Ohio Voters Help Abortion Activists by Rejecting Proposal to Make it More Difficult to Amend State Constitution
The proposal would have stopped an abortion amendment that allows abortion up to 23 to 24 weeks is on the November ballot.
Ohio’s Issue 1 failed when 56% of the voters rejected it. The measure would have made it easier to change the state’s constitution.
The measure required 60% of voters to enact any new amendments to the constitution instead of a simple majority. It would have also changed how people can gather signatures for citizen amendments.
The vote is important because it affects abortion and saves the lives of unborn human beings.
The Republicans admitted the proposal was to protect life in November.
That’s because November’s ballot has abortion on it. It will likely pass because 57.6% of people polled support it.
It means a woman can terminate the child at 23 to 24 weeks:
The proposed amendment would protect access to abortion and other reproductive decisions through viability, which is when a doctor determines a fetus can survive outside the uterus with reasonable measures. That is typically 23 to 24 weeks into pregnancy. Abortions could be performed after that point to save the patient’s life or health.
We have seen numerous cases of premature babies surviving, including those born as early as 19 weeks.
Stanford Medicine Children’s Health wrote in 2022 that the survival rate for premature babies is climbing! 55% of those born at 23 weeks survived:
This study showed that even those delivered at 22 weeks — 18 weeks early — had a chance of living. With active treatment, about 28% of them survived; among those born at 23 weeks, 55% survived. “When I was in residency in the mid-1980s, babies born at 500 grams [about 1.1 pounds] and 25 weeks didn’t survive; it just didn’t happen. Now we see the borderline of viability dropping to 22 weeks,” said neonatologist Krisa Van Meurs, MD, a Stanford Medicine emerita professor of pediatrics and a co-author on the study. “With all of these new treatment strategies we’ve developed, we’ve seen an amazing impact.”
Ohio’s legislature has passed many human-saving laws in the past decade. In 2019, one restricted abortion to when a doctor can detect cardiac activity. Any woman who has been pregnant knows that happens at her six-week appointment.
If the abortion measure on the November ballot passes, that means those laws are out the window.
But again, be careful what you wish for, abortion advocates. That addition might go away in the future.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The left would have you believe everyone is for baby killing. the vote shows we unfortunately still have work to do but it can change.
Not everyone, but a clear majority want their abortions.
That’s one of the reasons I don’t think the country can be saved.
So embarrassing for my state. I really didn’t think there were that many Buckeyes who wanted to become a failed state like CA, where a lot of the outside money came from.
And I’m old enough to remember when CA was a beautiful, functional state. Even considered moving there.
Once more, ProLifers stay home.
Why would any politician work with ProLifers? They are not reliable allies.
Half of the right favors reasonable abortion limits, say 15 weeks. So what the Republicans want to do is way out of favor and suicidal in any next election, probably for all Republicans.
Noticing that 58% of Ohio favors say 15 weeks, and the pro-reasonable-limits inclination to put a referendum on the ballot in the fall to fix the deluded lawmakers, the Right thought to raise the constitutional change limit from 50%, below that support, to 60%, above it, to cut that referendum off. That’s doubling down on political stupidity.
The defeat of that change may help the Republicans stay in power, but their brand (“menace to all women”) will probably stick and decide the next few elections against them anyway.
60% is probably a good idea for constitutional change, but not in response to another agenda to cut it off, not here.
I am pro life – which means I am against abortion except to save the life of the mother (save the life as opposed to saving the “life or health” of the mother under the wide definition of health advocated by the abortion lobby)
That being said, if the republicans proposed a ban in the 12-16 week range , instead of near absolute ban, it would go a long way to bringing some sanity to the debate and not lose so many one issue voters.
You would still have to guarantee that not one red Cent from my pocket whatever to go to pay for an abortion or to pay for utilities at an abortion clinic or anything else that helps remove costs if they could then redirect the money towards abortions
“The measure would have made it easier to change the state’s constitution.”
I’ve seen this statement on other reports about this vote. But wouldn’t it have made it harder to change the constitution? By requiring a supermajority instead of a simple majority?
California’s constitutional amendment by referendum process was slightly worse, as I recall from when I lived there. It required a simple majority to add to the constitution; and a supermajority to modify anything. Which meant that the judiciary has control over whether a supermajority is required because they get to rule on whether a change is an addition or a modification.
I had to look around for the actual text of the amendment to see what they are really saying:
However, abortion may be prohibited after fetal viability. But in no case may such an abortion be prohibited if in the professional judgment of the pregnant patient’s treating physician it is necessary to protect the pregnant patient’s life or health.
No mention of “woman”, of course …
And there is that gaping loophole at the end that basically allows for ANYTHING – “or health”, which is specifically written outside of the woman’s life … so, obviously the “health” of the woman means anything that some deranged quack can think up – i.e., there are no restrictions, at all.
Leftists are soulless ghouls who do not belong in any civilized society. They are deranged, evil people who hate the idea of human existence and are trying to make everyone normal pay for the leftists ever having been born.
the section about the counties having to 100% sign off on amendments is what killed it. I think if they had separated the 2 sections it would have passed.
Abortion is a fundamental right. We fought the British to get it.
I choose to believe that your comment is sarcasm. Otherwise it’s really dumb.
Should have done that long ago.
It amazes me we can pass amendments telling us a whole age range of people don’t have any rights and can be executed.
The left successfully convinced many voters in this state that they would no longer be able to pass ballot initiatives with a majority vote. I heard it time after time, and no amount of argumentation would convince people that this was not about their ability to vote.
Reading the actual language of the issue and confirming that it affected only the Constitutional Amendment process was of no avail. Such people had been convinced that they were losing the power to vote on issues and were not to be told otherwise. “One person, one vote” campaigns were the reason this issue was defeated. Abortion was not the determining factor.
Ohio’s Issue 1 failed when 56% of the voters rejected it. The measure would have made it easier to change the state’s constitution.
The measure required 60% of voters to enact any new amendments to the constitution instead of a simple majority. It would have also changed how people can gather signatures for citizen amendments.
this makes no sense
yeah, this failed but it doesn’t mean that OH is going to abortion on demand
probably be some compromise like 12-14 weeks
The other question is how much are they going to be able to steal from you to pay for someone’s abortion?
Abortion in Ohio is legal through 22 weeks of pregnancy right now, I think it was at one time 24 weeks.
Headline: “Ohio Voters Help Abortion Activists by Rejecting Proposal to Make it More Difficult to Amend State Constitution”
Content: “The measure would have made it easier to change the state’s constitution.”
Which is correct. I’m guessing the first.
s/easier/harder
One of the Left’s fundamental principles is that no issue is settled until it is settled in their favor, and once that happens, it is settled forever.
Our side must embrace a strategy of bringing these up again and again even after we lose the first round. Let them defend their obscenities and make them spend precious resources that otherwise would have been used to elect far left legislators to do that.