Ohio voters add abortion rights to state constitution
Ohio voters add abortion rights to state constitution
www.theguardian.com
Ohio voters add abortion rights to state constitution
180 comments
-
-
Issue 1 covers so much more than just Abortion.
From the ballot:
- Establish in the Constitution of the State of Ohio an individual right to one’s own reproductive medical treatment, including but not limited to abortion.
- Create legal protections for any person or entity that assists a person with receiving reproductive medical treatment, including but not limited to abortion.
- Prohibit the State from directly or indirectly burdening, penalizing, or prohibiting abortion before an unborn child is determined to be viable, unless the State demonstrates that it is using the least restrictive means.
- Grant a pregnant woman’s treating physician the authority to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether an unborn child is viable.
- Only allow the State to prohibit an abortion after an unborn child is determined by a pregnant woman’s treating physician to be viable and only if the physician does not consider the abortion necessary to protect the pregnant woman’s life or health.
- Always allow an unborn child to be aborted at any stage of pregnancy, regardless of viability if, in the treating physician’s determination, the abortion is necessary to protect the pregnant woman’s life or health.
This is a Freedom of Speech type amendment that centers around a person's reproductive rights. In that this amendment prohibits the Ohio State government from passing any law that restricts a person's reproductive rights except in special cases under strict scrutiny. So this goes way pass just abortion. Additionally, it grants doctors benefit of the doubt protections that would have strict scrutiny bars for the State to overcome, an incredibly high evidentiary bar for the State to overcome.
To just say this protects abortion is really missing the forest for the tree. Yeah, it protects abortion but additionally it protects everything related to reproductive rights (contraception, IVF, etc) and sets a massive barrier for the State to later meddle. This is a massive win for not those seeking abortion but for everyone who cheers reproductive protection and Government non-intervention in such matters.
-
This is a Freedom of Speech type amendment that centers around a person's reproductive rights
Watch the Supreme Court challenge reproductive rights as free speech.
-
It doesn't say reproductive rights are free speech, it says they are as important as free speech.
-
Alito: “Were we not fucking clear enough the first time?”
-
It would be hard for the current Supreme Court to actually rule the protection of abortion rights since they leave it up to the states. Interestingly, Alito basically wrote in a slant that was very pro-state's rights to ban abortions specifically but it also does heavily imply to the point of being just shy of explicitly allowing the opposite but it must be what they meant or it doesn't make actual sense.
It would take a lot of logical gymnastics to essentially unwind and rewrite an opinion otherwise that doesn't go against their own majority opinion. Saying that, they did perform some Olympian gymnastics on not only Roe v. Wade but also Planned Parenthood v. Casey or in some instances, outright just say that they were plainly wrong.
They would essentially have to all but support a fundamentalist christo-fascist government (probably under the guise of what is in the best interest of the people, even against their own will) over even the Constitution itself and specifically the 10th Amendment and have a serious risk of impeachment unless he would opine that that it is the Congress' business to supersede that (Article VI), because that would also run counter to his written opinion of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (that it is the state's prerogative to regulate abortion and not the federal government's), unless it was specific that he meant it all narrowed specifically to the 14 Amendment and further would run counter to his own weaker federal government stance.
It would be far more likely for the SC to find that a state and its people have the right to regulate abortion as they see fit if they were even to decide to hear such a case.
TLDR; it'd be extremely risky and difficult to essentially give the state's the right to regulate abortion but take away unless those laws are only to ban them.
-
-
Thanks for the breakdown. I had no idea what was at stake.
-
I'm sure conservatives will be absolutely thrilled to see the power of Big Government so strongly limited!
Right?
-
I could actually cry right now, what a fucking relief
-
It's also by a pretty decent margin so far:
With 59% reporting:
55.9% For
44.1% Against
Edit:
56.6% For
43.4% against
-
-
When Kansas and then Ohio thoroughly shoot holes in your platform and you're the dominant party in those places, maybe you should start re-thinking your platform.
-
No, it's the voters who are wrong
-
Greene's takeaway was literally "we're losing because we're not extreme enough on abortion.'
I guess that means Republicans will start proposing that any woman who even thinks of getting an abortion should be thrown in prison and any woman who suffers a miscarriage should be tried for murder.
