Ohioans will have a chance to vote on a controversial issue concerning what types of laws the state can make in regards to abortion. The United States Supreme Court ruled that abortion laws were a state and not a federal concern, leaving each state to make its own rules.
Some have expressed concern that Issue One goes too far and will result in abortions long past the point a baby could survive outside the womb. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost says he had a legal team review the proposed legislation to look at what issues he thinks will arise if it passes.
According to Yost, “The First Amendment safeguards even wrong information, and the government largely lacks the authority to restrain information.”
Yost directed his legal teams to break down the controversial bill. He says this information is not taking a side but breaking down exactly what the proposed laws would actually do. “Ohio voters deserve an impartial resource that offers an objective analysis of the legal implications of both citizen-initiated initiatives,” Yost said. “The decision regarding which policy path is best for Ohio lies with voters, not with me.”
Here are the major takeaways from Issue One. According to Yost, some of the language is vague and open to many interpretations.
The law says that individuals have a right to carry out their own reproductive decisions including but not limited to decisions on contraception, fertility treatment, continuing their pregnancy, miscarriage care, and abortion.
It says the state can’t directly or indirectly burden, penalize, prohibit, or discriminate against a person exercising this right or anyone assisting them unless it shows its using the least restrictive method to advance the person’s healthcare.
As Yost said, those words could be interpreted widely. However, the state could still prohibit abortion at the point a fetus could survive outside the womb unless the mother’s health was in danger. What constitutes viability would be determined on a case-by-case basis.
In Yost’s legal team’s opinion, this law goes further than previous cases Planned Parenthood vs. Casey and Roe vs. Wade. “The proposed abortion Amendment would create a new standard that goes further than Casey’s “undue burden” test or Roe’s original “strict scrutiny” test and will make it harder for Ohio to maintain the kinds of law already upheld as valid prior to last year’s decision in Dobbs. In other words, the Amendment would give greater protection to abortion to be free from regulation than at any time in Ohio’s history. That new test includes definitions and other terms that likewise make it harder for any law covering “reproductive decisions” to survive. This change is significant: The Amendment would not return things to how they were before Dobbs overruled Roe, and is not just “restoring Roe.” It goes further”
Yost says he fears the law would limit the state to only consider advancing the pregnant individual’s health when making laws and leave other interests such as fetal life or medical ethics.
In his assessment, this law would invalidate the Heartbeat Act and Ohio’s Down Syndrome discrimination law that forbids abortion strictly motivated by a fetal Down Syndrome diagnosis. Despite the wording that the state could regulate post-viable abortions, Yost’s team feels the language in the law could undermine other regulations concerning what responsibility medical professionals have toward maintaining life. The team also expressed concern that the terminology requiring the least restrictive methods could undermine abortion pill regulations and limitations on minors seeking abortions.
