screen grab from the Ohio Channel)

[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]

Right to Life officials claim a reproductive rights amendment would allow youth to receive gender affirming care without parental notification

BY: NICK EVANS – Ohio Capital Journal

Late last year, Rep. Brian Stewart, R-Ashville, and Secretary of State Frank LaRose introduced their plan requiring supermajority for constitutional amendments. It didn’t take long for opponents to check the calendar and argue the resolution was advancing — and advancing now — to block an abortion rights amendment on the horizon.

Despite Stewart and LaRose’s contentions to the contrary, Republican leaders have given up the charade that the two ballot measures are unconnected. On Wednesday in a Senate committee hearing for SJR 2, outside conservative organizations doubled down. A 60% threshold for future constitutional amendments is necessary, they argued, to head off the reproductive rights amendment before November.

But they went a step further, too.

Speakers from Ohio Right to Life argued — without evidence — that the reproductive rights amendment would open the door to minors receiving gender affirming care without parental notification.

It’s a specious argument that presages an exceptionally bitter march to November, marked by disinformation and fear-mongering, with critics of the argument noting that nothing in the proposed amendment mentions or supersedes Ohio’s parental consent laws.

A “healthy tension”

Unlike the last year’s attempt to establish a supermajority threshold, numerous proponents showed up to speak in favor of the idea.

Some, like University of Toledo professor Lee Strang, stuck to the policy,

“Ohio adopted this initiative mechanism for a variety of reasons,” he explained. “The most common reason was the belief that the state legislature was not sufficiently responsive to average Ohioans and was instead subject to control of large nationwide trusts.”

Of course, that might sound familiar. Ohio’s last redistricting became a debacle in which Republican leaders repeatedly defied the state supreme court. It’s been less than a month since a jury convicted former House speaker Larry Householder in a multimillion-dollar bribery scheme funded by two major utilities.

Strang contends the amendment process needs to maintain a “healthy tension” between two ideals: stability and flexibility. The higher threshold would insulate the constitution from provisions that belong in statutes, he said.

Other speakers, however, wandered farther afield.

Right to Life

Ohio Right to Life CEO Peter Range argued passing SJR 2 is about “building a culture of life.” His testimony made no bones about wanting the higher threshold to undermine the reproductive rights amendment. But he also injected one of the latest rallying cries of the culture war.

“This amendment that’s coming up in November will wipe away parental rights to be engaged in their teenagers decision to get an abortion or not, in their teenagers decision to get sex change operation or not.”

He wasn’t the only right to life official to make a “parental rights” argument tied to trans youth. Kate Batra insisted, “I’m not being hyperbolic at all, when I say lives are stake.”

“If this extreme amendment is passed, parents will have their rights obliterated,” Batra argued. “So moms and dads won’t be notified, let alone be able to consent, to their underage daughters undergoing abortion procedures. This also opens the door for adolescents to pursue controversial sex change operations, puberty blockers, sterilization procedures and the like—all without the parents’ knowledge or consent.”

The amendment itself, however, makes no mention of gender affirming care. It’s first section reads, in full:

“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 ones own pregnancy; miscarriage care; and abortion.”

It goes on to prohibit state interference except that abortion “may be prohibited after fetal viability.” The amendment carries an exception for the life or health of the mother.

After the committee hearing, Sen. Rob McColley, R-Napoleon, who is one of the resolution’s sponsors, offered a tepid response to the parental rights argument.

“There’s been an argument proffered by some that says they’re concerned with the language that says ‘but not limited to,’” he explained. “I’m not 100% well versed on that argument, so I can’t really opine on it.”

“Demonstrably and totally false”

Organizers leading the push for the reproductive rights amendment didn’t seem surprised by the line of argument.

Television ads from the dark money organization Protect Women Ohio make the same spurious allegations about parental rights. The ad’s script actually leads with trans fear-mongering.

“Your daughter is young, vulnerable, online,” the narrartor says. “You fear the worst: pushed to change her sex or to get an abortion.”

Executive director of Ohio Physicians for Reproductive Rights, Dr. Lauren Beene, pushed back forcefully on the ad’s claims.

“The ad is demonstrably and totally false. There is absolutely nothing in the amendment that mentions or supersedes Ohio’s parental consent laws,” she said.

In a recent NBC4 factcheck, a Capital University law school professor rated Protect Women Ohio’s claims as four out of four Pinocchios.

“Their intentionally deceptive ad is the beginning of a multi-million-dollar disinformation campaign,” she added, “designed to raise unsubstantiated fears and distract from the fact that the amendment will ensure Ohioans have access to comprehensive reproductive health care, including abortion, and preserve the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship.”

Equality Ohio executive director Alana Jochum criticized the ad as well for making “false claims” and “ignoring the facts.”

“Not only does the proposed amendment have nothing to do with gender affirming healthcare, those arguing that it does are implying that life-saving healthcare is something nefarious,” she said. “The ballot initiative being referenced specifically protects the right to abortion, another form of lifesaving medical care that Ohioans deserve to have access to.”

“False claims about what the proposed abortion amendment would do attempt to mislead voters by spreading lies that have been debunked by legal experts,” she added. “They are once again dragging precious children, their families, and their health care providers into a conversation that has nothing to do with them — especially when we should actually be talking about protecting democracy.”

Cincinnati attorney David Langdon registered Protect Women Ohio as an Ohio non-profit a little over a month ago. Langdon helped draft the 2004 Ohio constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. He has also represented the Center for Christian Virtue — another organization pushing for the supermajority threshold.

Follow OCJ Reporter Nick Evans on Twitter.[/vc_column_text][vc_separator border_width=”10″][vc_column_text]

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[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Apr 1, 2023