Then, they'll wonder why they are losing even worse!
-
"You don't want that. You think you do, but you don't."
-
-
-
-
Issue 2, legalizing recreational marijuana for people over 21, is also projected to pass.
-
Psychedelics need to be next. That step will take a bit, but it'll be awesome if that happens.
Colorado did good in setting the example, I believe. There wasn't a huge push to monetize it and the most common psychedelics were made fully legal to produce, use and give away.
In some ways, I don't really see mushrooms easily fitting into the dispensary model that we have here already. It's just a different kind of drug, s'all.
-
Here in California my local smoke shop sells psilocybin infused chocolates under the table, but everyone knows about it and they're all branded and clean looking
It's legit a dream come true to pop by on the way home Friday for a trip on the weekend, and the idea that it's illegal disgusts me
-
In some ways, I don't really see mushrooms easily fitting into the dispensary model that we have here already.
In Massachusetts the dispensaries are giving out mushroom chocolates as "gifts" since they are decriminalized but not yet legal to "sell"
So at least in some states they are already being integrated into the dispensary market ahead of legalization.
From what I've seen you really need to eat the whole bar to get a legit trip but at least they are available to the general public. I suspect that given a little time (and actual legalization) there will be a wider variety of stronger products available.
They are likely playing it safe to avoid any mishaps that could damage their PR or their grey market psilocybin business
-
I think psychedelics are interesting because their non-addictive nature doesn't cause competition for other drug companies.
There simply isn't a way to make egregious profits with them. Mushrooms are cheap and easy to grow. LSD, while being exceptionally hard to make, is effective in such small dosages it ends up being significantly cheaper than mushrooms.
I guess the biggest fear would be psychedelics causing people to 'wake up' to what they've been ignorant of. There's also the "I don't do it and so neither should anyone else crowd," but I don't think they're plentiful in Colorado.
-
-
-
And this is after they tried very very hard to rig the election to put obstacles in the way of people voting for the measure.
Actually getting abortion bans in place is the "dog that caught the car" moment for Republicans. The world is so complicated and people have so little attention to spare, that the GOP can get away with blaming "the economy" or "jobs" or "crime" on the Democrats, and for the most part, people who support them will go with it, even though they spend most of their time being in power making the problems worse and stealing money for themselves and their friends.
Abortion is dead simple. If people know someone who's suffering in a terrifying way, and it's because of something the Republicans have been banging their fists on the table about how bad they want to do it for the last fifty years, it becomes a lot harder to shift the blame.
Edit: I backwards
-
You mean the part where they held a special election in August after writing rules to BAN special elections in August (unless they involved budget crises)? The supermajority 60% of the Aug Issue 1 would've tanked this if they had their way (or kept it from hitting the ballot with the 80~ county petition requirement).
THEN they had the gall to change the language on today's Issue 1 text.
I'm so proud right now, big win for a state that's had a lot of fails lately (i.e. literal train wrecks that got swept under the rug).
Also: how well do you all think the inclusion of Issue 2 here REALLY brought out the voters? I heard a lot of pot smokers got out of bed early today for it - had to add some extra push for Issue 1.
-
Why would Democrats want to defeat the measure?
-
They are talking about an earlier, even more out of cycle ohio constitutional amendment that would have made it much, much harder to pass any amendments. They force marched it into its own election as soon as the abortion and weed amendments hit the necessary thresholds to be on the upcoming November ballot. It would have gone into affect immediately. It was a very transparent attempt to derail abortion rights by the state GOP.
It had its own special election, after they banned the exact type of election a year earlier. It shifted the burden of "yes" from 50% +1 vote to 60%, and most nefariously, shifted the requirments to get an amendment on the ballot form "X voters in half of all districts (44 of 88) to "X voters in all 88 districts," i.e even the tiny 1k ones that lean 90% Republican. They tried to basically give veto power over all future constitutional amendments to tiny, very, very conservative counties.
Voters rejected it 57% to 43%, which ironically would not have passed it under its own requirements, but would have under the current requirements if the numbers were inverted. If they had a legit bone in their body, they would have imposed a one time "60%" threshold for it as that's what they were forcing all future votes to, but we all know their bulllshit.
