Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Life on the Ballot
Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s historic decision in Dobbs rightfully returned questions of abortion law and policy back to the American people’s elected representatives, the pro-life movement has seen mixed results. In the last election cycle, every governor who signed into law measures to protect the unborn and their mothers was re-elected. However, every ballot initiative to add protections for life to state constitutions was defeated at the ballot box while pro-abortion measures succeeded.
Ohio will be the next opportunity for the people to be heard on the issue. The stakes could not be higher. If the Abortion Amendment passes, Ohio could shift from being a state with sensible limits on abortion to a state with virtually no protections for life or the mothers carrying it, leading to more young women being coerced into obtaining abortions.
The Abortion Amendment centers on the term “reproductive freedom,” which is intentionally vague and misleading. Rather than defining the term so that Ohioans have a clear understanding of what they are voting on, it simply refers to a wide-ranging laundry list of examples of what “reproductive freedom” encompasses: “decisions on contraception, fertility treatment, continuing one’s own pregnancy, miscarriage care, and abortion.” Not only are these examples not defined, but they are also not an exclusive list, meaning that “reproductive freedom” can mean whatever activist courts want it to mean.
The imprecise language could be interpreted by Ohio courts to encompass other medical procedures that tangentially relate to reproductive anatomy, such as the removal of healthy reproductive organs and the provision of cross-sex hormones and other harmful chemicals that alter the normal functioning of the male or female body as part of gender identity transition.
The Abortion Amendment declares “reproductive freedom” to be a “fundamental right.” Generally, lawmakers are restricted from imposing limits on things declared to be “fundamental rights”—things like free speech. But medical procedures, including abortion and “gender transition” procedures, need some government oversight to protect innocent life and vulnerable women and children from unsafe conditions. Notably, even under the now overruled decisions in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, abortion was not considered a “fundamental right” under the U.S. Constitution, and states such as Ohio could enact commonsense limits. Ohioans, through their elected representatives, did so.
For example, Ohio law currently contains a limit on abortion at 22 weeks (20 weeks post-fertilization age), on partial birth abortion (“intact dilation and extraction”), on dismemberment abortion (“dilation and evacuation”), and on discriminatory abortions performed because of Down syndrome diagnosis. Ohio law also currently requires parental consent for minors seeking abortion, informed consent and a 24-hour reflection period, and an ultrasound requirement. There are also public funding limits, private insurance coverage limits, abortion reporting requirements, abortion provider health and safety standards (including transfer agreement), and limits on telemedicine abortions.
If the amendment passes, Ohioans should expect legal challenges to each of these lawfully enacted, commonsense requirements citing the Abortion Amendment’s prohibition on any “burden” or “interference” with an individual’s “reproductive freedom” as the reason to invalidate them. It is blatantly false and intentionally deceptive to claim that the Abortion Amendment simply resurrects and codifies Roe v. Wade. By eliminating these commonsense measures, it would go severely beyond Roe.
The old maxim that states, “politics makes for strange bedfellows” should once again be proven true. Republicans, Democrats, and Independents in Ohio, who may disagree on the particulars of guardrails on abortion, should find themselves on the same side of this debate. The U.S. Supreme Court has done its duty and restored the right of the people to be heard on this issue. Ohioans need to voice their support for protective, commonsense laws that protect women and children, not a vague, easily abused constitutional amendment that will endanger them and ensure that Ohioans only get one “all or nothing” vote on abortion law and policy.
Lathan Watts serves as vice president of public affairs at Alliance Defending Freedom.
Published in Elections
Euphemisms like “reproductive freedom” to cover abortion overlooks the fact there is virtually nowhere in the USA where a woman can’t get birth control if she wants it, or where she can’t insist her lover don a condom before hanky-panky. “Women’s healthcare” is another out-worn euphemism. They are designed to remove any moral element from the debate, and make it a “do you want rape victims to have to carry the fetus to term” kind of emotional argument. It is both a transparent and an evil tactic.
The airwaves have been flooded, both supporting and against the issue, with commercials mostly paid for by out of state deep pockets.
The “NO” side has been particularly dishonest. And, all the big city newspapers are against it.
We’ll find out tomorrow just how effective the “NO” side has been.
