An effort to ensure access to abortion rights in Ohio, a November ballot measure, is already sparking misleading claims about its potential impact on abortion care, gender-related health care, and parental consent in the state.
The proposed constitutional amendment aims to give Ohioans the right to make their own reproductive decisions. Supporters argue that since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year, the proposal would restore common-sense abortion protection that most Ohio voters can support.
However, opponents argue that it would go far beyond that. They portray the amendment as a gateway to minors obtaining abortions and gender-related surgeries without parental consent. They also falsely suggest that the amendment would protect abusers and legalize infanticide.
The Associated Press spoke to many medical and legal experts to get an accurate understanding of what the amendment, known as Issue 1, would mean for Ohioans if it passes in November.
If the amendment passes, Ohio can still impose restrictions on abortion after the point when a fetus can survive outside the womb. This point, known as the point of viability, typically occurs around 23 to 24 weeks into the pregnancy with modern medicine.
Opponents of the measure argue that it would still allow abortions “up to birth” because it allows doctors to determine fetal viability and includes an exemption for later abortions to protect the life or health of the mother.
Medical and legal experts dispute this argument, pointing out that doctors have a duty to follow medical science. The original language from the amendment’s supporters defined fetal viability as the fetus having a significant likelihood of survival outside the uterus with reasonable measures.
Abortions later in pregnancy are extremely rare. In 2020, less than 1% of abortions in the United States were performed at or after 21 weeks, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Experts also clarify that the idea of abortions “up to birth” is misleading. Terminations later in pregnancy involve medication that induces early birth, which is different from a surgical abortion.
Opponents of the amendment argue that it could protect abusers because it safeguards anyone who assists someone in exercising their right to make reproductive decisions. However, legal experts say that these claims would not hold up in court, as abuse is already illegal and the amendment doesn’t change that.
Furthermore, opponents claim that the amendment’s protection of “reproductive” decisions is overly broad and could include gender-related health care. Supporters, on the other hand, state that the proposal does not mention gender-related health care because it is not the focus of the amendment.
The amendment does not alter Ohio’s existing parental notification and consent law, which requires minors to obtain parental permission or a judicial exception in extreme cases in order to get an abortion.
Opponents speculate that the amendment could be challenged in court, leading to a potential decision that deems the parental consent law unconstitutional. However, similar arguments made prior to Michigan’s vote last year to codify abortion rights in the state’s constitution did not materialize.
Ultimately, the misinformation surrounding the Ohio abortion rights proposal highlights the need for accurate information and careful analysis of the potential effects of ballot measures.