-
I got it backwards as regards this election for some reason. Fixed, thank you.
-
-
-
As a Michigander this is physically painful to say... but you done good Ohio.
-
We did. And it pains me to say too. But we did.
-
Michigan won’t be flying as high anymore on Ohioan’s dollars for marijuana, either!
-
For at least a couple more years we will. It took us a bit to set up our system. Probably will take you a couple as well. Takes time to build a distribution network too, since you can't really import it from growers in other states, so for a while ours will probably be cheaper.
But it's still a huge win and it's better for us all to have more states legalize it. And in the meantime we can just both suck Indiana dry of marijuana money.
-
Well you still have a legislature that has to put the laws into place and setup the system. I bet they do everything they can to slow it down.
-
-
Good job, Ohio. Despite our strange relationship I'll call this one a win for everyone.
-
As a Hoosier, this is mentally and physically painful to say but... please help us!
-
Thank you, genuinely! I know there's a lot of bad blood but Michigan is stunning and my last few visits have been spectacular (yes even before any cannabis).
I hope you all can find the beauty in Ohio too. I recommend Kelly's Island for the glacial grooves. Also the Cleveland Metroparks; there's a good reason it was once called the Forest City.
-
-
-
I wouldn't say "antiquated" so much as "broken."
The concept of polling is perfectly reasonable and sound. But today, it's just physically hard to do. You've got to reach a representational sample, but if you're under 50, you're probably not answering unknown numbers calling your cellphone.
This results in oversampling of populations you can actually reach, such as older Americans with landlines, and then trying to weight the results with other information sources, like demographics data.
The more weighting you have to do, the more opportunities there are for problems to creep in.
If we could solve the sampling problem, polling would be easier and more reliable.
-
I live in a swing state, in a purple county, which has recently flipped back to blue. Last week polls were saying it was likely to go red.
I get multiple texts and phone calls from pollsters and have never answered any of them. I doubt anyone in my age group ot demographic are doing differently.
I truly believe that, like the economy, polling on paper is so divorced from the reality on the ground that it is useless.
-
To get a poll representative of a population, you need an SRS -- simple random sample. The people you poll are chosen completely at random from an unbiased list.
That's incredibly difficult to do when the person chosen can decline. And as far as getting an unbiased list, good luck. Landlines are lol. Texting doesn't work either.
I think when everyone had landlines it was probably less biased. But with the state of technology today and the country becoming more diverse? It might be falling apart. They need a new methodology.
-
polling is a scoursge. it doesn’t benefit society. notice how everything went well with broken polls. voting itself is the only poll that matters.
-
-
Oh yay! Those races don't get enough national attention, it's a relief to see them get fucked.
-
-
Anyone else notice how the "why do you want to kill babies" crowd has fallen mostly silent on these posts? It's almost like they never had any real horse in this race, and now that most of them aren't being paid to stir people up they've got nothing to say.
-
FUCK YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! This is some great fucking news for everyone with more then a single braincell.
-
The right wing fought SO HARD to prevent his from happening.
But it's not like the loss is going to do anything to change their beliefs or actions.
-
few of them have real beliefs, it’s mostly emotion and personal gain of some kind.
-
-
Fuck yeah! You love to see it!! I was a poll worker today and the turnout was incredible. I obviously don't know who voted for what but it was great to see.
-
Thank you for putting in such a long day.
-
-
Good.
-
-
unwanted kids aren’t a good thing, but dead mothers who aren’t treated for ectopic pregnancies and other medical emergencies are even worse. there is no “future kid” there aren’t “potential people” deprived of anything. there are living people and that is who votes and who counts. people as a concept in some dude’s head aren’t real.
-
You do realize not all pro choice folks would choose to do it themselves most of the time right?
Just because I think someone should be able to get gender affirming care doesn't mean I only want it so I can get 10 gallon bag mommy milkers.
It's called being able to empathize beyond your own horizons.
-
Begone, anti fact kook
-
Eat shit.
-
I just had a son 2 months ago, i love him dearly, and enjoy spending every day with him.
I completely respect my wifes autonomy over her body, and she could have chosen to abort the clump of cells which became my son. Its her body.
-
If we detect a debilitating birth defect in the third trimester that meant they'd only live for a few hours in pain? Yes. I'm not subjecting my children to torment like that. It's inhumane and child abuse.
