Ohio abortion issue a ‘picture of compromise’ to restore 50 years of women’s rights
Opponents of Issue 1 on the November statewide ballot have a plan. They want to portray the proposed constitutional amendment to protect abortion rights in Ohio as extreme, beyond the pale even for some who support a woman’s right to choose.
Beware of the false narrative. The ballot measure actually is the picture of compromise. It reflects the status quo for five decades, before the U.S. Supreme Court last year muscled aside precedent, overturning multiple earlier holdings of court majorities.
How have opponents framed the proposed amendment as out of bounds?
For starters, they’ve aimed to terrify parents by suggesting the measure would open the way to children ending pregnancies without their permission. They also have claimed that parents could be in the dark about “sex change surgery.”
They describe “an assault on parental rights” and the prospect of “our worst nightmare.”
Consider that the rights of children long have been limited, and nothing would change due to the amendment. Ohio has a law requiring parental consent for minors seeking an abortion. It mirrors the reasonable course of needing parental consent except in rare cases when a court finds it necessary to bypass the parental role to protect the child.
Opponents also claim the amendment will result in increasing numbers of late-term abortions. Frank LaRose, the secretary of state and ardent opponent of the ballot issue, recently tweeted: “The radical left wants to amend Ohio’s constitution to allow abortion demand up to the moment of birth.”
Again, past practice exposes the hollowness. Late-term abortions make up a tiny portion — roughly 1% — of the total procedures. In most instances, they are necessary due to serious health problems developing for the fetus or the mother late in a pregnancy.
When the Ohio Ballot Board, chaired by LaRose, approved language for Issue 1, the 3-2 Republican majority maneuvered to advance the “extreme” label. It invited the impression that the measure would set up a new right to medical treatment, obscuring the real purpose — to ensure the right of Ohio women to make their own reproductive decisions.
The ballot language also misleads by deploying the words “always” and “only” to cloud the question before voters and to suggest the proposal somehow goes to excessive lengths.
The ballot board gathered to perform the neutral task of delivering accurate and impartial language, as the law requires. Yet LaRose permitted state Sen. Theresa Gavarone, a Bowling Green Republican and a ballot board member, to unload on the issue. She called the measure “an abomination.”
Gavarone swung wildly: “Fully healthy, viable babies at seven, eight, even nine months can, and absolutely will be, aborted.” She said the proposal “will allow an abortionist, a person who profits from performing an abortion, to be the sole determiner if ‘the health of the mother’ is at risk.”
She’s talking about trained physicians, not to mention neglecting the difficult complexities and emotions involved in such a choice.
In its decision striking down Roe v. Wade and subsequent related rulings, the Supreme Court majority acknowledged the deep divisions, involving questions of morality, privacy, autonomy, equality and the role of government. It argued that earlier majorities erred in seeking a judicial solution to controversies. Better, it contended, for the politics to play out.
Whatever you make of the ruling, that is where we are, the politics now playing out in Ohio. The notable thing is that the precedent abandoned by the court works as the essential compromise. It turned on the concept of viability, abortions permitted up to the point when the fetus could survive outside the womb, currently around 24 weeks. After that, abortion could be banned, with exceptions to protect the health and life of the mother.
Thus, women had the necessary choice, and the public interest in life was preserved. Whether the justices back then mistepped doesn’t matter when it comes to Issue 1. They found a helpful political balance.
Worth recalling is that this wasn’t the doing of the radical left. Justices appointed by Republican presidents made up the majorities of the majorities setting and reaffirming precedent. They also reflected past consensus, the country long viewing “quickening,” movement of the fetus, as a key threshold.
The court conceived a middle path that served well for 50 years and is the essence of the measure now before Ohio voters.
Issue 1 ensures the right “to make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions,” including such matters as contraception, fertility treatment, continuing a pregnancy, miscarriage care and abortion. It also permits banning abortion “after fetal viability,” or the point at which “the fetus has a significant likelihood of survival outside the uterus with reasonable measures.”
All of which raises the question: Who really qualifies as extreme?
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 offers a compromise on abortion, far from extreme
