The revised language by the Republican-controlled Ohio Ballot Board of the proposed abortion rights constitutional amendment should be edited again to restore accuracy so voters have a good understanding of the amendment.
The new ballot language was crafted by a partisan majority last week, ostensibly to make the intent and purpose of the proposed amendment guaranteeing freedom of abortion in Ohio more clear.
In general, it creates more confusion than it does clarity.
At issue is the question that Ohio voters will decide in a statewide election that ends on Nov. 7.
Voters will be able to cast absentee and early votes as early as Oct. 11.
The proposal on the ballot would override Ohio’s current abortion law, which permits abortions up to about 22 weeks of gestation.
As written by the proponents, the proposed Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety would add a right for individuals to generally make decisions involving contraception, fertility treatment, miscarriage care, and abortion.
Government would be prohibited from interfering in abortion decisions before a fetus reaches viability.
Viability would be defined as the point when, in the judgment of the woman’s doctor, the fetus has a “significant likelihood of survival outside the uterus with reasonable measures.”
The furious proponents of the abortion rights amendment are appealing to the Ohio Supreme Court to restore the original wording (“Abortion rights proposal: Supporters suing over Ohio ballot language,” Tuesday).
As it did with the wording of Issue 1 that was defeated on Aug. 8, the Supreme Court needs to step in and do some wordsmithing.
The role of the Ohio Ballot Board should be to make sure the language is neutral and transparent and easy to understand in layman’s language, not lay a thumb on the scale.
As written by its proponents, the amendment is expressed in sterile, clinical, legal language, bereft of the rhetoric that both sides use to influence the public. There is no reference to “woman,” “mother,” or “child.”
The ballot board wants to change “fetus” to “unborn child.” There’s no reason except to elicit an emotional reaction.
One doesn’t have to read between the lines to understand that it bars the Ohio General Assembly from prohibiting abortions for any individual who wants one, up to viability.
After viability, an abortion can be performed at any point if the mother’s doctor says it is necessary to protect her life or health.
The ballot board’s proposed language inserts ungrammatical language. For instance, instead of saying the “pregnant patient” has the right to make one’s reproductive decisions, the ballot board’s language says the “pregnant woman” has the right to “one’s own reproductive medical treatment.”
This is meaningless language, and it’s an abuse of the board’s discretion.
The ballot board’s summary says the amendment would “always allow an unborn child to be aborted” if a physician determines it necessary. Even if the mother doesn’t want the abortion? It’s nonsense and should be corrected.
The Supreme Court should strike all but the most neutral wording changes and allow the proposed amendment to speak for itself — and voters to make intelligent and wise decisions.
First Published September 1, 2023, 4:00 a.m.