-
🤡
-
Do you really believe that? That future children exist? Why do corn producers not care about all their dead children (seeds) and only care about the corn fields? Did they "abort" those "children"?
-
Why worry about a future child? One less to fondle once you got them locked in at the indoctrination camp? (church)
-
-
-
Get scared repubs. Maybe there is a pendulum.
-
They could just drop abortion and focus on attacking trans and gay rights
-
funny enough anti trans crusades are just as big of a voter loser as anti choice crusades are.
-
Can someone who isn't rabidly pro life win a Republican primary at this point? I don't think so. And until they can win, the party is going to be incapable of moderating its position on abortion.
Every time they go for new leadership, they pick more and more extreme people. They can't win without the bigots at this point, and so they let bigots set the policies.
-
If Republicans were a healthy political party, they'd drop abortion and the LGBTQ stuff. They'd focus on "we need to be fiscally responsible" and "protect people's rights." They might get more traction with this.
But they aren't a healthy political party. Instead of changing to suit the voters. They'll demand that the voters change to suit the Republican party.
-
-
-
I am from another country. I have to say that in your movies and shows they have always painted Ohio as being a backwards state. I guess that this goes to show that everything changes. Now Ohio seems to be more civilized than a lot of other states that were the "modern" standard. I love change, it's so refreshing to see new generations at last making a change statewide.
-
Ohio as being a backwards state.
The People that LIVE in Ohio are not nearly as backwards as the gerrymandered elections elect representatives from.
Clearly, this result is absolute proof that the gerrymandering of Ohio is ABSOLUTELY NOT properly representing the WILL of actual Ohio Voters .
-
Well, nearly half are. You still need a shit load of people to vote Republican, just simply declaring "it's gerrymandered" isn't enough. They still need the votes, and they get a lot in Ohio.
-
-
Ohio has more complex political environment than a lot of states. It sits on the border of a number of major geographic features, and host a relatively large, diverse population. It's swung hard right over the past decade as the Republicans embraced populism, but has always been more left-leaning than many of its neighbors. This state is a political and cultural circus, but I wouldn't have it any other way (well, a bit bluer would be nice).
-
It also features both some well populated cities (which trend left), but also a large rural population (which trends right). Between that and the gerrymandering, makes sense it's often a bit "confused".
-
-
Not quite. It's just that abortion is such a powerful issue that it activates the left to actually get out and vote. Any time it has been on a ballot, it wins, and democrats tend to win other positions on that same ballot.
-
You may be confusing Ohio with Utah.
-
-
This is wonderful! It's a great day when the voice of justice for the people can cancel out unrepresentative government!
This is also a great example of why federal referendums would be a game changer. Thanks to gerrymandering, an enormous incumbent advantage and an even bigger incumbent PARTY advantage, most politicians in Washington tend to be a decade or two behind their constituents on most issues, if not in a completely different world. Asking voters directly could shake that up.
Sadly, it would probably require a constitutional amendment which is already de facto impossible BEFORE you take into account that most people in Congress would be against it, but a guy can dream!
-
State referendums have become the best way to institute liberal policies, and Republicans are terrified of them. For good reason, a commanding majority keeps supporting abortion and legal weed. Here in Missouri, we had the Obamacare Medicaid expansion and legal weed because they were state referendums. Republicans tried to ignore the former, but the state supreme court said they had to do it.
Republicans never gave a shit about states rights and it shows. It was just cover for letting Republicans do whatever they want. And now that abortion actually is a state issue, they've fucked around and are finding out.
-
-
It's being sold as abortion rights, but the language is pretty broad and supports everyone's reproductive rights. Yay human rights!
-
-
-
+14% margin bitches. Republicans are in the find out phase
-
-
Ohio still sucks but at least passing through will be bearable now
-
Yeah well feel free to enjoy some of our lovely weed and abortions when you do.
-
Just passing through for a the ol' joint and reproductive healthcare twofer!
-
-
-
-
Fuck yes! I’m so proud of us
-
Happy to have voted to legalize Marijuana for all those future unborn senior citizens!
-
Looking at the direction in which things are heading, they're going to need alot of it.
