In a straightforward manner, on the 7th of November, the question of abortion on demand will be presented to the electorate in Ohio. The ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and other organizations are collectively investing millions of dollars in an effort to enshrine abortion-on-demand, with no restrictions, into the Ohio Constitution this fall. This is according to Ohio Right to Life. The gravity of this ballot initiative cannot be overstated. Should this proposition be enacted, the Ohio legislature would be precluded from enacting any future legislation designed to protect the unborn. The abortion issue would be removed from our control permanently.
The manner in which the language appears on the ballot is of paramount importance. Yesterday, the Ohio Ballot Board, in a divided decision, approved language that will be seen by voters this fall. This language replaces the word “fetus” with “unborn child” on four occasions, as reported by Eric Heisig.
The Democratic Party reacted with vehement opposition. Representative Elliot Forhan (D) deemed the language proposed by Secretary of State Frank LaRose to be “needlessly repetitive.”
Heisig observed that State Senator Theresa Gavarone (R) asserted that the ballot language would serve to inform voters that, should the proposed constitutional amendment be enacted, it would be “unequivocally true” that access to late-term abortions would be enshrined in Ohio’s constitution.
Julie Carr Smyth of the Associated Press allowed her emotions to be evident in her remarks. The summary, which was adopted yesterday by a vote of 3-2, states that the amendment, if enacted, would permit the termination of an unborn child at any stage of pregnancy, irrespective of viability, in the event that the treating physician deems the application of the life and health exception to be appropriate.
In his analysis, Smyth posits that the original summary language sought to guarantee access to abortion by defining viability as the point at which the fetus is able to survive outside the womb. The document stated that abortion may be prohibited after fetal viability, but that it may be permitted in cases where a treating physician deems the procedure necessary to protect the life or health of the pregnant person.
To Smyth, this represents a radical inversion of the summary. In point of fact, the revised language is entirely appropriate.
The legislation explicitly permits abortion to proceed at any stage of pregnancy, provided that the abortionist deems it necessary to safeguard the woman’s “health.” This was the intended loophole in the Roe v. Wade case, as evidenced by the companion case Doe v. Bolton.
The election is scheduled to take place on 7 November.
Daniel Miller is responsible for nearly all of National Right to Life News' political writing.
With the election of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency, Daniel Miller developed a deep obsession with U.S. politics that has never let go of the political scientist. Whether it's the election of Joe Biden, the midterm elections in Congress, the abortion rights debate in the Supreme Court or the mudslinging in the primaries - Daniel Miller is happy to stay up late for you.
Daniel was born and raised in New York. After living in China, working for a news agency and another stint at a major news network, he now lives in Arizona with his two daughters.
