Two Southeast Ohio residents asked the state Supreme Court on Monday to overturn the Ohio Ballot Board‘s decision last week to advance a proposed constitutional amendment that would legalize abortion throughout the state.
According to the lawsuit, the Ohio Ballot Board erred last week when it decided that the proposed amendment contained only one issue when it contained two or more. A proposal with more than one amendment must be divided into separate issues under Ohio law.
Cincinnati-area attorney John Hartman is representing the plaintiffs Margaret DeBlase of Montgomery County and John Giroux of Hamilton County.
On March 13th, the ballot board, a bipartisan group of elected officials and one appointed member, led by Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, decided that the proposed constitutional amendment by the Ohioans for Reproductive Freedom, a coalition of radical pro-abortion activists that includes Planned Parenthood, Pro-Choice Ohio, the Abortion Fund of Ohio, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Ohio, along with the Ohio Physicians for Reproductive Rights, only contained one amendment. Although the Republicans on the board personally opposed the contents of the amendment, the sole purpose of the Ballot Board was to decide whether the proposal incorporated one or more constitutional amendments, not to debate the merits of the issue.
DeBlase and Giroux contended in their request for a court order that there was no debate or discussion on whether the proposal contained one or more amendments from the Ballot Board.
They request that the Supreme Court direct the Ballot Board to reverse its determination that the proposal only contained one amendment and break it up into several proposals.
The constitutional amendment proposal, “The Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety,” would add a Section 22 to Article 1 of the state constitution. The proposal would remove Ohio’s parental notification legislation when a minor wants an abortion and the requirement that abortionists adhere to fundamental hospital health and safety standards. The proposal also aims to permit abortions far after babies have heartbeats and can feel pain.
Abortion, according to DeBlase and Giroux, is distinct from other reproductive issues. They only claim there are more than one constitutional amendments in the proposal; they don’t specify how many in their request.
They contend that while some of the proposed activities would create a constitutional right to an individual abortion, others are concerned with “the interests and rights of a third party, i.e., the unborn child.”
“Thus, decisions regarding ‘contraception’, ‘fertility treatment’, and ‘miscarriage care’ are distinctly and materially different from decisions regarding ‘continuing one’s own pregnancy’ and ‘abortion’ as used in Section A of the Proposed Constitutional Amendment,” their request states. “Stated otherwise, decisions regarding ‘contraception’, ‘fertility treatment’, and ‘miscarriage care’ do not relate to the same general object or purpose as decisions concerning ‘continuing one’s own pregnancy’ and ‘abortion.’
According to Cincinnati Right to Life, Ohio cannot allow special interest groups to circumvent the law or mislead Ohio voters.
“This Mandamus action establishes that Ohio law must be followed and that no special interest can mislead Ohio voters when trying to place such a drastically radical initiative on the ballot,” Cincinnati Right to Life said.
If DeBlase and Giroux are successful in convincing the state Supreme Court of their arguments, abortion activists would need to get 413,000 signatures from valid registered voters for each proposal to get on the ballot in November, instead of 413,000 signatures for one proposal, which abortion activists are trying to collect by July 5th.
– – –
Hannah Poling is a lead reporter at The Ohio Star and The Star News Network. Follow Hannah on Twitter @HannahPoling1. Email tips to [email protected]
Photo “Ohio Supreme Court” by Joffre Essley. CC BY-SA 2.0.