Bad news. It looks as if the issue was defeated 56 to 43 percent.
The vast majority of Ohio’s 88 counties voted for the measure but the large metropolitan areas (Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Akron, Toledo and Dayton) sunk the measure.
Damn.
All the more reason for anyone who supports any limits on abortion to be sure to vote against the amendment itself. A 60% requirement would have made defeating the amendment easier but it is still up to the people of OH to vote to protect life.
LW
True, but it may be an uphill fight. The out-of-state big money coupled with the blatant dishonesty of the print media really helped win the vote for the “no” campaign.
In the Columbus Dispatch there was an article titled “Religious groups turn out against the issue”. A picture accompanying the article showed a mob with three or four “clergymen” wearing stoles that looked like they had been designed by Gucci.
It didn’t help that the Catholic Bishops studiously ignored the election. In our parish there was an announcement in the bulletin that advised a “yes” vote.
It appeared to many of us that the bishops considered themselves above the fray. Wrong. Wrong. So wrong.
Why Ohio Voters Said No to the Ballot Measure.
The populist outrage over Dobbs continues. Those on the anti-abortion side of the issue may fail to understand how much the decision has mobilized not only Democrats, but independent and Republican voters determined to see the Roe status quo restored. The Times article quotes Republicans for a reason. In a now GOP-leaning state, the wedge issue was (and in the next “Roevember” will be) decided by independent and GOP defectors from the party line.
Afraid of alientating core voters, political parties are willfully neglectful of single issue dissenters. The GOP rarely extends outreach, inclusion, or any visible proof of existence to the pro-choice element of its voting constituency. (That’s when they’re not busy calling us murderers.) Well, we exist, we vote, we donate — and we can go away.
Given Ricochet’s historic ties to WFB conservatism, I’m very aware that the present majority of our community would style itself as “pro-life” on the question of reproductive rights. As a media expert and not a medical man, I’ll leave the finer details of the policy debate to others. Nor will I debate Roman Catholic integralists, unless I wind up sitting next to a Supreme Court justice on a plane. (C’mon Brett, tell me the words “mortal sin” didn’t cross your mind.)
On the legal issue, I’ve voted long enough to see what’s been going on for the last 50 years. Anyone who thinks Dobbs is now settled law needs to watch the October 27, 1994 episode of Seinfeld: “The Couch.” That’s the one where moving man Carl tells Elaine that “someday we’re going to get enough people on the Supreme Court to change that law.”
Legislating from the high court bench works both ways, of course.
The one Long March which the religious right has managed to win over the last half century can certainly be reversed by the side more experienced at long marches. I expect it won’t take half a century until two seats on the court flip to libertarian, neutral, or the Democrats, and we learn that the rights of women supercede the putative rights of a first trimester fetus in all states.
The problem is what the Democrats will accomplish in the meantime, how much unrelated drek they’ll drag into law while waving the flag of a woman’s right to bodily autonomy. Just remember who opened the door, when some states change 22 weeks to 8+ months.
The irony of turning abortion back to the states, of course, is that the Democrats’ add-on agenda has a new organizing tool. So add on the Governor’s chair in Michigan, an important state judiciary majority in Wisconsin, etc. Abortion referenda have long coattails for youth voter mobilization, fundraising, and the all-important appeal to voters who like to keep things simple and vote in a straight line. It’s not going away. There will never be acceptance.
Some like Senator Lindsay Graham posture that the GOP should go even further, restricting abortion rights under federal law. I’ve always wondered what’s going on with that guy. Is this not the time for the GOP to try to win back the pro-choice voters who are clearly deserting them from the polls in swing states?
A few (or many?) of us for years have voted for Republicans with whom we disagree on abortion, because of the weight of other crucial matters such as fighting crime, saving the economy, and maintaining America’s position in the world. Now, it’s not so simple. The fundamental individual rights of fully alive human beings are at stake, rights we boomers had in our 20’s and want to pass along.
On the day Dobbs was decided, my wife and I changed our voter registration to “no party affiliation.” It’s a matter of personal identity, and an easy decision here in California. It will be interesting to see by how much the people of Ohio vote to codify Roe, and if abortion rights wind up being extended into the second trimester there and elsewhere.
Reap what you have sown, moving man Carl.