SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
ohio supreme court
Outrage as Ohio Court Lets GOP-Backed ‘Propaganda’ Stay on Ballot for Abortion Rights Referendum
The Ohio Ballot Board has created "out of whole cloth a veil of deceit and bias in their desire to impose their views on Ohio voters," one dissenting judge wrote.
Sep 20, 2023
The Ohio Supreme Court sided with the state's GOP-led Ohio Ballot Board Tuesday night, ruling that the words "unborn child" could be used instead of "fetus" in the ballot summary of a referendum that would add reproductive rights to the state constitution.
The decision is the latest setback for the referendum after voters defeated a GOP-supported measure in August that would have required a 60% majority to pass constitutional amendments.
"This should have been simple, but the Ohio ballot board tried to mislead voters yet again," Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights spokesperson Lauren Blauvelt told The Guardian. "Issue 1 is clearly and concisely written to protect Ohioans' right to make our own personal healthcare decisions about contraception, pregnancy, and abortion, free from government interference. The actual amendment language communicates that right clearly and without distortion."
"Anti-abortion extremists will continue to lie and cheat in their attempt to defeat us in November—but Ohioans won’t be deceived."
The amendment, which Ohioans will vote on November 7, would guarantee that "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."
It allows for restrictions on abortion "after fetal viability"—the point at which a fetus could survive on its own, usually around 24 weeks.
However, it stipulates that "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."
Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights wanted to share the actual amendment text on the ballot. However, in an August 24 meeting, the Ohio Ballot Board decided on its own language.
The board-proposed summary says the amendment would "prohibit the citizens of the State of Ohio from directly or indirectly burdening, penalizing, or prohibiting abortion before an unborn child is determined to be viable."
It also states that the amendment would "always allow an unborn child to be aborted at any stage of pregnancy, regardless of viability if, in the treating physician's determination, the abortion is necessary to protect the pregnant woman's life or health."
Notably, the board is headed by Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, a Republican and abortion opponent who drafted the new language.
"The entire summary is propaganda," Blauvelt toldThe Associated Press when it was first passed.
In a statement, Ohioans United for Reproductive Health pointed out that the board's summary was actually longer than the amendment text.
The group and five other petitioners sued to block the language four days after the board's meeting, arguing that it aimed "improperly to mislead Ohioans and persuade them to oppose the Amendment."
However, the Ohio Supreme Court Tuesday ruled that the "unborn child" language could stay. It did order one change—to swap "citizens of the State of Ohio" for "the State of Ohio" when explaining who the amendment would restrict.
"We conclude that the term 'citizens of the State' is misleading in that it suggests to the average voter that the proposed amendment would restrict the actions of individual citizens instead of the government," the court ruled, as Cincinnati.com reported.
Not everyone on the court agreed, however. Three Republicans would have made no changes, while the three Democratic members would have tossed out the "unborn child" language as well.
Justice Jennifer Brunner said the board "obfuscated the actual language of the proposed state constitutional amendment by substituting their own language and creating out of whole cloth a veil of deceit and bias in their desire to impose their views on Ohio voters about what they think is the substance of the proposed amendment," as Cincinnati.com reported.
"It's unfortunate that advocacy seems to have infiltrated a process that is meant to be objective and neutral," Justice Michael Donnelly agreed, according to Cincinati.com.
The amendment is a crucial test for abortion rights in Ohio and beyond. Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, every state ballot initiative enshrining reproductive rights has passed, NBC News observed. Ohio has passed a "heartbeat bill" banning abortion after six weeks, but it is currently blocked by its supreme court. Ohio is also one of the only states in the Midwest region that still permits abortions, The Guardian pointed out.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Advocates Sue Over 'Deceptive' Ballot Language for Ohio Abortion Rights Amendment
"The Ballot Board's members adopted politicized, distorted language for the amendment, exploiting their authority in a last-ditch effort to deceive and confuse Ohio voters ahead of the November vote," said one campaigner.
