Ohio should take heed: The unfortunate consequences of Michigan’s Proposition 3 are becoming evident less than a year after its enactment. The consequences of the passage of Issue 1 will undoubtedly be felt by our neighbours, and will similarly befall us should the measure be enacted. — Amy Natoce, press secretary for Protect Women Ohio
Editor’s Note: Protect Women Ohio is a coalition of individuals and organisations that espouse a pro-parent, pro-woman, pro-life stance. Its objective is to defeat the ACLU’s extreme anti-parent amendment in the upcoming November elections.
COLUMBUS, OH — Today, Protect Women Ohio (PWO) issued a public statement expressing concern over the introduction of a series of bills by Michigan Democrats that seek to repeal numerous pro-life and pro-woman protections based on the constitutional amendment known as Prop 3, which was approved by voters in November of last year.
The proposed legislation would effectively remove all limitations on abortion throughout the nine-month pregnancy period, including the termination of pregnancies involving partial-birth abortion, the removal of taxpayer protections from funding abortions, and the elimination of basic health and safety standards for women. It is of concern that the Michigan Democrats also intend to repeal the requirements for abortionists to screen for coercion or report complications. This would leave victims of domestic violence or trafficking completely unprotected and evidence of a crime destroyed.
The enactment of Proposition 3 in the previous year has resulted in the erosion of pro-life and pro-woman legislation. The state of Michigan has already removed nearly all informed consent documents from its official website. The introduction of this suite of bills by the Michigan Democrats is intended to formalise the aforementioned changes, thereby preventing future administrations from reinstating pro-life and pro-woman protections. Should Issue 1 be passed in the November election, a similar process will be initiated in Ohio.
In the view of Amy Natoce, press secretary for Protect Women Ohio, the enactment of Proposition 3 in Michigan has resulted in a situation where radical abortion ideology has been permitted to prevail over common sense and compassionate medical safety requirements, with the consequence that women and children are placed at risk, as are their parents. Ohio should take heed: The unfortunate consequences of Michigan’s Proposition 3 are becoming evident less than a year after its enactment. “The consequences of the implementation of Issue 1 in Michigan will undoubtedly be replicated in Ohio should the initiative be passed.”
The ACLU of Michigan has elucidated the necessity to fulfill the promise of Proposal 3, which guarantees the constitutional right to abortion and all decisions related to reproductive health.
The elimination of parents from critical healthcare decisions is a clear objective for supporters of Proposition 3, as well as for Governor Whitmer of Michigan. As with the stance currently espoused by supporters of Issue 1, Whitmer has asserted that those opposed to her position are misrepresenting the facts during the campaign. She has also stated that she believes that parental consent laws and abortion restrictions are unconstitutional under the terms of Proposition 3.
The informed consent paperwork currently in use in Michigan, which would be eliminated by the proposed legislation, no longer includes a question about parental consent for minors. This change has been attributed by the state website to the passage of Proposition 3.
The Cincinnati Enquirer has recently confirmed that, should Issue 1 be passed in Michigan, a similar situation will arise in Ohio. The Ohio Constitution would prevail over state legislation, which currently determines the majority of abortion policy.
In a recent development, Kellie Copeland, the executive director of Pro-Choice Ohio and a proponent of Issue 1, has made statements indicating her opposition to parental consent laws and the necessity of “working on” their elimination. When questioned directly during a press conference in July, Copeland was unable to rule out that the amendment permits late-term abortions that are particularly gruesome.
“Issue 1 would eliminate existing and future parental involvement legislation, effectively excluding parents from the most pivotal and transformative decisions affecting their child,” stated Natoce. Furthermore, the proposed amendment would eliminate any protections for women and unborn children, even during the ninth month of pregnancy. This proposed amendment is arguably excessively radical for the state of Ohio.
In the event of a conflict between federal law and state law, the federal law would prevail. This would include any state laws requiring parental consent or imposing limits on abortion.
Issue 1 represents the most recent manifestation of the ACLU’s campaign against parental rights. Further information on the ACLU’s stance on parental rights can be found here. The ACLU has a long and well-documented history of opposing parental rights, including in Alaska and Indiana. The ACLU explicitly identifies parental involvement as a concern on its website, suggesting that it would limit adolescents’ access to abortion.
Heritage Action has recently published a report and video in which it critiques the ACLU’s stance on parental rights in Ohio. In recent weeks, the ACLU has publicly denounced parental notification requirements in schools. The ACLU of Ohio’s chief lobbyist subsequently confirmed this stance on Twitter.
A legal analysis of the controversial anti-parent amendment can be accessed via the following link: HERE. The analysis was prepared by constitutional scholars Carrie Campbell Severino, President of the Judicial Crisis Network, and Frank J. Scaturro, a former special counsel to the House Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives.
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.
