{"id":1014,"date":"2024-01-15T07:05:55","date_gmt":"2024-01-15T07:05:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/?page_id=1014"},"modified":"2024-01-15T07:25:54","modified_gmt":"2024-01-15T07:25:54","slug":"women_detail_4","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/?page_id=1014","title":{"rendered":"WOMEN_DETAIL_4"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<div class=\"wp-block-buttons is-layout-flex wp-block-buttons-is-layout-flex\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-button\"><a class=\"wp-block-button__link wp-element-button\">WOMEN<\/a><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-button\"><a class=\"wp-block-button__link wp-element-button\"><strong><strong>NOVEMBER 7<\/strong>, 2023<\/strong><\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Ohio Passes Constitutional Right to Abortion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Republicans tried everything they could to derail the initiative. Voters approved it anyway.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-media-text is-stacked-on-mobile\" style=\"grid-template-columns:15% auto\"><figure class=\"wp-block-media-text__media\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"50\" height=\"50\" src=\"http:\/\/aiecasia.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/PauleyMadison-2-web.webp\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-930 size-full\"\/><\/figure><div class=\"wp-block-media-text__content\">\n<ul>\n<li>MADISON PAULY<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Reporter<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\">\n<figure class=\"aligncenter size-full is-resized\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"321\" height=\"180\" src=\"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/20231107-ohio-result-1.webp\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-1034\" style=\"width:760px;height:auto\" srcset=\"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/20231107-ohio-result-1.webp 321w, https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/20231107-ohio-result-1-300x168.webp 300w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 321px) 100vw, 321px\" \/><figcaption class=\"wp-element-caption\"><strong>Joe Maiorana\/AP<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n<p><strong>Ohio voters<\/strong>&nbsp;have approved Issue 1, amending their state constitution to enshrine the right to abortion\u2014and proving, ahead of 2024, that support for abortion rights remains a compelling force among voters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The success of the measure, which was passing 58-42 as of 9 p.m. Tuesday night,\u00a0is an encouraging\u00a0sign for similar initiatives being prepared for next year\u2019s election in places like Arizona, Florida, and\u00a0Missouri. It\u2019s a rebuke of\u00a0the Republican state leaders who have spent much of the last year going to\u00a0extraordinary lengths\u00a0to prevent the abortion-rights amendment from passing. And it\u2019s a warning to\u00a0Republican officials\u00a0attempting\u00a0similar moves\u00a0elsewhere.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>But most of all, it\u2019s a win\u00a0for pregnant people in Ohio. The new constitutional amendment will protect\u00a0access to abortion until the point in pregnancy when a doctor determines that the fetus could likely survive outside the patient\u2019s body\u2014usually around 24 weeks into pregnancy, barring any anomalies. It also will allow\u00a0for later abortions when necessary to protect the patient\u2019s life or health. And it will\u00a0set a high legal bar for how the government can regulate abortion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The amendment also\u00a0protects the right to make one\u2019s own decisions about birth control and fertility treatments, as well as miscarriage care, which has been\u00a0deeply\u00a0disrupted\u00a0over the last year and half\u2014a side effect of Supreme Court overturning\u00a0<em>Roe<\/em>,\u00a0paralyzing doctors,\u00a0and calling\u00a0once-routine treatments\u00a0into question.\u00a0Its most immediate consequence is\u00a0to protect abortion services in Ohio at a time when they were under grave threat: A decision is\u00a0imminent\u00a0from the conservative-leaning\u00a0state Supreme Court on whether to allow a 6-week abortion ban to resume effect. The\u00a0infamous law,\u00a0passed in anticipation of the end of\u00a0<em>Roe,\u00a0<\/em>had prevented a 10-year-old rape survivor from getting an abortion in-state before a judge\u00a0put it on hold\u00a0last fall. Now, with the constitution amended, litigation against the 6-week ban has a clear path to victory in the courts, regardless of the state Supreme Court\u2019s impending decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>On the surface, the amendment in Ohio might have seemed destined for success. Last year, following the fall of\u00a0<em>Roe<\/em>, California, Michigan, and Vermont all voted to enshrine abortion rights in their state constitutions. People