Ohio Republicans plan to disregard voters.

[fantome profane]

The voters voted to adopt a poorly written amendment on abortion.

Who wrote that amendment? Who was responsible for the wording?

 

[Subduction Zone]

In this case, I don't think the the Ohio legislature has much choice. The voters voted to adopt a poorly written amendment on abortion.
The legislature is now obligated to see this through to the best of their ability. They are amending their constitution. Hopefully, Ohio didn't screw themselves over too hard.

I am curious. I do not know the wording of this amendment to Ohio's constitution. What was poorly written about this change?

 

[Subduction Zone]

This site has copy of the wording of the amendment. It seems to be more than reasonable to me. Abortions cannot be banned after the date of viability. And the woman's doctor is the one that will determine if there is a reasonable chance that the fetus will live:

Ohio Issue 1, Right to Make Reproductive Decisions Including Abortion Initiative (2023)

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

1. “Fetal viability” means “the point in a pregnancy when, in the professional judgment of the pregnant patient's treating physician, the fetus has a significant likelihood of survival outside the uterus with reasonable measures. This is determined on a case-by-case basis.”2. “State” includes any governmental entity and any political subdivision. D. This Section is self-executing.[27]

What exactly is wrong with that part of it?

 

[F1fan]

What about forcing people to go against their conscious and religious beliefs?

Ie: Catholic hospitals and staff.

Well if a person is going to have an allegiance to Christianity they had better get what Jesus taught about loving thy neighbor, and not judging others, correct. We see too many religious folks committed to some intolerant dogma more than those who inspired their religion. I say let them suffer the consequences for being shallow and self-serving in a profession dedicated to help others.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Indications are that they are going to go through with the amendment and that they are going to review every law concerning abortion that is on the books in Ohio. It's a six part complicated amendment with ambiguous wording, and it boths allows and disallows abortions. I think the amendment was poorly written. Whoever was responsible for writing the amendment really failed the people here. But whatever. Ohio has its amendment and the legislature is going to sit down and go through every single abortion law instead of leaving it to judicial review because they didn't get someone to write a properly clean, clear amendment from the very beginning. I wonder if there wasn't some deliberate confusopoly involved.

I knew it would pass, though. I voted against it because I'm pro-life but I knew it would go through just because of all the liberals and leftists in Columbus, where I live. There's a lot of far-left types in the city. I even saw a sign saying "abortion forever" in a window, which was disturbing to me. Of course that was by the OSU campus and that's to be expected there.

Outside of the major cities (of which Columbus is the only one growing in population, from what I know, even from other Ohio cities), most of Ohio is smaller towns and rural areas. Those people are more conservative. Hence why we have a Republican governor while Columbus is fiercely Democratic.

I don't think most people bothered to read the text of it, honestly. I didn't, but I wouldn't have supported it anyway. (I read the summary.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

I knew it would pass, though. I voted against it because I'm pro-life but I knew it would go through just because of all the liberals and leftists in Columbus, where I live. There's a lot of far-left types in the city. I even saw a sign saying "abortion forever" in a window, which was disturbing to me. Of course that was by the OSU campus and that's to be expected there.

Outside of the major cities (of which Columbus is the only one growing in population, from what I know, even from other Ohio cities), most of Ohio is smaller towns and rural areas. Those people are more conservative. Hence why we have a Republican governor while Columbus is fiercely Democratic.

I don't think most people bothered to read the text of it, honestly. I didn't, but I wouldn't have supported it anyway. (I read the summary.)

Protecting a woman's right to choose should not be a conservative versus liberal vote.

 

[crossfire]

Text to be added to Ohio State Constitution:

Article I, Section 22. The Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety A. Every individual has a right to make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions, including but not limited to decisions on: 1. contraception; 2. fertility treatment; 3. continuing one’s own pregnancy; 4. miscarriage care; and 5. abortion.​ B. The State shall not, directly or indirectly, burden, penalize, prohibit, interfere with, or discriminate against either: 1. An individual's voluntary exercise of this right or 2. A person or entity that assists an individual exercising this right, unless the State demonstrates that it is using the least restrictive means to advance the individual's health in accordance with widely accepted and evidence-based standards of care.​ 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. C. As used in this Section: 1. “Fetal viability” means “the point in a pregnancy when, in the professional judgment of the pregnant patient's treating physician, the fetus has a significant likelihood of survival outside the uterus with reasonable measures. This is determined on a case-by-case basis.” 2. “State” includes any governmental entity and any political subdivision.​ D. This Section is self-executing.[27]

So which part is poorly written?

 

[fantome profane]

I knew it would pass, though. I voted against it because I'm pro-life but I knew it would go through just because of all the liberals and leftists in Columbus

But it is not just Columbus, and it is not just Ohio either. Every state that has has a vote on the issue of abortion the pro-choice side has won.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Added on additional info.

One during Trump administration

Other Biden administration.

One is an issue with that specific hospital.
The other, they can't hire someone who is ok with doing them? Healthcare just is not the field where it's appropriate or ethical to enforce your own personal stuff on others. They can just hire an independent contractor who does all the abortions for them. Then no one has to do something they don't want.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But it is not just Columbus, and it is not just Ohio either. Every state that has has a vote on the issue of abortion the pro-choice side has won.

It just goes to show America as a whole tends to side with the Dems on the issues.

 

[Ponder This]

Who wrote that amendment? Who was responsible for the wording?

I don't know. Usually these things go through multiple people and there are opportunities to improve the wording, which is why I find this to be a dismal failure.

I am curious. I do not know the wording of this amendment to Ohio's constitution. What was poorly written about this change?

Issue 1
I don't envy the voter who had to read this thing six times to understand it or instead voted based on what little was comprehended of it.

You'll that that it starts out stating that there is a right to one's own abortion. Then later it points out the state can prohibit abortion.
But you have to really read carefully to understand when and how the State can prohibit abortion. It turns out that, actually, it's a physician that will determine if you may have an abortion. The voter is expected to understand what is meant by "viability". It uses language such as "Create legal protections" and "least restrictive means" which has to be interpreted by the voter. It has six points and if a person really wants to understand it, he may need to read it several times. Don't consider the few points I've made here to be an exhaustive list of the problems.

On the whole it was very poorly worded for a ballot measure intended to be a Constitutional Amendment. The potential for misinterpretation by partisan judges is also made manifest by the intricacies of the wording. That's because this amendment both claims that abortion is an individual right AND that the State has the power to prohibit it. This is why I don't blame a legislature for feeling compelled to review every law in order to insure the amendment is correctly interpreted by the judicial system.

The amendment is sloppy writing ill-fitted to a ballot measure placed before voters. Regardless of whether the ballot measure was written by Republicans, Democrats, or third party billionaire global interests, I am disappointed in those involved in its construction and wonder if it was deliberately worded to confuse. I think there is enough here that it is worth considering voting out of office the elected representatives responsible, who had the audacity to present such a poorly worded amendment to their constitution. Just remove from office people who think this sort of wording is acceptable for a constitution. They should've been able to present A+ writing for the state's most important document instead of D- drivel.

 

[fantome profane]

I don't know. Usually these things go through multiple people and there are opportunities to improve the wording, which is why I find this to be a dismal failure.

It was the Republicans in the State House. That is who was responsible for the wording. FYI

 

[crossfire]

I don't know. Usually these things go through multiple people and there are opportunities to improve the wording, which is why I find this to be a dismal failure.

Issue 1
I don't envy the voter who had to read this thing six times to understand it or instead voted based on what little was comprehended of it.

You'll that that it starts out stating that there is a right to one's own abortion. Then later it points out the state can prohibit abortion.
But you have to really read carefully to understand when and how the State can prohibit abortion. It turns out that, actually, it's a physician that will determine if you may have an abortion. The voter is expected to understand what is meant by "viability". It uses language such as "Create legal protections" and "least restrictive means" which has to be interpreted by the voter. It has six points and if a person really wants to understand it, he may need to read it several times. Don't consider the few points I've made here to be an exhaustive list of the problems.

