Abortion advocates are perverting the truth regarding Ohio’s proposed abortion amendment and what it will actually do. They are quick to criticize anyone shedding light on the truth of the abortion-expanding amendment.
Protect Women Ohio, a newly formed coalition aimed at defeating the extreme abortion amendment, is sponsoring a $5 million ad campaign showing the implications of the so-called “Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety” amendment.
The ad is available HERE for viewing and sharing.
[Click here to subscribe to Pregnancy Help News!]
Local Ohio broadcaster Bruce Hooley effectively characterized the media’s negative coverage of Protect Women Ohio’s efforts.
“The pro-amendment side wants you to stay uninformed,” Hooley noted.
Tweet This: The pro-amendment side in the Ohio abortion amendment issue wants the public to stay uninformed
Pregnancy Help News (PHN) reached out to three of the five individuals comprising a committee representing the abortion ballot proposal petitioners: Nancy Kramer, Dr. Ebony Speakes-Hall and Dr. David Hackney.
Kramer, an IBM Consultant and Corporate Board Member, initially indicated she would talk with PHN, but then deleted the message.
Speakes-Hall, Dean of Diversity, Equity & Inclusion for the College of Allied Health Services at University of Cincinnati, referred us on to the ACLU of Ohio Communications Team, who to date have not responded.
Hackney, OB-GYN at University Hospitals in Cleveland, has not responded to date.
His co-authoring of the recent article, “The urgent need for physician-led abortion advocacy on physician-led abortion advocacy,” would indicate that this issue is a priority for him, so should the doctor respond to the inquiry, PHN will file an update.
If the individuals representing the abortion amendment’s petitioners are unwilling to respond to inquiries about the proposal, how much information can Ohioans expect will be forthcoming from those circulating the actual petitions?
According to Ohio Right to Life, the abortion lobby’s ballot initiative's language to enshrine abortion into Ohio's constitution would allow for abortion with no restrictions and possibly remove all pro-life protections for the unborn currently in place, including parental consent.
Results of the extreme abortion amendment if passed:
• Abortion would be legal through all 9 months of pregnancy with zero restrictions.
• Parental Consent would be removed.
• Health and safety standards for abortion mills would be revoked
• Taxpayers would be required to pay for abortions.
So far media coverage has focused on the first portion of the amendment which says that “Every individual has a right to make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions, including but not limited to decisions on contraception, fertility treatment, continuing one’s own pregnancy, miscarriage care and abortion.”
This singular obfuscating statement does not represent the intent of the amendment, and the media’s combining it with the similar extraneous talking point quotes from abortion advocates is at best misleading, and as a matter of indicating what the law would do if enacted, amounts to outright lying.
The statement itself mentions rights already protected by current Ohio law. By referencing contraception, fertility treatment, and miscarriage care, all without further clarification, amendment proponents can confuse petition signers and voters into believing that without this amendment these things are currently restricted by law.
A reading of the full text of the proposed amendment will clarify the amendment’s intended expansion of abortion on demand to the point of viability and beyond.
Keep in mind abortion is not needed to protect a woman’s life, the current law has and still protects a woman’s life, and the process for this is induced labor.
Language further into the proposed amendment divulges the intent to bring abortion on demand and abortion for minors without parental consent:
“The State shall not, directly or indirectly, burden, penalize, prohibit, interfere with, or discriminate against either an individual’s voluntary exercise of this right or 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.”
Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost followed the requirements of the law in receiving and processing the initial petition to advance the ballot initiative.
“I cannot base my determination on the wisdom or folly of a proposed amendment as a matter of public policy,” Yost explained in a statement. “These arguments must be addressed to the electorate, not to me.”
Yost stated further:
“A duty that never compels an unpleasant duty or act is not duty, but self-service, the opposite of public service—government by solipsism. That way lies chaos, and ultimately the breakdown of self-governance. I state these first principles because it has become increasingly common for elected leaders to ignore them when convenient, and the process is accelerating as each side in our perpetual conflicts expects their own to act as faithlessly as the other side. Enough.”
“Indeed, there are significant problems with the proposed amendment,” Yost warned, “and if adopted, it will not end the long-running litigation on this topic, but simply transform it.”
Hooley noted the danger posed by the amendment by referencing a National Review (NR) article sounding the alarm on the unconstrained language of the abortion proposal and its implications for parents.
The NR article stated in part:
“A natural reading would extend to any medical procedure that involves the human reproductive system, including sex-change surgery. The language also applies to individuals without any age qualification, so the proposal makes no distinction between adults and minors. Additional language would deny parents the right to any intervention on behalf of their children that would discourage them from obtaining the procedure in question.”
“Going forward they will present the most extreme example that the left can concoct or point to as an example of why we need this amendment,” Hooley told Pregnancy Help News regarding the proposed amendment’s apologists.
“They will highlight the 10-year-old girl from Columbus who was raped and taken to Indiana for an abortion,” he said.
“They use that to point out ‘oh this poor girl had to go to the state of Indiana to have an abortion’ which is not true,” said Hooley. “This was a criminal act where the laws of Ohio were sufficient for her to have that pregnancy terminated.”
“They will present other examples of someone who has an ectopic pregnancy, and they can’t get a doctor to take care of it because the heartbeat bill exists or whatever,” he added. “They will not be genuine about what this bill will allow if enacted into law.”
PHN reported on the exploitation of a 10-year-old girl whose situation became a false narrative, and also the potential harm to women when false narratives regarding miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy are reported and repeated in the media.
Hooley said this is going to be decided by whether Ohioans know the risks of not voting, “Because I do not believe this is anywhere close to a majority opinion in favor of this legislation.”
“But if the proponents of the law are successful in lying about it, if the proponents of this law are successful in hiding the truth about it, then it has a chance to pass,” he said.
Hooley is concerned whether pro-life advocates will be successful in informing the typical Ohio resident of what is in this radical amendment, and he cautions against laziness or inattention to detail in fighting it.
He believes it would be horrific for the state and for young people if it is adopted, especially so in the black community.
“We need influential black people to tell the truth about the disproportionate impact on the black community from abortion,” Hooley said.
“The force of evil is very powerful, and we would be very unwise to underestimate it,” said Hooley. “We each need to take personal ownership of this.”
No doubt this is a consequential moment in the state of Ohio.
Ohioans and pro-life advocates must prepare and engage in this battle to inform citizens of Ohio to understand and know the truth about this radical abortion ballot initiative.