in the conservative states of\u00a0Kansas, Kentucky, and Montana likewise rejected the anti-abortion ballot initiatives put in front of them. Meanwhile, voters have turned out decisively for candidates who made abortion rights a signature issue, such as Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Janet Protasiewicz, whose special election in April\u00a0shattered turnout records\u00a0and swung that court\u2019s majority from conservative to liberal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Yet like anyone else watching these results over the last year and a half, the Republican officials who lead Ohio\u2019s state government could spot a pattern. So, faced a ballot initiative from their own citizens, they pulled out all the stops to interfere with the vote and flood the electorate with misinformation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Against this backdrop, the success of Issue 1 on Tuesday is even more significant. For anyone playing catch-up, here\u2019s a brief recap of everything state GOP officials have done to interfere with the vote on the abortion-rights constitutional amendment:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Forcing a vote on their own ballot measure<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>First, Republicans in the state legislators created their own ballot initiative\u00a0designed to make it nigh-impossible\u00a0to pass any future ballot initiative in Ohio. That initiative, confusingly also known as Issue 1, would have raised the vote threshold to pass\u00a0a ballot measure from 50 percent to a 60 percent supermajority. (Conveniently, the abortion rights initiative\u00a0had been polling\u00a0just below 60 percent.) And it would have required organizers to gather signatures from 5 percent of voters in each of the state\u2019s 88 counties, rather than the current 44, in order to qualify their initiative for the ballot\u2014an extremely difficult task.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Frank LaRose, the Republican secretary of state who is challenging Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown in 2024, spent months insisting that this previous<em>\u00a0<\/em>Issue 1 was about stopping interference from \u201cout-of-state special interests.\u201d (Ironically, the campaign for the measure was\u00a0largely funded\u00a0by an out-of-state billionaire, Richard Uihlein, known for supporting election denialism.) But in May, LaRose\u00a0admitted to supporters\u00a0that the measure was \u201c100% about keeping a radical pro-abortion amendment out of our constitution.\u201d Meanwhile, the Republican legislators\u00a0reversed some of their own legislation\u00a0to make sure their ballot initiative went before voters this summer, so it would have a chance to kick in before the vote on the abortion amendment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Yet the $18 million special election\u00a0was for naught. Voters\u00a0soundly defeated\u00a0the measure in August.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Rewriting the ballot language<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>LaRose and the Ohio Ballot Board weren\u2019t done, however. In late August, the board voted 3-2 to put a summary of the abortion amendment on the ballot, rather than the full text. The summary, crafted by LaRose\u2019s office, took some liberties with the content of the amendment, according to the\u00a0<em>Ohio Capital Journal.<\/em>\u00a0For one thing, it replaced the medical term \u201cfetus\u201d with \u201cunborn child.\u201d It also failed to mention that the amendment would protect access to contraception, fertility treatments, and miscarriage care.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>After proponents of the initiative challenged the summary language, the state Supreme Court kept in place much of LaRose\u2019s wording but ordered the ballot board to rewrite a section that suggested \u201ccitizens of the state,\u201d rather than the state government, would be limited from passing laws to restrict abortion access. \u201cThe ballot language\u2019s use of the term \u2018citizens of the State\u2019 would mislead voters by suggesting that the amendment would limit the rights of individual citizens to oppose abortion,\u201d Republican Justice Pat Fischer\u00a0wrote\u00a0in the majority argument.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Filing Hail-Mary lawsuits<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Anti-abortion activists have repeatedly tried to get the courts to block the abortion-rights initiative from proceeding. In one\u00a0unsuccessful case, Cincinnati Right to Life argued that the initiative should be split up into two separate questions\u2014one about abortion, and one about other reproductive healthcare decisions\u2014which would have forced the initiative\u2019s organizers back to the drawing board and required them to re-gather signatures.