{"id":290878,"date":"2023-05-13T09:14:43","date_gmt":"2023-05-13T14:14:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=290878"},"modified":"2023-05-13T18:20:59","modified_gmt":"2023-05-13T23:20:59","slug":"ohio-resolution-attempt-abortion-constitution","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/ohio-resolution-attempt-abortion-constitution\/","title":{"rendered":"Ohio House passes resolution that could impact attempt to add abortion to constitution"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

An Ohio\u00a0resolution<\/a>\u00a0just passed by the State’s House of Representatives, which raises the threshold for constitutional amendments from a simple majority of votes to 60%,\u00a0could upend a pro-abortion ballot initiative hoping to codify a right to abortion in the state.<\/p>\n

Senate Joint Resolution 2 (SJR2)\u00a0overwhelmingly passed<\/a> the Ohio House on Wednesday by a vote of 62-37 and would \u201crequire a vote of at least 60% of the electors to approve any constitutional amendment and to modify the procedures for an initiative petition proposing a constitutional amendment.\u201d<\/p>\n

The measure is set to appear on a special election ballot in August 2023.<\/p>\n

“The August election could create a roadblock for abortion rights advocates,” reported<\/a> WLWT.com.<\/p>\n

Pro-abortion ballot measure<\/strong><\/p>\n

Earlier this year, Ohio Physicians for Reproductive Rights and Ohioans for Reproductive Freedom joined forces to submit<\/a> a ballot measure which would enshrine a constitutional amendment in support of abortion<\/a>\u00a0in Ohio.\u00a0Pro-abortion state ballot efforts<\/a> have been on the rise since June of 2022 when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Roe v. Wade<\/em> abortion decision with its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety\u201d\u00a0provides that “[e]very individual has a right to make and carry out one\u2019s own reproductive decisions, including but not limited to decisions on contraception, fertility treatment, continuing one\u2019s own pregnancy, miscarriage care, and abortion” and that “[t]he State shall not, directly or indirectly, burden, penalize, prohibit, interfere with, or discriminate against either an individual\u2019s voluntary exercise of this right or a person or entity that assists an individual exercising this right, unless the State demonstrates that it is using the least restrictive means to advance the individual\u2019s health in accordance with widely accepted and evidence-based standards of care.”<\/p>\n

While the measure would limit abortion after “viability,” a time defined as the point when the fetus could survive outside the womb, the measure also claims that this would be determined on a “case by case” basis<\/em>. In other words, if an abortionist decides that a fetus is not viable, at whatever gestational age, that child can be killed.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

The abortion amendment language is ghoulish on many levels, but the smoke & mirrors on \u201cfetal viability\u201d is particularly creepy. It\u2019s defined as there being a \u201csignificant likelihood of survival\u201d outside the womb. So, if there\u2019s merely a \u201clikelihood of survival\u201d – abortion away. https:\/\/t.co\/tYUizRFiub<\/a><\/p>\n

— Brian Stewart (@BrianStewartOH) February 21, 2023<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n