Ohio Republicans plan to disregard voters.

[Subduction Zone]

First, let me say that what you've quoted was not on the ballot measure. I linked Issue 1 in my post as it was presented to voters. It does not make any mention of "survival outside of the uterus" nor does it mention "reasonable measures". I will note, however, that the use of that langugage does not, IMO, sufficiently improve the wording as you merely added more things the common person likely doesn't understand.

My objections were two-fold, first in the passing of a person's rights to a "treating physician" and second that "viability of an unborn child" is not necessarily understood by everyone. The language used while it may (or may not) pass "legal muster" is insufficiently appropriate, IMO, to a constitutional amendment. The necessary consultation of a physican highlights the notion that it is beyond a common person's capability to understand.

You don't see how it could be misinterpreted, but you may have forgotten that the ballot already, supposedly, Established "an individual right" to one's own abortion.

It appears that you do not even know how to use quotation marks. When you put something in quotes. such as "viability of an unborn child" that phrase better appear that way in the post that you are responding to. If it is not you just lied. All I could see was the phrase "fetal viability". And yes, that is going to vary from mother to mother and fetus to fetus.

Also do you not know that those conditions do not even apply to over 99% of all abortions? Almost all 'abortions on demand" have occurred before fetal viability. Of the remaining less than 1% most of those are medically necessary abortions. Those cases are almost always of women that wanted to go full term in a pregnancy and have a baby. In some states there have been fetuses that were doomed to survive the birthing process with the full knowledge that it would die a painful death not long after birth. Rather than to see a child be born and immediately start suffering and then dying some brave women opted for abortion instead. That is what most abortions after 24 weeks are. They are not covered by insurance if they are on demand. They are very expensive due to more doctors and an operating room being involved. They are simply not the abortions that dishonest anti-choice people make them out to be.

 

[crossfire]

I'm not sure what I was supposed to get from your explanation, but that you need to engage in such a lengthy explanation (which doesn't address any of the issues I pointed out) makes my point for me. I explained my objections and they certainly would be a sufficient excuse to reject the amendment, regardless of the supposed credentials of those who placed it on the ballot. That said, the amendment passed. What's done is done.


First, let me say that what you've quoted was not on the ballot measure. I linked Issue 1 in my post as it was presented to voters. It does not make any mention of "survival outside of the uterus" nor does it mention "reasonable measures". I will note, however, that the use of that langugage does not, IMO, sufficiently improve the wording as you merely added more things the common person likely doesn't understand.

My objections were two-fold, first in the passing of a person's rights to a "treating physician" and second that "viability of an unborn child" is not necessarily understood by everyone. The language used while it may (or may not) pass "legal muster" is insufficiently appropriate, IMO, to a constitutional amendment. The necessary consultation of a physican highlights the notion that it is beyond a common person's capability to understand.

It is putting it back into the realm of healthcare where it belongs. You consult with doctors, not politicians, when it comes to your own healthcare decisions. Politicians are not doctors. Doctors are not lawyers, and should not have to lawyer up to deal with rules politicians decree when the politicians want to play doctor.

You don't see how it could be misinterpreted, but you may have forgotten that the ballot already, supposedly, Established "an individual right" to one's own abortion.

The individual, not some politician, should have the final say when it comes to their own healthcare.

This doesn't change my opinion that voters should consider not voting for those responsible.

Agreed.