Pro-life advocacy groups are warning Ohio voters that an effort to enshrine abortion rights into the Buckeye State's constitution goes far beyond the issue at hand and is a Trojan horse for an "incredibly extreme and dangerous" anti-parental rights amendment.
Abortion advocates, including Ohioans for Reproductive Freedom and Ohio Physicians for Reproductive Rights, are clearing the hurdles necessary to get a measure on this November's ballot that will ask Ohio voters whether abortion should be legal.
While proponents of the amendment "The Right to Reproductive Freedom With Protections for Health and Safety" are framing it as a way to add a right of abortion to the state's constitution, critics fear that if it's approved, the measure will have even more dangerous and far-reaching consequences.
"We are aware that some Ohioans are seeking a 'common-sense' abortion provision — but this amendment is not that," said Rachel Citak, an attorney and president of Right to Life of Greater Cincinnati. "This November's amendment will allow unregulated, painful, and dangerous late-term abortion. The health and safety of every woman seeking an abortion is at risk."
If the measure becomes law, it will repeal Ohio's heartbeat law, which typically prohibits abortion upon the detection of a fetal heartbeat — usually at around six weeks. But that law, which went into effect after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year, is currently temporarily blocked by a state judge.
But pro-life groups also fear the proposed amendment has the potential to do much more than just reinstate late-term abortions. Those concerns are due to the vagueness of how the measure is written and because of which pro-abortion groups are supporting it.
Amy Natoce, the press secretary for Protect Women Ohio, a pro-woman, pro-parent, pro-life campaign dedicated to defeating the initiative, called it an "incredibly extreme and dangerous anti-parent amendment" that goes "far beyond abortion."
She pointed out three major issues:
1.) It completely "eviscerates" parental rights by eliminating parental notification and consent requirements for minors obtaining abortions and other life-altering reproductive procedures, including so-called "gender-affirming" treatment or surgery.
2.) It eliminates current "common-sense" health and safety standards for women.
3.) It removes all protections for the unborn, allowing taxpayer-funded, late-term abortions throughout an entire pregnancy.
Natoce notes that the proposal purposefully doesn't mention the words "parental consent," "women" or age.
"It is intentionally very broad," she said.
The amendment has the backing of the ACLU, which Natoce said has a "track record of attacking parental rights across the country."
She points out that the ACLU has an entire page on its website dedicated to its opposition to parental consent and notification laws and has been successful in pushing similar measures in Alaska and Indiana.
In 2016, the ACLU fought to overturn parental notification laws in Alaska by siding with Planned Parenthood in a lawsuit against the state. It then claimed that parental consent laws in Indiana created an "unconstitutional undue burden."
An Ohio-based ACLU attorney essentially admitted the passing of the amendment in the Buckeye State could end parental consent there.
When asked whether the existing state law that requires a woman under 18 to obtain parental consent or a court order before getting an abortion would be eliminated if voters approve the new measure, attorney Jessie Hill said that "laws that conflict with it cannot be enforced, should not be enforced."
"When you pass a constitutional amendment, it doesn't just automatically erase everything and start over," Hill said. "But it would mean that laws that conflict with it cannot be enforced, should not be enforced."
Because the amendment only describes protecting an "individual's rights," to "make and carry out one's own reproductive decisions," Natoce said that ill-defined "individual" could be both a 13-year-old girl seeking an abortion without her parent's consent or knowledge or a 10-year-old boy seeking gender altering hormone treatments.
Under the proposal, she said that "anyone can get a reproductive procedure and parents would have no say" because the measure is written to say that reproductive decisions are not limited to just abortion.
The amendment doesn't define what "reproductive decisions" are affected, which means it could easily be applied to procedures such as hormone replacement therapy or sterilization.
While it appears to provide protections for babies who are post-viability, Natoce said it actually gives abortionists the power to have the final say in determining when a child is viable.
"This leaves the door open for an abortionist to determine a healthy 39-week-old child can be aborted," she said.
And with abortion being allowed to protect the "health" of the mother, Natoce points out that even "health" isn't defined.
When the issue of health has come up in relation to abortion in other states, courts have ruled that "health" isn't strictly related to a mother's physical well-being, but can also apply to her mental health, financial health, emotional health, and social health.
With the definition of health up for debate, Natoce said a woman may be able to receive an abortion just because having a baby may impact her social life.
She notes that the amendment also prevents Ohio's lawmakers from doing their jobs because it prohibits any law that would "burden" or "interfere" with "reproductive decisions."
Overall, Citak called the amendment "completely anti-woman, anti-child, and anti-motherhood."
No matter where a parent falls on the issue of abortion or gender, she said they all still "want the right to walk with their child through those experiences" and this bill will "rob" parents of their ability to essentially be parents.
"It's not the state's kid, it's not the government's kid," Citak said. "They don't want to co-parent with the government. They believe they are the parent and they aren't going to give up that right to anyone else."
Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers in Ohio are trying to make it harder for the state constitution to be amended ahead of the proposal appearing on the November ballot.
In an August election, Ohio voters will be asked to decide whether to raise the threshold of support necessary for future state constitutional amendments from a simple majority to 60%.
Voters will also decide whether groups trying to place ballot measures must obtain signatures from voters in all of Ohio's 88 counties, instead of just the 44 now required.
Citak said the provision requiring a 60% vote would go into effect immediately if it passed and would apply to the November amendment should it appear on the ballot. The provision related to signatures would not go into effect until Jan. 1.
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.