Ohio voters enshrine abortion rights in state constitution after fall of Roe v. Wade
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Ohio voters have added the right to access abortion care to the state's constitution, NBC News projects — another major political victory for abortion-rights advocates in the nearly 17 months since the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade.
The passage of the Issue 1 ballot measure inserts language in the state constitution guaranteeing every person in Ohio the right "to one's own reproductive medical treatment, including but not limited to abortion," and barring the state from "burdening, penalizing or prohibiting" those rights — though it specifies that abortion will remain prohibited after the point a doctor judges a fetus would most likely survive birth, with exceptions to protect the woman's life or health.
Approval of the ballot measure marks yet another victory for abortion-rights advocates, this time in a state that Donald Trump twice carried by 8-point margins. Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and the national right to abortion access in its June 2022 Dobbs decision, ballot measures backing abortion rights have won in every election so far, even in conservative states, including Kentucky and Kansas — and in an August special election in Ohio that served as a proxy battle ahead of November's constitutional amendment fight.
Tuesday's outcome further demonstrates that abortion could remain a major liability for Republicans in elections. As in Ohio, polling has shown that voters across the country broadly favor abortion protections — a fact that Democrats leveraged last year to keep control of the U.S. Senate, fend off a red wave in the House and win several governorships. Next year, it is likely to be central to President Joe Biden's campaign for re-election.
In Ohio, passage of the amendment will effectively counteract the state's "heartbeat bill," which took effect immediately after the Dobbs decision and banned most abortions — with exceptions for the health of the pregnant woman and ectopic pregnancies — but remains temporarilyblocked by a state judge.
That case is before the state Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments in September.
Groups on both sides of the abortion fight spent millions in the run-up to an August election in Ohio — another ballot measure campaign, that one over whether to make it harder to amend the state constitution in the future, including raising the threshold for success to 60% instead of a simple majority. It lost in August. Its resounding defeat was a clear win for reproductive rights advocates in Ohio, and in many ways it paved the way for the success of the measure approved Tuesday.
Following that campaign, reproductive rights groups began far outspending anti-abortion groups in the fight over the November measure.
Since Aug. 9, groups supporting the November Issue 1 measure spent $23.7 million on advertising, compared to $10.7 million the anti-abortion groups spent against the amendment, according to AdImpact, a firm that tracks political ad spending.
Tags
Who is online
407 visitors
BRAVO!!!
Well done, Buckeyes!
Excellent
Good
Not surprising in the least, it has been clear in poll after poll, across the country, for decades that the majority of voters prefer that women have the right to an abortion. Until now the GOP has always been able to hide behind Roe, passing absurd anti abortion bills and taking absurd positions to please their most rabid base knowing full well that Roe was protecting them.
They can’t hide and they can’t just pander anymore.
Almost all of them have taken strong stands opposing a women's right to choose her own healthcare, and these politicians have taken strong stands specifically about abortion.
But its becoming clear that they are misreading public sentiment-- even fairly conservative republicans want the right to abortions. And while their stands on this issue will help Republicans inthe primary, its really going to hurt them in the general election.
Yes, but until the Hobbs decision, Roe protected the GOP from the consequences of those strong stances, because those stances were made in the full knowledge that they couldn't be enforced. Now, those stances can and have bitten them in the ass.
christo-fascism took a well deserved beating in the polling booths yesterday, on the way to another next november.
the maga mentality is hopelessly stuck 50+ years back in the 20th century.
Personally I'd say 60+ years back, before civil rights legislation.
I'll concede that statement as probably more accurate.
up to 160 years back in most civil rights metrics, compared to most constitution abiding americans.
Considering wins in Ohio, Virginia and Tennessee, Republicans HAVE to rethink their platform on right wing populist and anti-woke issues. They are losing here bigly.
they will never get that evangelical yoke off their necks...
Evangelicals should have a say in representation like everyone else, but thankfully the majority of people oppose their culture war platform. We are already seeing some of the Republican donor class stop spending money on unwinnable candidates. That said I'm not in favor of left wing populists taking charge either.
Why? Since in Ohio it was abortion on the ballot and abortion is now part of the state's constitution it is no longer a campaign issue. Democrats can no longer hang it like an albatross around republicans necks, so ending Roe V Wade was a good thing in the long run for the republicans slowly ending this one issue way of voting.
There are some Democrats that are one issue voters, too. I hope now that people can start thinking of their wallets and their security
Oh, that wouldn't bode well for Democrats in general and Joe Biden in particular.
It seems the dems did a very good job selling "abortion is illegal in the country" when Roe vs wade was eliminated. You could be right that making it a non issue by state may make it less of an voting issue when voting in national elections and possibly even local elections going forward.
