Abortionists trying to trick voters into granting infanticide on demand | Opinion

I have been a practicing attorney in Ohio since 1978 and affiliated with two of Cincinnati’s largest law firms all that time. I graduated first in my law school class at the University of Cincinnati and have been included in the "Best Lawyers in America" publication for well over a decade. I offer this not to brag, but to establish my credentials as an experienced lawyer to offer my views on the abortion amendment that is Issue 1.

A constitutional amendment is on the November ballot that would make abortion an Ohio constitutional right. That in itself would be a big deal because abortion has never been included in the Ohio Constitution since Ohio’s statehood in 1803.

The proponents of the abortion amendment have accused its pro-life opponents of lying about what the amendment actually does. They say the amendment nowhere expressly repeals parental consent laws, authorizes abortion through the ninth month of pregnancy, or allows your kids to make serious sexual decisions without parental notification before they are even old enough to sign a binding contract. They are correct in these assertions, but they lie nevertheless.

Why? Their proposed amendment is littered with poorly drafted language that opens the door to all the bad things the proponents piously disclaim. The amendment guarantees "every individual" (including children) the right to make their own decisions on contraception, fertility treatment and abortion. So far, so good. But then it also says that those rights are "including but not limited to" those subjects. What, then, are the limits when the amendment expressly says there are no limits?

Next, the amendment prohibits Ohio from "directly or indirectly" burdening or interfering with those "rights." What does "indirectly" mean, and since the "rights" are "including but not limited to" those listed in the amendment, precisely what is the state prohibited from "directly or indirectly" interfering with? This would likely include any parental consent or notification requirement, any waiting period before abortion, any requirement that the woman have an ultrasound to prove it is a baby she is bearing, and any requirement that special needs infants not be aborted solely due to their disability.

Next, while the amendment says that abortion may be prohibited after "fetal viability" (generally, 20-22 weeks), it contains an exception through which a whole fleet of Mack Trucks could drive − because it says that even post-viability abortions are OK if the doctor says it’s necessary to protect the patient’s "health." What is "health?" According to the U.S. Supreme Court in Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 192 (1973), "health" means "all factors- physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age." So, "health" includes any reason at all that the doctor manufactures in order to get paid for the abortion.

If passed, this terrible amendment will legitimize abortion without limits and create rights, "including but not limited to" God knows what. It will invalidate any state law that burdens or interferes, "directly or indirectly," with these "rights," including parental consent laws, informed consent laws, and a host of others; and any state law that prohibits abortion after the baby can live outside the womb, whenever some profit-motivated abortion doctor says the "mother’s health" would allow such practices.

I understand the angst that some feel over the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade. But the proposed amendment goes further than Roe ever went. In including words like "including but not limited to" and "directly or indirectly," the abortionists are trying to trick you into authorizing infanticide on demand.

Bill Seitz is serving his 23rd year in the Ohio General Assembly and is currently the Ohio House Majority Leader. Representative Seitz lives in Green Township.

This article originally appeared on Cincinnati Enquirer: Issue 1 constitutional amendment would grant abortion without limits