Supporters of Ohio’s abortion amendment conceal its barbaric nature.
Ohioans to Vote on Reproductive Rights Amendment
On Nov. 7 (formerly known as Election Day), my fellow Ohioans and I will conclude our month of voting on Issue 1, a proposed constitutional right that aims to protect “reproductive decisions.” If passed, Ohio would join a select few states, including California, Vermont, and Michigan, that explicitly mention abortion in their constitutions.
As a lawyer specializing in women’s issues and a former deputy solicitor general for Ohio, I have a unique perspective on what this amendment truly entails. It seeks to require abortions throughout pregnancy, eliminate Ohio’s laws regarding parental notification and unethical abortive procedures, and establish constitutional requirements for transgender procedures for minors.
However, that’s not the message Ohioans are receiving.
I first encountered the captivating ads promoting Issue 1. They claim that the amendment will overturn Ohio’s “heartbeat” law, which restricts abortion after six weeks, even in cases of rape or incest. Soon after, I noticed the same messaging being disseminated through local and corporate media. The Ohio Capital Journal, for instance, explained that Issue 1 would simply restore the pre-2022 “status quo.” The Plain Dealer, Cleveland’s prominent newspaper, clarified that while the amendment would overturn Ohio’s six-week abortion law, “other” laws, such as parental consent requirements for minors, could remain intact.
At first glance, it may seem reasonable. However, it is a complete falsehood.
As a starting point, constitutional amendments hold greater authority than regular statutes, meaning Ohio’s laws and local government policies can only stand if they align with the amendment. The proposed amendment grants individuals the right to make and carry out their own reproductive decisions. Since the term “reproductive decisions” remains undefined, it encompasses decisions related to reproduction, including those involving puberty blockers or irreversible transgender interventions for minors. This is not mere speculation; in Vermont, the ACLU is already leveraging the state’s “reproductive liberty” constitutional language to protect transgender procedures. Furthermore, the term “individual” is also undefined, thus not limited to adults.
This Is Not a Return to Pre-2022
The proposed amendment explicitly states that Ohio cannot directly or indirectly interfere with or discriminate against this broad and undefined “right,” unless the government can prove that its policy is the “least restrictive means” to promote the individual’s health. In simpler terms, any law or policy that affects abortion or reproductive decisions would be prohibited unless the government can demonstrate an absolute necessity to protect the patient. Consequently, a law requiring the maintenance of functional abortion tools would be permissible, as it serves the state’s interest in maternal health. However, a vast array of policies, including restrictions on Medicaid funding for abortion and regulations on sex education, would be at risk.
This proposed legal test deviates significantly from the pre-2022 legal framework, commonly referred to as the “status quo.” For decades, the Supreme Court acknowledged that state laws indirectly burdening abortion but serving a valid purpose were valid. The Court recognized that states had legitimate interests beyond a woman’s health, such as protecting the life of the unborn child, upholding medical ethics, and allowing for family decision-making.
Under Issue 1, however, these laws would be rendered obsolete. The amendment only permits state laws that promote the mother’s health and are narrowly tailored to that objective. Consequently, laws requiring parental consent and restrictions on partial-birth abortions would be invalidated.
Another common claim is that Issue 1 allows for abortion prohibition after “fetal viability.” Even if true, this is still much later than what the majority of Americans support. However, the amendment includes a broad exception that undermines this claim: Abortion must be permitted if the doctor deems it “necessary” for the patient’s “health.”
Here, “health” does not solely refer to physical well-being but encompasses an undefined range of factors relevant to the mother’s overall well-being, including considerations of family size. Allowing abortion based on one’s “well-being” essentially eliminates any restrictions, a stance that is highly unpopular among Americans.
Issue 1 Will Exacerbate Suffering
I understand the appeal of Issue 1. Ohioans are reasonable individuals who empathize with young women facing the trauma of rape or receiving devastating news about their unborn babies. These sympathies lead us to question Ohio’s heartbeat bill, even if we personally believe abortion is morally wrong.
However, Issue 1 will only worsen suffering instead of alleviating it. It permits abortions without parental knowledge, enabling perpetrators to continue their violence. It delays decision-making until a stage when mothers can feel their babies moving inside them, and doctors hold partially born infants in their hands.
Regardless of one’s stance on abortion, it is crucial to understand the monumental, untested, and dangerous changes that Issue 1 would bring to Ohio. There are alternative ways to address concerns with Ohio’s heartbeat law, such as passing a law or proposing a ballot-initiative to change the timeframe to 15 weeks, which would still be more permissive than European standards. Exceptions, such as those for cases of rape and incest, could also be added. We should have the opportunity to consider these options while keeping our most vulnerable in mind.
However, Issue 1 completely removes these decisions from the hands of Ohioans and their representatives. This immobility, anchored far beyond what the majority of Americans believe is best, is not the way to protect the well-being of Ohio women and children.
Can restrictions on late-term abortions be effectively enforced under the PAA, given its consideration of not just physical health but also mental, emotional, and social well-being?
Determines that the life or health of the mother is at risk. This exception is not limited to physical health but also includes mental, emotional, and even social well-being. Therefore, any restrictions on late-term abortions would be virtually impossible to enforce under this amendment.
The proponents of Issue 1 argue that it is necessary to protect reproductive rights and ensure that individuals have the right to make choices about their own bodies. While this may sound appealing, it overlooks the fact that abortion is not the only aspect of reproductive health. Reproductive health also includes access to contraception, prenatal care, and support services for pregnant women. By solely focusing on abortion, Issue 1 ignores the broader reproductive health needs of Ohioans.
Moreover, Issue 1 fails to consider the potential consequences of unrestricted and unregulated reproductive decisions. By eliminating restrictions on parental notification and ethical abortion procedures, the amendment puts vulnerable minors at risk. It disregards the important role that parents should play in their child’s reproductive decision-making process and undermines the ethical standards that should guide medical practices.
It is crucial to recognize that Issue 1 goes beyond the scope of protecting reproductive rights; it imposes far-reaching implications on various aspects of Ohio’s laws and policies. It raises concerns about the potential infringement on the rights of individuals and the ability of the government to regulate public health and safety.
As Ohioans prepare to cast their votes on this important issue, it is essential to be fully informed about the implications of Issue 1. We must carefully consider the potential consequences of passing this amendment and its impact on Ohio’s laws and policies. It is imperative to strike a balance between protecting reproductive rights and ensuring the health, safety, and well-being of all Ohioans.
In conclusion, Issue 1 is not just about protecting reproductive rights but has significant implications for Ohio’s laws and policies. It is crucial for Ohioans to weigh the potential consequences of passing this amendment and consider the broader implications on public health, safety, and the rights of individuals. It is important to make an informed decision based on a thorough understanding of the amendment and its potential impact.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