Not so, according to Ohio Republicans.
---
Yes, they can. And will. Count on it.
In some parts of the country, abortion IS illegal. In some parts of the country, women can't even get chemotherapy for cancer if they're pregnant.
protect life my ass
I bet he hates any help for the poor such as free school lunches
But it still is in many other states.
Don't speak too fast...
... but not for white kids in religious based charter schools.
True, but that also depends very much on the issues in question. The level of support you'll find for abortion rights will vary wildly from the level of support you'll find for drag shows for children or men competing in women's sports, for example.
I do think generally that the "be less batshit" message is emerging more strongly, which is a very good thing, IMO.
“The level of support you'll find for abortion rights will vary wildly from the level of support you'll find for drag shows for children or men competing in women's sports, for example.”
It has been validated time and time again at the ballot box that the right to determine your personal health issues are sacrosanct…as they should.
Equating the abortion issue with any other ‘hot button’ fringe issue is a fools errand. Today’s gop playing the jester.
Exactly my point.
True in all things. If less people were blindly partisan we could meet in those overlapping areas and compromise in some others.
Maybe, but If that were really true they wouldn't have just elected a true believer to House Speaker.
Now that we're getting more information on more elections across the country - The right wing populist group Mom's For Liberty candidates lost huge in school board elections across almost all of the US. I think one of the various articles I read this morning said it was like they lost 3 out of 4 seat races.
The school board elections are just now showing the results and the ''Mothers for Liberty'' lost big time. People/parents are sick of their bizarre bs.
They're called "Mom's For Liberty" because "Gaggle of Religious Karens" doesn't fit on the pickleball visors as easily.
good one
Hehe, that’s pretty good.
It is plainly obvious to most everyone that their goal isn’t education but rather forcing what most consider to be extreme views onto children who don’t know any better.
the name daughters of the confederacy was already taken...
I think there's a difference: abortion policy can effect many peoples' lives directly (a woman who wants an abortion-- but also the issue can become important to her family and friends.
But OTOH, ,how many people would be really upset about drag shows? (Some folks maybe-- but many people could care less)
Mike Johnson is the looniest of the loons, him and his Stepford wife, he is a whackjob and third in line to become 'president' and he and anyone else who was onboard with the former 'president's' insurrection on 1/6 belongs nowhere in our government. They belong behind bars with the former 'president'
Good on Ohio and any other state respecting abortion rights.
This is great! Now if we can states like Arkansas on board....
regressive women's health policies in texas and oklahoma have spurred the creation of multiple clandestine transport services to colorado for those seeking help.
"though it specifies that abortion will remain prohibited after the point a doctor judges a fetus would most likely survive birth, with exceptions to protect the woman's life or health."
That seems reasonable to me but it does leave room for abuse. Maybe that verbiage was included because they thought late term abortions would not pass. I would rather see a time like 15 weeks or even 21 weeks and I think alot of Americans could buy into that. I think the Republicans stance is too militant for the majority of the country to buy into. Maybe they will see that and soften their stance before 2024, maybe not.
that's the whole point of the exercise and has been for 50 years. They throw in the "woman's health" exception and define "health" so broadly that any type of "stress" can justify a late term abortion. The exception is designed to swallow the rule while allowing the talking point of "We don't support abortions until birth, that's sick!" to remain. It's now to the point where a mother doesn't even need to see a doctor to satisfy the health exception.
So what? There's no rational, legal reason to restrict abortion to begin with. If a woman wants an abortion, it's really no one else's business or concern. It's a matter between her and her doctor.
That your response to killing a viable human is "so what" speaks volumes. Since you support abortion until birth, why get so pissy when that fact is pointed out?
If that's the level you want to argue at, then fine. There's no rational, legal reason to allow abortion. Arguing by conclusion sure is easy.
But since that's your position, good luck with the "there's no rational reason reason to prevent the abortion of a healthy, fully developed baby the day before it's due date" position.
My response is rational, straightforward, and legally logical. Yours seems to be quite emotional and doesn't refute my statement in the least.
Anyone of moderate intelligence who is even slightly informed on a topic should be able to create and understand rational arguments on both sides of a contentious issue. When someone can’t, it's pretty much a sure fire sign that the person doesn’t understand the issue and has no business discussing it, or it indicates they are just a close minded zealot.
is rational, straightforward, and legally logical.
Lol. Declaring “so what” when the legal basis of how late term abortions are permitted is explained to you is none of the above. Nor is simply declaring no legitimate opposing arguments exist. That’s a temper tantrum, not a reasoned argument.
But sure, we all know the routine. You make sweeping, unsupported conclusions and declare that it’s impossible to disagree with you. When presented with facts and logical arguments that rebut your opinions, you declare that they are just “emotions”. It’s tiresome.
So what's the rational, legal argument to restrict abortion? So far, all I've heard is emotional appeals and hyperbole.
Everyone knows when and why late term abortions are performed. This is nothing new. Still no rational argument presentedas to why abortions should be restricted.
When all you do is rant like that and do not make any rational or compelling argument and instead try to make it personal, the only conclusion is you are responding emotionally,
Are you for abortions at any time for any reason at all?
another popular anti-choice myth. let's see your statistics on how often that happens. an overall percentage.
Let's hold up on that until we establish you know what a question is
Yes.
Thank you for a simple, honest reply.
You're welcome.
Late term abortion takes innocent human life. [Deleted]
You really need to learn what those words mean. They don't mean what you seem to think
. Still no rational argument presentedas to why abortions should be restricted
You've yet to provide an arguement it shouldn't be.
only conclusion is you are responding emotionally,
Please stop projecting. [Deleted]
Yes, we know what late term abortion is. That doesn't address or change what I said.
Those who want to restrict abortion should put forth a rational and legal reason why. As it stands, there are none. Just emotionally driven wailings about "life."
Do you support the death penalty?
I can’t explain the English language to you. You operate outside it’s boundaries.
ailings about "life."
That’s the same reason it’s illegal to kill adults. how do you not understand this?
.. only if it's sponsored by the RCC.
What you can't seem to explain is a rational and legal reason why abortion should be restricted. You continue to dodge that particular point. There is no state which makes having an abortion illegal. Only providing abortions is restricted or illegal, depending on the state and circumstances. But "life" is not the issue and it's a biological classification, not a legal one.
Abortion is likely to be less of an issue in '24 since most states can do what Ohio did and codify it into law.
Tossing out Roe vs Wade was the right thing to do. Give it to the states and abide by the people's wishes.
What's amazing is that Republicans did better in Virginia than they did with Trump on the ballot when abortion was a non-issue, and somehow an election decided by a couple thousand votes in two districts that Biden won by double digits is somehow an earth shattering result. Republicans in Virginia did better than they did with Trump heading the ballot and slightly worse than they did with Younkin on top causing the net loss of a couple seats in very blue districts. Earth shattering stuff.
ossing out Roe vs Wade was the right thing to do. Give it to the states and abide by the people's wishes
Yes, exactly as it should be.
Republicans Lost control of House in Virginia, that they got with Younkin so they ended up worse.
Without abortion being an issue they would have kept House control and taken the senate.
They won every single district that Biden carried by nine or less points in both the House and Senate. It's a blue state and Republicans did about as well as they can there.
If abortion hurt them so badly, why did they do so much better than when it wasn't an issue? In 2019, Republicans only won 45 seats in the House and 19 in the Senate.
No, it's not. A blue state wouldn't have a Republican governor, one chamber of its legislature under Republican control, and only a very slim majority in the other chamber.
Virginia is a purple state, or, more accurately, it has areas that are very red, and areas that are very blue, to the point that they nearly cancel each other out at the state level.
Sure, a purple/blue state that hasn't voted a Republican at the federal level since 2008. It obviously leans Democratic, which is why Republicans had to win a couple more districts that Biden dominated in 2020 to win control of both houses. They won all the red and toss up districts.
If Republicans perform as well as they did in Virginia last night in 2024, they will easily win control of the House, Senate and the Presidency.
If it "obviously leans Democratic", it wouldn't be a big deal that Dems re-took the House, would it?
gee, another will of the people versus populist party agenda conundrum ...
No, it's not. That's the default state. Do you think it's a big deal when Repbulicans win control of states Trump wins?
That's just not true. It is fairly rare for the Dems to hold both chambers.
It's the second time it's happened in the last 27 years. That's hardly the "default state". The Dems lost the majority they won in 2019 the following election.
Following a redistricting, the republicans couldn’t win both chambers despite winning every district in both houses that went for Biden by less than 10 points, if you can’t understand how that conclusively demonstrates an advantage for democrats, I don't know how to make it any simpler to understand. All democrats have to do to win control is win districts that they have a huge partisan advantage in. That’s it, and that is all they did.
You're deflecting from the fact that you made a false statement about Dem control of the Virginia legislature, Sean. If Dem control was "the default", they wouldn't have needed to redistrict to regain it, would they?
You're throwing a little condescension in there to cover the fact that you've painted yourself into a corner here.
Lol. Virginia is a blue state. It went for Biden easily. When things go very well for Republicans they can eek out narrow victories. So yes, Virginia defaults blue. If it didn't Republicans could win control of the state simply by winning toss up districts, not having to win districts Biden won by 10 points or more just to get to a split.
they wouldn't have needed to redistrict to regain it, would they?
Well, yes, favorable redistricing alows a party to maintain control of a state. A set up that gaurantees Democratic control so long as they manage to win districts that went for Biden by double digits does that.
n there to cover the fact that you've painted yourself into a corner here
You are the one refusing to admit Virginia tilts Democratic, not me.
Blue states don't make news when their newly elected legislatures are blue by only a small margin.
If we were a blue state, we would have had a Dem state legislature most of the time since 1996. We haven't.
A blue state wouldn't have elected a Trump-lite governor. Virginia did.
A blue state wouldn't depend on redistricting to win a blue majority.
Of course they do, when it helps push the narrative Democrats want.
state wouldn't have elected a Trump-lite governor.
first. Lol at calling Younkin Trump lite. That's genuinely funny.
But sure, i guess that means Lousiians wasn't a red state the last 8 years. What an amazing victroy for Republicans to control the legistlaure there! Who could have ever saw that coming? And the Republicans winning a veto proof control of a tossup state like Kentucky! How are the REpublicans doing it!!! Supproting abortion limits must be incredibly popular for Republicans to win in those toss up states.
blue state wouldn't depend on redistricting to win a blue majority
Virginia requires districts that are Plus 10 Biden for a blue majority.
I'm sure you think so. The state's teachers weren't so amused when Youngkin started up his anti-CRT snitch line, which is fortunately now defunct.
Which is it, Sean? Virginia leans blue as its default condition, or Virginia requires redistricting to lean blue? You can't have it both ways.
barry goldwater was wrong about a lot of things, but he had the religious right pegged. raygun rode them into office and every GOP POTUS has empowered them since, until they are now a threat to the future of the whole party. too bad.
Was that the start of the alleged 'compassionate conservatives'?
The Dems are going to make it an issue by putting it on state ballots wherever they can in '24.
that will bring out the younger voters to defeat the draconian laws of republican religious relics that need to take their meds, finish their jello, and then go take a nap in front of the TV blaring FOX.
Tossing out Roe vs Wade was the right thing to do. Give it to the states and abide by the people's wishes.
But if that's the criteria-- why limit it to the states? Heck, why not let each county decide?
/sarc
Why not just let the one involved decide? Personal responsibility, doesn't the Republican party preach that?
So, Democrats are celebrating an eight week victory? Republicans seem to be settling on an elective abortion ban at 15 weeks. The Ohio amendment enshrines into the state constitution a prohibition for elective abortion at 23 weeks; perhaps earlier depending upon interpretation.
A permanent ban on elective abortion at some point during pregnancy really is a Republican win. Voters appear to be quite comfortable with imposing prohibitions on elective third trimester abortion. It appears Democrats can't reinstate unlimited access to abortion.
for 50 years we had a compromise ban after 20 weeks, 2-4 weeks short of viability, and that wasn't good enough for the religious radicals in the GOP. 15 weeks, 12 weeks, or 6 weeks are bullshit ploys by thumpers on their way to a complete ban with no exceptions. I recommend that thumpers find a way to stay on church property and their side of the establishment clause before they get ushered back there in very unfriendly ways.
if thumpers wish to be guided by the idea of a sky fairy they never met, mentioned in a book of fables written by many authors centuries after he allegedly let his own son be killed by ancient ultra conservatives, that's on them. they best keep their hypocritical activities and dogma to themselves. bodily autonomy, freewill, is supposedly a god given right, their god, and unless thumpers are equally willing to let the non-religious make some of their health decisions, they really need to stfu and mind their own goddamn business.
That rewrite of history is fictional (or delusional).
What would Muslim Jesus do? In some parts of the (Islamic) world honor killings are the alternative to abortion.
sounds like valuable advice for thumpers to keep in mind...
Most states already have restrictions on elective 3rd trimester abortions, even before Dobbs. But many states also want to restrict elective abortions at seemingly arbitrary times like 6, 12, 15, 20 weeks and such, with no rational explanation as to why or what makes a fetus fundamentally different between those times to warrant any restriction.
they just say that to get in the door. thumpers are all about life beginning at the moment of conception.
Yes. If they could, they'd turn the US into Ireland before the passing of their 8th Amendment, when Savita Halappanavar was killed by the withholding of appropriate medical care in the name of the "pro-life" Catholic Church.
I look forward to watching their no compromises past come back on them in an epic way.
