{"id":292520,"date":"2023-06-05T18:36:16","date_gmt":"2023-06-05T23:36:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=292520"},"modified":"2023-06-04T22:31:22","modified_gmt":"2023-06-05T03:31:22","slug":"ohio-supreme-court-allows-abortion-amendment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/ohio-supreme-court-allows-abortion-amendment\/","title":{"rendered":"Ohio Supreme Court allows constitutional abortion amendment to stay on ballot"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled<\/a> that an amendment adding the supposed ‘right to abortion’ into the state constitution can remain on the November ballot.<\/p>\n

In a 7-0 decision, the justices upheld the Ohio Ballot Board’s decision to let the amendment move forward as one single initiative. A lawsuit had been filed<\/a> in April, pointing out that the amendment covers multiple issues, and should therefore be split into multiple initiatives. \u201cWe think it is very overbroad and the [Ohio] Ballot Board never considered, never really addressed what exactly is being proposed by this, and they had no debate, no discussion,\u201d attorney Curt Hartman said.<\/p>\n

READ: \u2018It\u2019s anti-parent because it removes consent\u2019: Ads warn of Ohio constitutional amendment<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Parental rights<\/a> groups have been protesting<\/a> the amendment, which was written by the ACLU with input from Planned Parenthood. They have argued that the amendment threatens parental rights<\/a>, allowing minors to undergo abortions and gender reassignment treatments without their parents’ knowledge or consent. A recent National Review article<\/a> notes the wording of the bill (emphasis added):<\/p>\n

Beyond abortion, the text<\/a> of the proposed amendment provides more broadly that \u201cevery individual has a right to make and carry out one\u2019s own reproductive decisions, including but not limited to\u201d several categories: contraception, fertility treatment, continuing one\u2019s own pregnancy, miscarriage care, and abortion. \u201cReproductive decisions,\u201d however, is a very broad term. By explicitly defining such decisions as \u201cnot limited to\u201d the enumerated categories, the proposal establishes its scope as sweeping.<\/em><\/p>\n

A natural reading would extend to any medical procedure that involves the human reproductive system, including sex-change surgery. The language also applies to individuals without any age qualification, so the proposal makes no distinction between adults and minors<\/strong>. Additional language would deny parents the right to any intervention on behalf of their children that would discourage them from obtaining the procedure in question<\/strong>:<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

The State shall not, directly or indirectly, burden, penalize, prohibit, interfere with,<\/em><\/p>\n

or discriminate against either:<\/em><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n
      \n
    1. An individual\u2019s voluntary exercise of this right or<\/em><\/li>\n
    2. A person or entity that assists an individual exercising this right,<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      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.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

      \u201cThe language in this amendment is so broad and so vague, and it puts no age limits on this,\u201d Amy Natoce, of Protect Women Ohio, told the Washington Examiner in May. \u201cIt specifically says \u2018including but not limited to,\u2019 so that leaves this so open-ended. Sex-change operations affect someone\u2019s reproductive organs. Gender reassignment surgery, hormone blockers, hormone replacement therapy.\u201d<\/p>\n