Aug 29, 2023
Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights on Monday sued the Ohio Ballot Board for its "irreparably flawed" summary of Issue 1, a citizen-initiated reproductive freedom amendment to the state constitution that voters are set to consider in November.
The proposed amendment states in part that "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."
The amendment adds that the state of Ohio "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," but "abortion may be prohibited after fetal viability," unless a doctor determines it is necessary to protect the patient's life or heath.
The lawsuit alleges that "the prescribed ballot language—drafted and introduced by respondent Secretary of State Frank LaRose and approved by respondent the Ohio Ballot Board in a 3-to-2 vote—fails to comport with the Ballot Board's duty to provide ballot language that impartially, accurately, and completely describes the amendment's effects. Instead, it is a naked attempt to prejudice voters against the amendment."
"The summary that was adopted by the Ballot Board is intentionally misleading and fails to meet the standards required by Ohio law."
The complaint details four examples of "deceptive" language, accusing the board of "obscuring much of the amendment's scope" by only mentioning abortion and pushing "an objective falsehood" by saying that the amendment would restrict "the citizens of the state of Ohio"—rather than the state—from interfering with Ohioans' exercise of their right to make reproductive decisions.
"Compounding these shortcomings is the fact that the Ballot Board was asked to put the clear, simple 194-word text of the amendment itself on the ballot, so that voters could see exactly what they were being asked to approve," the suit notes. "But the Ballot Board refused, instead adopting a wholesale rewrite."
"Indeed, the adopted language is longer (by word count) than the amendment it purports to condense," the complaint continues. "All these new and extra words serve one purpose—to distort the actual text and meaning of the amendment."
The board's summary also changes the amendment's inclusive "pregnant patient" language to "pregnant woman" and uses "unborn child" rather than medically accurate terms such as "embryo" and "fetus."
Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights is asking the Ohio Supreme Court to direct the board to either use the full text of the amendment as the ballot language or reconvene "to prescribe lawful ballot language."
The coalition spokesperson's, Lauren Blauvelt, stressed in a statement Monday that "Issue 1 was clearly written to protect Ohioans' right to make our own personal healthcare decisions about contraception, pregnancy, and abortion, free from government interference."
"The summary that was adopted by the Ballot Board is intentionally misleading and fails to meet the standards required by Ohio law," Blauvelt said. "Ohio voters deserve to see the full amendment language for Issue 1, which they can find at ReadTheAmendment.com."
"The Ballot Board's members adopted politicized, distorted language for the amendment, exploiting their authority in a last-ditch effort to deceive and confuse Ohio voters ahead of the November vote on reproductive freedom," she added. "Voting yes on Issue 1 will put Ohioans back in charge of our personal decisions, and stop the government from dictating what's best for our families."
Outrage over the board's summary has been growing since it was announced last week. Molly Meegan, chief legal officer and general counsel of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said Tuesday that "the summary is another attempt to remove decisions about reproductive healthcare from Ohio residents, replace them with the judgment of partisan forces that do not reflect the will of the voters, and impose bureaucrats' personal ideology on the voters of Ohio."
"The language used to discuss abortion has a profound impact on how people form their opinions about reproductive healthcare, and the emotionally charged language that will now be presented to voters is neither clinically nor legally sound," she explained. "Opponents of abortion access have historically and intentionally used emotionally coercive language, even creating their own biased terminology, in order to sway people away from understanding the reality of abortion care."
Meegan added that" we strongly oppose the efforts of biased policymakers to manipulate people at the ballot box, and we urge voters to see through these attempts to influence their decisions and to advance protections for all the people whose lives would be benefited" by the amendment's passage.
The board's contested summary comes after another bid by Ohio's Republicans to block the amendment. In an August 8 special election approved by the Ohio Supreme Court's right-wing majority, voters rejected a proposal that would have raised the threshold to amend the state constitution via referendum from a simple majority to 60%.
After the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a half-century of national abortion rights last year, there were six state ballot measures related to abortion. Voters in California, Michigan, and Vermont approved amendments to affirm reproductive rights while voters in Kansas, Kentucky, and Montana rejected proposals intended to restrict healthcare access.
