The countdown is now at five days. In five days’ time, Ohioans will be called upon to vote on “Issue 1,” a comprehensive pro-abortion initiative that Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights has already amassed a considerable sum of money, estimated to be approximately $40 million, since February.
As NRL News Today has done for an extended period, we are today publishing original content and reposting some of the most incisive critiques of the proposed legislation, entitled “The Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety.”
In addition to their colleagues in the legacy media, the pro-abortion coalition behind Issue 1 has chosen to ignore the lessons of Roe and Doe, which are now regarded as outdated and irrelevant. It is evident that words and their interpretation are of significant consequence.
It is a matter of public record that any individual who is honest will admit that when abortions are permitted on the grounds of the mother’s health, this effectively allows for abortion on demand up until the point of birth. This is a matter of fact.
It is frequently asserted that the abortionist must consent to the procedure, yet it is unclear what precisely is meant by this. The argument is often made that the woman’s health will be affected. In the case of Doe v. Bolton, the concept of “health” was defined as encompassing a wide range of factors, including physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age, which are all relevant to the well-being of the patient. The right to abortion on demand.
A more detailed discussion of this topic can be found in another publication. I would like to direct your attention to a column written by Michael New for National Review Online on the previous day. The article, entitled “Yes, Issue 1 Would Endanger Ohio’s Parental Involvement Law,” can be accessed via the following link: [link]. The rationale behind this decision is unclear. This is because there is a considerable degree of support, even among those who are in favour of a woman’s right to choose, for parental involvement in their minor daughter’s decision to have an abortion. Those in favour of Issue 1 are aware of this, which is why they deny it. [What else is new?]
What evidence does Professor New present in support of his argument? To begin with, it can be observed that Ohio media outlets that have covered Issue 1 have made a concerted effort to downplay the concerns raised by pro-lifers. Instead, they cite a number of pro-abortion professors who deny that Ohio’s parental-consent law would be affected by the proposed legislation.
The following is a lengthy quotation that encapsulates a significant amount of data.
However, a look at other states shows that the Buckeye State pro-lifers’ concerns are well-founded. In fact, pro-life parental involvement laws have been struck down in several other states where state constitutions offer far fewer protections against legal abortion than Issue 1 proposes. State supreme courts in both New Jersey and California have struck down pro-life parental involvement laws. In each decision, the court argued that such laws violated constitutional privacy rights. In addition, in 2016, the Alaska Supreme Court struck down a pro-life parental involvement law on the grounds that it violated constitutional equal protection provisions.
As previously stated, parental involvement legislation is a popular topic due to its inherent merits. It is evident that we care about our children and our grandchildren. We are in a position to determine what is in their best interest, rather than deferring to the judgement of a third party.
Mr. New concludes his astute column with the following observation:
[On numerous occasions, state courts have struck down parental involvement laws. This has happened even in states where abortion is not explicitly protected by the state constitution. This shows that the concerns of Ohio pro-lifers are well-founded.
Daniel Miller is responsible for nearly all of National Right to Life News' political writing.
With the election of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency, Daniel Miller developed a deep obsession with U.S. politics that has never let go of the political scientist. Whether it's the election of Joe Biden, the midterm elections in Congress, the abortion rights debate in the Supreme Court or the mudslinging in the primaries - Daniel Miller is happy to stay up late for you.
Daniel was born and raised in New York. After living in China, working for a news agency and another stint at a major news network, he now lives in Arizona with his two daughters.