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Then, in July, a former Republican legislator filed another a lawsuit against the Ohio Ballot Board and the abortion-rights amendment\u2019s proponents. Former state Rep. Thomas Brinkman challenged the validity of the petition voters signed to get the amendment on the ballot, claiming it broke election law by not including the text of the all the statutes that would be repealed if the amendment were to pass.\u00a0But the Ohio Supreme Court\u00a0threw out\u00a0Brinkman\u2019s lawsuit two weeks after he filed it, concluding his argument was\u00a0based on a grammatical misreading\u00a0of what the election law required.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Purging voters<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Election officials are required to routinely remove inactive voters from their rolls, and in June of this year, LaRose sent a memo setting the schedule for the maintenance. He directed county elections boards not to remove any voters before the August election on the threshold for passing ballot initiative\u2014the one LaRose himself championed. But then, he said, registrations should be cancelled in September, prior to the vote on the abortion-rights amendment. According to an\u00a0NBC local affiliate, by September 29, 26,666 unresponsive voters had been removed from voting rolls ahead of the November elections\u2014about 1 in 6 of whom were from Democratic-leaning Franklin County, where the city of Columbus is located. Voters only had 11 days to re-register in time to vote in the November election.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Citing federal law that requires ongoing maintenance of voter rolls, Paul Disantis, the chief legal counsel for LaRose\u2019s office, wrote that it was \u201cridiculous\u201d to claim the purge was politically motivated but did not address the convenience of the purge\u2019s timing for his boss.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Spreading misinformation<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>According to\u00a0the Associated Press, inflammatory rhetoric and false claims about the ballot initiative have been flowing freely from the website of the Ohio Senate, which is controlled by Republicans. Posts on the blog falsely claimed Issue 1 would allow \u201cthe dismemberment of fully conscious children\u201d and establish \u201cabortion on demand for all nine months.\u201d And because the information is on a .gov website, it\u2019s heavily favored in Google searches for information on Issue 1, the AP reported. (Republican state Sen. Michele Reynolds fired back in another blog post, calling the AP article about the Senate blog \u201cfake news.\u201d)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>The Ohio GOP\u00a0<\/strong>isn\u2019t alone. As abortion-rights ballot initiatives\u00a0proliferate across the country, Republican state officials have been getting crafty\u2014inflating cost estimates\u00a0for an abortion-rights amendment in Missouri into the billions, for example, and filing a lawsuit in Florida arguing that the amendment proposed there is impermissibly vague, because \u201cfetal viability\u201d\u00a0isn\u2019t a clear-cut line. Will they take a hint from\u00a0the result in Ohio? It remains to be seen.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cWhat we expect to continue to see is that because they know that they can\u2019t win on the merits of the issue, anti-abortion politicians are going to continue to try to change the rules and bend the democratic processes to try to push through their agenda,\u201d says Ryan Stitzlein, vice president of political and government relations for Reproductive Freedom for All. \u201cBecause they can\u2019t get through any other way.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Abby Vesoulis contributed reporting.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Ohio Passes Constitutional Right to Abortion Ohio voters&nbsp;have approved Issue 1, amending their state constitution to enshrine the right to abortion\u2014and proving, ahead of 2024, that support for abortion rights remains a compelling force among voters. The success of the measure, which was passing 58-42 as of 9 p.m. Tuesday night,\u00a0is an encouraging\u00a0sign for similar&hellip;&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/?page_id=1014\" class=\"\" rel=\"bookmark\">Read More &raquo;<span class=\"screen-reader-text\">WOMEN_DETAIL_4<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":519,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"on","_themeisle_gutenberg_block_has_review":false,"_ti_tpc_template_sync":false,"_ti_tpc_template_id":"","footnotes":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1014"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1014"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1014\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1036,"href":"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1014\/revisions\/1036"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/519"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1014"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}