Coalitions in Arizona and Nebraska have launched efforts to get pro-abortion rights measures on the ballot in 2024.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Inspiring': Abortion Rights Amendment Backed by 700,000+ Ohioans on Track for November Vote
"This overwhelming show of support for reproductive freedom by Ohio voters is historic," said one advocate.
Jul 05, 2023
A nonpartisan coalition on Wednesday submitted more than 700,000 signatures from Ohio residents across all 88 counties in a bid to qualify a referendum on whether to enshrine reproductive rights and abortion access in the state constitution.
Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights, which is backed by the Fairness Project, seeks to ensure that the Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety Amendment is on the ballot for the November 2023 election.
The measure was filed earlier this year in response to the 6-3 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court's reactionary majority in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. That June 2022 decision overturned Roe v. Wade of 1973, eliminating the constitutional right to abortion. In the absence of federal protections, several GOP-controlled state legislatures, including Ohio's, have moved to prohibit or restrict abortion care, unleashing a life-threatening crisis condemned by United Nations experts as a violation of international human rights law.
"We have seen unprecedented levels of enthusiasm to defend abortion rights across the country through ballot measures—and now that movement has come to Ohio."
"This overwhelming show of support for reproductive freedom by Ohio voters is historic and inspiring," Kelly Hall, executive director of the Fairness Project, said Wednesday in a statement. "The Dobbs decision was a dark day in our history that continues to have dire consequences on the health and well-being of countless Americans."
"But since that day, we have seen unprecedented levels of enthusiasm to defend abortion rights across the country through ballot measures—and now that movement has come to Ohio," said Hall. "The Fairness Project stands with Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights and is ready to support this critical ballot measure campaign however we can."
Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose (R) and county boards of elections have until July 25 to review the signatures submitted by the campaign. At least 413,487 valid signatures are required for the referendum to be placed on the November ballot.
Although Ohio's abortion ban is currently enjoined, there's an ongoing risk that the state Supreme Court's right-wing majority could reinstate it. However, if voters approve the Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety Amendment in November, any potential decision would be rendered moot.
Because the proposed ballot measure is a constitutional amendment, it would nullify existing abortion bans in Ohio and codify reproductive freedom throughout the state.
The Fairness Project warned that "special interests and extreme politicians including... LaRose—who is expected to announce a run for the U.S. Senate imminently—are already working to preempt the reproductive freedom amendment."
Last month, as Common Dreams reported, the Ohio Supreme Court handed down a 4-3 opinion allowing a special election scheduled for August 8 to proceed despite the fact that Republican Gov. Mike DeWine signed a law earlier this year banning August elections in most cases.
The Ohio General Assembly called the August special election in an attempt to ram through Issue 1—a legislatively referred ballot measure that would increase the threshold required to amend the state constitution via referendum from a simple majority to a 60% supermajority—before November.
"Special interests and extreme politicians... are already working to preempt the reproductive freedom amendment."
A poll conducted last year by Baldwin Wallace University found that 59% of Ohio residents were in favor of a constitutional amendment to safeguard abortion access.
"Their true motivation" for holding the August election, Ohio House Minority Whip Jessica Miranda (D-28)
told Bolts last month, "aside from their insatiable desire for power, is to stop women from having the reproductive freedom that we so deserve."
The potential impacts of Issue 1—which would also make it more difficult for voters to get citizen-led initiatives onto future ballots—go beyond abortion rights. Efforts to raise the minimum wage, for example, could also be negatively affected.
Mia Lewis, associate director of Common Cause Ohio, told Bolts that the Republican proposal is "an attempt to fool voters into giving away their power."
The Fairness Project is actively supporting the One Person, One Vote: Vote No in August campaign to defeat the Ohio GOP's assault on popular democracy as part of its Ballot Measure Rescue Campaign.
Last year, the group helped the Michigan Reproductive Freedom for All campaign and the Vermont for Reproductive Liberty campaign to pass constitutional amendments in each state upholding reproductive rights through ballot initiatives.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular