A ‘colossal achievement.’ How overturning Roe v. Wade led to abortion rights in Ohio

Ohio voters took their cue from the U.S. Supreme Court.

A year ago, the arch-conservative court majority struck down five decades of precedent. It declared that the Constitution “does not confer a right to abortion” and, thus, “the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.”

In other words, if the court rejected a federal right to abortion, a state still could enshrine one in its own constitution. That’s precisely what Ohioans did — emphatically so with their approval of Issue 1 on Nov. 7.

They took up the high court on its offer, embracing an amendment defined by its clarity, the measure conferring a right to “carry out one’s own reproductive decisions.”

Too bad Republicans in power at the Statehouse missed the connection — between the justices and voters. Matt Huffman, the Senate president, insisted: “This isn’t the end. It is really just the beginning of a revolving door of ballot campaigns to repeal or replace Issue 1.”

He continued with the falsehoods so much a part of the opposition message, claiming the proposal contains “radical language that goes far past abortion on demand.”

Recall that Huffman responded similarly in August after voters rejected a Republican proposal to require a supermajority to win approval of citizen-initiated constitutional amendments. That effort aimed to thwart the reproductive rights measure already on track for November.

Earlier, Huffman defied voters as he proved an obstacle to fulfilling their wishes for a fair and transparent redistricting process. He pressed forward with extreme partisan gerrymandering, no matter that overwhelming majorities of voters approved changes in 2015 and 2018.

Huffman has had partners in flashing a defiant middle finger at voters.

Notably, 27 House Republicans issued a statement pledging continued opposition to reproductive rights. They pointed to “vague, intentionally deceptive language” in Issue 1. They argued that the amendment “introduces more confusion” and “failed to mention a single, specific law.” They promised to do “everything in our power to prevent our laws from being removed based upon a perception of intent.”

Where to start?

The statement carries an element of Trumpian projection. Their side trafficked in “intentionally deceptive language,” even cold-shouldering the heartbeat law, a virtual abortion ban enacted in 2019. Constitutional amendments often deal with principle rather than specific statutes. Laws removed based upon a perception of intent? Don’t overlook the hard reality of voters declaring their intent at the polls.

A handful of Republican lawmakers soon floated the idea of removing matters related to Issue 1 from judicial review. The legislature alone would be the arbiter of such measures. Wow. This idea threatens something as fundamental as the will of the people. It attacks the foundation of our system of government.

The Issue 1 campaign did not flatter opponents. Dave Yost, the attorney general, flopped in his bid to play impartial examiner of the amendment. Frank LaRose, the secretary of state, engineered a ballot summary designed not to aid voters but to advance the cause of his allies. Mike DeWine participated in an ad that mirrored the misinformation and deceitfulness of the opposition.

In each instance, their actions provided a reminder of the Republican Party and its fraught relationship with the truth.

At least, the governor got one thing right. In the aftermath, he told reporters: “In this country, we accept the results of elections.” Ordinarily, this hardly needs saying, and DeWine made plain that acceptance doesn’t mean eschewing legal battles. Ohio has enacted nearly three dozen restrictions on the right to abortion in the past decade or so. Each seems almost certain to end up in court, weighed against the backdrop of the new amendment.

As such legal battles proceed, it is worth keeping front of mind the colossal achievement of Issue 1. The state became the seventh since the overturning of Roe v. Wade to support abortion rights at the ballot box. It is the first red state to say “yes” to establishing directly a constitutional right.

Backers of the amendment made much, and most understandably, about autonomy, a woman deserving to make her own choice about terminating a pregnancy. Those who oppose abortion are free to follow their conscience, and so are others who see the value in having options, the right about more than autonomy, extending to equality for women in shaping their lives.

That isn’t to say the right is open-ended. Issue 1 reflects a compromise, the one the Supreme Court struck in Roe. Until “viability,” roughly 24 weeks into a pregnancy, a woman chooses. After that, the state can regulate abortion access, though not at the expense of the health and life of the woman.

In that way, Ohio voters have spoken resoundingly — just as the conservative court majority said a state could.

Douglas was the Beacon Journal editorial page editor from 1999 to 2019. He can be reached at mddouglasmm@gmail.com.

This article originally appeared on Akron Beacon Journal: Ohio Issue 1 win on abortion a ‘colossal achievement’ in a red state