-
Before 2016, I would've been comfortable with where we are.
Now? I want to run up the score as much as possible. We're in the lead? Floor the gas pedal! We can't let up on the gas now!
-
-
-
It’s about damn time this sorry state did something worth a damn. Good shit 💪🏼
-
Now do Pennsylvania.
-
Looks like the Dem won the PA Supreme Court seat, so that might happen through a ruling
-
PA supreme court was already solidly blue and had the seat gone red it wouldn't have made a difference. A voter approved constitutional amendment is the way to go to actually enshrine it and not just kick the can until it isn't fresh in everyone's mind.
-
-
Great chance that it happens and fucks over Republicans
-
-
Wait, not those states rights!
-
republicans are already promising to ignore the law because they don't like it
-
i just don't get WTH is US doing.
Let the f***ng scientist figure out when it's human enough and when it's not yet human and make the line there as other countries did.
This infighting will only ruin the states.-
The definition of "human enough" would be a social and legal issue, not a scientific one, because there is no scientific definition of 'human enough.' Scientists can tell you what is going on with a fetus at any given time in the pregnancy, but not if that means it is too advanced to abort. Theoretically, you could abort at any time in the pregnancy and it is not up to or possible for science to tell you when.
-
To accentuate the argument, relying on science here is not a good idea because concepts like “viability” will very likely change with technological advancement. In 100 years, it could be perfectly possible for a fertilized egg to grow into a baby outside a mother’s womb. Eggs or sperm could be genetically modified to correct for disorders and syndromes. What would viability really mean in this scientific context?
This argument tormented one of the SCOTUS justices on the original Roe vs. Wade decision.
-
Well i still find it much worse deciding based on feelings than lets say based on level of cognition or consciousness of fetus by properly defined and tested rules.
-
-
That would be a great plan if we ever elected scientists to our legislature. Or even had politicians who listened to science.
We don't, so here we are.
-
You'd need to significantly increase overall education (both among voters ans legislators) on how science works to make the latter feasible.
Scientists are human. Scientists have opinions. Scientists require funding. Scientists disagree.
Simple example: The heliocentric model didn't become accepted knowledge because the "earth is the center of the universe" crowd (who *were? scientists) was convinced by scientific argument - they weren't. It did when they died.
Science holds a lot of high-likelihood facts. This is what we call the "generally accepted body of knowledge". We know that the earth is round. We can predict gravity in most circumstances. And yes, we know that anthromorphic climate change is real.
But there's also a lot of "game-changing" studies/experiments out there that are still to be debunked without ever making it into said body of accepted knowledge. This is normal, it is how science works.
Yet it also means that for virtually any hair-brained opinion that is not already strongly refuted by said body of knowledge (flat earth, for example, is refuted), you can find some not yet debunked science to support it.
Separating the wheat from the chaff here requires insight into the scientific process (and it's assorted politics and market mechanisms) most people (and voters) don't have.
And no, just telling people whether a fact is broadly accepted in the scientific community or fringe science doesn't work. We tried that with the topic of anthromorphic climate change.
-
Then you have endless infighting because today people feels one way and tomorrow the other way.
-
-
180 comments
We legalized marijuana too!
I don’t smoke weed and I don’t have a uterus, but I voted to protect both and I’m glad we won!
What? You voted to support someone ELSE'S freedom?
Blasphemy.
Hey everybody! This guy doesn't have a uterus!
Could be a lady, sometimes those hysters gotta be ectomied.
But do they have a vagina? I'll need photos for reference.
Same and I'm personally anti-abortion, but that's my personal stance and I have no right to try to force that on others.
I've always said that the best way to reduce abortion would be to treat the reasons behind why women get abortions.
Suppose some women get abortions as a form of birth control (as the right likes to claim). You might be able to reduce this with better sex education and better access to birth control. If abortion happens due to rape or incest, figure out programs to reduce the incidence of these. (I'll admit that I'm not knowledgeable enough to come up with specific proposals, but I'm sure people who know more than I do could come up with something.)
Nothing is going to be 100% effective, though. Abortion would need to be available for the cases that slip through. This would reduce how many abortions are performed by supporting women more instead of by banning them and putting women's lives in danger.
The conservative's greatest fear, people who actually care about people other than themselves.