So, Democrats have been lying about a woman's right to choose for 50 years. According to the current political narrative (to cover Democrats' asses) women only have a right to choose during the first trimester of pregnancy (the first 12 weeks of pregnancy). After the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, the state has always had the right to regulate and restrict abortions that supersedes a woman's right to choose.
It's too late for Democrats to baffle the public with that bullshit. Either Democrats have expended enormous effort to defend access to abortions through full term or Democrats have been lying their asses off. Which is it?
none of anyone's business, but the woman and her doctor, in every case. denying individual freedom, bodily autonomy, freewill, probably isn't the theological hill that POS thumpers want to die on in america.
The hardest choice a woman will ever make in her life is not YOURS. It's HERS.
Before Dobbs, abortion was allowed up to the point of viability. After that, states could set limits. Republicans & conservatives want to impose undue restrictions, even though there is no rational or legal reason to.
I’m going to repeat this again as simply as I can , and hope against hope that [t] [removed (debate but don't insult)] will understand the reality of the situation and not keep parroting misinformation they’ve swallowed unthinkingly from the abortion industry and their media friends. For starters, the trimester system was overturned the Casey case in 1993. Right from the rip, you are misstating what the actual legal standard has been for the 30 years before Dobbs. So even discussing the standard in terms of trimesters marks one as not having a clue what the issues are.
The third grade level of understanding of Roe is that it allowed states to ban abortion in the third trimester. The abortion industry pushes this narrative because the majority of people oppose late term abortions of healthy babies by healthy moms. They do this by ignoring Roe's companion case, Doe vs Bolton, decided the same day. Doe was the actual influential case, whose reasoning survived the Casey overhaul.
In Doe, the Court addressed just what the states could do to restrict abortions. Under Doe, any restriction that prevented a doctor from performing an abortion at any time was invalid if not performing the abortion created a risk to the mother’s well being. The mother’s health was to be liberally construed ,nothing about life at risk, or serious injury was required, Simply a negative impact to the health of the mother, to be measured in light of the impact on her “physical, emotional, psychological, familial” condition. So stress, worry, relationship complications are all reasons to allow a mother to abort her baby at any time for the last 50 years.
But it's its even more clear cut than that. For those who can follow simple logic. Abortionists claim ALL pregnancies create a risk to the health of the mother. As described above, an abortion couldnt’ be denied if a risk to the mother exists. Accordingly, an abortion can never be denied, constitutionally, because of the fetus’s age.\
The proof is in the pudding. In 50 years following Roe, the Court never upheld a State that tried to ban abortions of viablen babies. Not one .
I already said most states had limits to late term abortions. Roe established the trimester framework and Casey extended it to viability. After that, it's within the purview of the states, with exemptions given when health issues do arise. All pregnancies do pose a potential or actual risk to the woman's health. There are many potential complications associated with pregnancy and many pregnancies progress without issue and many do not. That's just medical fact. Any complication to a woman's health and the best medical means of addressing it is between the woman and her doctor, just like with any other medical ailment or procedure. So what is your point? Abortion is something that shouldn't be denied regardless and no one has made any rational or legal argument to the contrary.
the ultra religious want everyone to believe that the most extreme abortion situations apply in almost every case. they don't want to acknowledge the actual comparative numbers of abortion situations they imply as the norm. it's all or nothing for the authoritative mindset, which is why implied oppression and violence appeal to religious cults that embrace trump so fervently.
white xtian nationalism with all their collateral sub-organizations is the now the biggest threat to americans, our culture, diverse social fabric, government, and institutions. the bottom line is, they want somebody wearing a collar to make the moral decisions, and then become sole judge, jury, and executioner for those they deem insufficiently pious.
They do seem to think if abortion restrictions are lifted, then late term abortions would become the norm, which is false. Canada has little or no abortion restrictions and they're not having late term abortions willy nilly. I'm not sure if the anti abortion position actually believes late abortions would occur with regularity or if they're just trying to emotionally manipulate people into thinking it would occur. Perhaps both.
meh, you tell the maga thumpers that a newly proposed religious tax will pay for the care of unwanted fetuses from cradle to college degree and they're now participants in the child sponsor placement lottery, and then watch how fast they slam their dogma into reverse.
That's sadly true yet so fucking hilarious.
So much condescension exudes from the “pro-life” crowd in their defense of policies that are demonstrably unpopular with the vast majority of the population. They rail against the safety nets for poor families, rail against equal rights for those whose sexuality precludes them from becoming accidentally pregnant in the first place, rail against controls to avoid unwanted pregnancy, and above all rail against the legal right to terminate unwanted pregnancies by using ridiculous assertions about late term abortions that don’t exist in reality. It’s no wonder the right is incapable of governing their way out of a paper bag.