On the whole it was very poorly worded for a ballot measure intended to be a Constitutional Amendment. The potential for misinterpretation by partisan judges is also made manifest by the intricacies of the wording. That's because this amendment both claims that abortion is an individual right AND that the State has the power to prohibit it. This is why I don't blame a legislature for feeling compelled to review every law in order to insure the amendment is correctly interpreted by the judicial system.

The amendment is sloppy writing ill-fitted to a ballot measure placed before voters. Regardless of whether the ballot measure was written by Republicans, Democrats, or third party billionaire global interests, I am disappointed in those involved in its construction and wonder if it was deliberately worded to confuse. I think there is enough here that it is worth considering voting out of office the elected representatives responsible, who had the audacity to present such a poorly worded amendment to their constitution. Just remove from office people who think this sort of wording is acceptable for a constitution. They should've been able to present A+ writing for the state's most important document instead of D- drivel.

The definition for "viability" is included right there in C.1, which I will bold in the amendment below:

Text to be added to Ohio State Constitution:

​

​

Article I, Section 22. The Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety A. Every individual has a right to make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions, including but not limited to decisions on: 1. contraception; 2. fertility treatment; 3. continuing one’s own pregnancy; 4. miscarriage care; and 5. abortion.​ B. The State shall not, directly or indirectly, burden, penalize, prohibit, interfere with, or discriminate against either: 1. An individual's voluntary exercise of this right or 2. A person or entity that assists an individual exercising this right, unless the State demonstrates that it is using the least restrictive means to advance the individual's health in accordance with widely accepted and evidence-based standards of care.​ 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. C. As used in this Section: 1. “Fetal viability” means “the point in a pregnancy when, in the professional judgment of the pregnant patient's treating physician, the fetus has a significant likelihood of survival outside the uterus with reasonable measures. This is determined on a case-by-case basis.” 2. “State” includes any governmental entity and any political subdivision.​ D. This Section is self-executing.[27]

So which part is poorly written?

I'll quote the section of the bill if you are having difficulty scrolling to it:

1. “Fetal viability” means “the point in a pregnancy when, in the professional judgment of the pregnant patient's treating physician, the fetus has a significant likelihood of survival outside the uterus with reasonable measures. This is determined on a case-by-case basis.”​

I really don't see how it can be misinterpreted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know. Usually these things go through multiple people and there are opportunities to improve the wording, which is why I find this to be a dismal failure.

Issue 1
I don't envy the voter who had to read this thing six times to understand it or instead voted based on what little was comprehended of it.

Okay, so you do not like it because you did not understand it. I can explain what is does for you.

You'll that that it starts out stating that there is a right to one's own abortion. Then later it points out the state can prohibit abortion.
But you have to really read carefully to understand when and how the State can prohibit abortion. It turns out that, actually, it's a physician that will determine if you may have an abortion. The voter is expected to understand what is meant by "viability". It uses language such as "Create legal protections" and "least restrictive means" which has to be interpreted by the voter. It has six points and if a person really wants to understand it, he may need to read it several times. Don't consider the few points I've made here to be an exhaustive list of the problems.

Yes, many rights are conditional. Why should the right to an abortion not be conditional too? They are trying to make a bit of a compromise. One thing that you do not understand is that the concept of "late term abortions" is almost entirely fictitious. Women are not waiting until the last second to get an abortion. Late term abortions occur due almost always due to medical need. There are times that a mother to be wants a child and gets pregnant. Late in the pregnancy sometimes one learns of a disaster. The baby will die very shortly after being born and will be in great pain until it dies. A loving woman in such cases will often opt for an abortion. Better to let the fetus die through abortion than to live a short and very painful life.

By the twenty second week over 99% of abortions would have occurred. All of those would be legal by that amendment. The remaining abortions are almost all medically necessary abortions. They would not be a affected either.

I think that your complaint arises because the amendment makes it pointless to have any laws against abortions. That was sort of the idea.

On the whole it was very poorly worded for a ballot measure intended to be a Constitutional Amendment. The potential for misinterpretation by partisan judges is also made manifest by the intricacies of the wording. That's because this amendment both claims that abortion is an individual right AND that the State has the power to prohibit it. This is why I don't blame a legislature for feeling compelled to review every law in order to insure the amendment is correctly interpreted by the judicial system.

You need more than just your opinion to claim that it is "poorly worded". You need to show where and why.

The amendment is sloppy writing ill-fitted to a ballot measure placed before voters. Regardless of whether the ballot measure was written by Republicans, Democrats, or third party billionaire global interests, I am disappointed in those involved in its construction and wonder if it was deliberately worded to confuse. I think there is enough here that it is worth considering voting out of office the elected representatives responsible, who had the audacity to present such a poorly worded amendment to their constitution. Just remove from office people who think this sort of wording is acceptable for a constitution. They should've been able to present A+ writing for the state's most important document instead of D- drivel.

Too bad. That is not an excuse to reject it. Obviously the people that vet such amendments did not agree with you. In my state at least there initiatives must pass legal muster to be on the ballot. I am betting that Ohio has a similar standard. You do not like it but you cannot be specific in how or why you do not like it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I really don't see how it can be misinterpreted.

That is the problem. I think that he is angry because well over 99% of abortions could not be legally banned.

 

[crossfire]

That is the problem. I think that he is angry because well over 99% of abortions could not be legally banned.

And with the GOP having attempted to push to make the State Constitution harder to amend in order to try to avoid this amendment...it's pretty clear that the voters were NOT confused over this.

 

[crossfire]

It was the Republicans in the State House. That is who was responsible for the wording. FYI

I guess they get the D- drivel grade, then.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Both have to do with the right for a person to object and opt out based on that person's sense of conviction.

But if you have a religious objection to a job, it becomes your personal choice to accept the job.

No one is forcing Catholics to work in healthcare.

Should the military have religious exemptions for soldiers that don't want to kill people?

Should a high school biology teacher be exempt from teaching evolution?

Should a cook at a steakhouse be exempt from cooking meat if their religious belief includes vegetarianism?

 

[Ponder This]

Okay, so you do not like it because you did not understand it. I can explain what is does for you.


Yes, many rights are conditional. Why should the right to an abortion not be conditional too? They are trying to make a bit of a compromise. One thing that you do not understand is that the concept of "late term abortions" is almost entirely fictitious. Women are not waiting until the last second to get an abortion. Late term abortions occur due almost always due to medical need. There are times that a mother to be wants a child and gets pregnant. Late in the pregnancy sometimes one learns of a disaster. The baby will die very shortly after being born and will be in great pain until it dies. A loving woman in such cases will often opt for an abortion. Better to let the fetus die through abortion than to live a short and very painful life.

View attachment 84917

By the twenty second week over 99% of abortions would have occurred. All of those would be legal by that amendment. The remaining abortions are almost all medically necessary abortions. They would not be a affected either.

I think that your complaint arises because the amendment makes it pointless to have any laws against abortions. That was sort of the idea.


You need more than just your opinion to claim that it is "poorly worded". You need to show where and why.

Too bad. That is not an excuse to reject it. Obviously the people that vet such amendments did not agree with you. In my state at least there initiatives must pass legal muster to be on the ballot. I am betting that Ohio has a similar standard. You do not like it but you cannot be specific in how or why you do not like it.

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.

The definition for "viability" is included right there in C.1, which I will bold in the amendment below:

I'll quote the section of the bill if you are having difficulty scrolling to it:

1. “Fetal viability” means “the point in a pregnancy when, in the professional judgment of the pregnant patient's treating physician, the fetus has a significant likelihood of survival outside the uterus with reasonable measures. This is determined on a case-by-case basis.”​

I really don't see how it can be misinterpreted.

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 was the Republicans in the State House. That is who was responsible for the wording. FYI

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

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Short answers are often incomplete and therefore not exactly right. You claim to not to understand and yet complain when someone tries to make it clear to you. It sounds as if you do not want to understand why you are wrong. You merely want to believe.