Ohio Amendment Would Permanently Legalize Abortion Extremism

This November, voters in Ohio will have the opportunity to vote on an amendment to the state’s constitution that would enshrine abortion as a fundamental right in that document. Voters may be accustomed to hearing that the next election is the most important of their lifetime from politicians and activists all across the ideological spectrum. This ballot measure, however, is literally a matter of life and death for the next generation of Ohioans and the safety of women and girls living in Ohio right now.

Abortion activists recently introduced a proposed amendment that would enshrine abortion in the state’s constitution. The proposed language seeks to amend Article I of the Ohio Constitution by adding Section 22, entitled “The Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety.”

Abortion proponents claim the ballot measure is merely a response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s?overturning?of?Roe v. Wade?and would “reinstate?Roe” in Ohio. A closer look reveals the abortion amendment goes far beyond codifying that mistaken and now-defunct decision. The language of the amendment is dangerously vague and would compromise?parental rights?and endanger minors and crime victims. It would also threaten the?conscience rights?of Ohio’s health-care professionals and would preclude the enactment and enforcement of commonsense protective laws.

It would force Ohio taxpayers to pay for abortions, contraception, fertility treatments, and even the surgical removal of healthy reproductive organs. Taxpayers could be compelled to fund these services and products even for non-residents. If the amendment were adopted, sex offenders and traffickers would be more empowered to coerce their victims into having abortions. A girl who was raped could be brought to an abortion facility, undergo an abortion without parental consent, and be returned to her abuser. And since minors in Ohio would be able to get “no questions asked” abortions, the state could become a destination for sex traffickers. The abortion amendment victimizes women and girls rather than protecting and empowering them.

The concerns with the abortion amendment begin with the title. The term “reproductive freedom” is inadequately defined and intentionally vague. It does not fairly represent the breadth and scope of the radical changes that the abortion amendment intends. The use of “Protections for Health and Safety” in the title is also misleading. Rather than protecting women’s health and safety, the amendment endangers both women and girls.

‘Reproductive Freedom’: Dangerously and Intentionally Vague

Ohio voters deserve to know exactly what they are voting on—especially when asked to amend the state’s constitution. The abortion amendment centers on the term “reproductive freedom,” which is not adequately defined. The amendment 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.” The terms used to describe “reproductive freedom” are also not defined, leaving voters to guess what they mean.

For instance, the right to “fertility treatment” is not defined and will apply to any “individual” (minors, non-residents, those beyond normal child-bearing age, men, same-sex couples). And these procedures would likely come at state taxpayer expense because the state cannot “burden” an individual’s voluntary exercise of this right. So Ohio taxpayers could be forced to pay for not only IVF treatments, but even a “paid surrogate” to allow two men to have a child.

The vague language could be interpreted by Ohio courts to encompass other medical procedures that have a nexus 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 so-called “gender identity transitions.”

The abortion amendment declares “reproductive freedom” to be a “fundamental right.” But voters are not informed of the meaning and import of “fundamental rights,” which have traditionally included rights reflected in the U.S. Constitution and the Ohio Bill of Rights, such as the right to free speech and the right to trial by jury.

Fundamental rights require a high degree of protection from government encroachment. This level of protection is commonly called “strict scrutiny” and requires that state officials, when proposing a regulation of that right or a restriction on it, must demonstrate a “compelling state interest.” Further, the regulation or restriction must be narrowly tailored to effectuate that compelling interest.

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. Rather, abortion could be regulated under the lesser “undue burden” standard. So it is not accurate to claim that the abortion amendment simply resurrects and codifies?Roe. It goes dangerously beyond it.

Threatening the Freedom of Conscience

Under the abortion amendment, laws protecting the conscience rights of health-care professionals and permitting them to opt out of performing or participating in abortions, the removal of healthy reproductive organs, the provision of cross-sex hormones, and other objectionable procedures could be seen as a “burden” on or “interference” with a person’s “right” to “reproductive freedom.”

Since America’s founding, our laws have repeatedly affirmed the freedom of conscience. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled in favor of protecting conscience rights for every American, holding that “[f]reedom of conscience… cannot be restricted by law.” Our nation’s history, tradition, and jurisprudence confirm that Americans—including those who work in health care—cannot be forced to commit an act that violates their moral, religious, or conscientious beliefs.

But in this “battle of rights,” the historically fundamental freedom of conscience (recognized under both the U.S. Constitution and the Ohio Bill of Rights) may be deemed subservient to the newly created “right” to “reproductive freedom.” This threat to freedom of conscience is untenable. And it will lead to more nurses, doctors, and other medical professionals leaving the medical field altogether rather than having their consciences violated.

Permanently Repealing Commonsense, Protective Laws

Ohio law contains many protective, abortion-related laws:

• Limit on abortion at 22 weeks?(20 weeks post-fertilization age)
• Limit on partial-birth abortion (“intact dilation and extraction”)
• Limit on dismemberment abortion (“dilation and evacuation”)
• Limit on discriminatory abortions performed because of a Down syndrome diagnosis
• Parental consent for minor seeking abortion
• Informed consent and 24-hour reflection period
• Ultrasound?requirement
• Public funding limits
• Private insurance coverage limits
• Abortion reporting requirements
• Abortion provider health and safety standards
• Limits on telemedicine abortions

Each of these lawfully enacted, commonsense requirements is jeopardized by the abortion amendment’s prohibition on any “burden” or “interference” with an individual’s “reproductive freedom.” The state legislature will be further prohibited from enacting new legislation to respond to the growing medical evidence of abortion’s harms to women and from evidence of abortion providers’ often substandard facilities and practices. Buckeyes will be left completely unprotected.

The bottom line on this ballot proposal is as stark in its simplicity as it is in its seriousness—anyone who supports any limit whatsoever on abortion must vote “NO.”