November 2023 Ohio Issue 1

In 2019, the Ohio legislature passed a near-total ban on abortion, without exceptions for the health of the mother, rape, incest, or minors.

This current statue became briefly active after Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. During the time it was in place, at least multiple children fled the state for abortions after being raped.[4] The most notable case involved a ten-year-old girl from Columbus, Ohio, United States, traveled to Indiana on On June 30, 2022 to get an abortion because current statutory law in Ohio does not provide an exception those who became pregnant because of rape. Her case drew national attention and commentary from public figures, due in part to its proximity to the June 24, 2022, decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and allowed states, including Ohio, to impose unlimited limitations on abortion access.[5][19][20][21]

Her rapist was arrested by July 13. Before this arrest was made public, Ohio politicians who oppose legal abortion access called the story a hoax; Ohio's attorney general Dave Yost said, "Every day that goes by, the more likely that this is a fabrication."[22] After news of the arrest validated the Star's story, these sources did not apologize for claiming the story was a hoax.[23] Jim Bopp, the general counsel for the National Right to Life Committee, said in an interview that the girl should have been forced to bear the child under law, and that "She would have had the baby, and as many women who have had babies as a result of rape, we would hope that she would understand the reason and ultimately the benefit of having the child."[24] In September 2022, shortly after Ohio's 6-week abortion ban went into effect, a woman made national news when she almost bled to death after an Ohio hospital refused to treat her miscarriage.[25] Presently, "a state court put the ban on hold again while a challenge alleging it violates the state constitution plays out".[5]

On February 21, 2023, Ohioans for Reproductive Freedom, the group leading support for the initiative, filed the amendment's language with the office of Ohio Attorney General, Dave Yost,[26] who certified it on March 2, sending it to the Ohio Ballot Board,[27] who further certified the proposed amendment on March 13, permitting supporters to begin collecting signatures.[3] On July 5, supporters filed 709,786 signatures, nearly 300,000 more than the minimum number required. Ohio Secretary of State, Frank LaRose, certified the petition on July 25, 2023, after certifying 495,938 valid signatures, more than the approximately 410,000 required.[28]

The Ohio Republican Party tried to thwart this constitutional amendment by attempting to change the rules so as to increase to 60% the threshold required for referendum passage in an August 8 special election, known as August 2023 Ohio Issue 1. The voters of Ohio rejected this change 57%-43%, keeping the threshold for passage at 50%+1.[29]

On August 11, the Ohio Supreme Court unanimously rejected a lawsuit filed July 28 that would keep the initiative off the ballot.[30][31]

The "against" campaign has suffered from intense infighting after comments made by Lizzie Marbach.[16] A fundamentalist Protestant who was communications director for Ohio Right To Life, she labeled a depiction of Our Lady of Guadalupe in a Catholic Church as "idolatry", implied that non-Christians would go to hell, and repeatedly called for an end to the separation of church and state.[16] Marbach has since proceeded to describe the "against" campaign as a means of enacting fundamentalist Protestant supremacy in law,[18] and called for restrictions or bans on birth control and in vitro fertilization if the referendum fails. After comments described as anti-Jewish and anti-Catholic, she was fired in mid-August 2023.[16] Jewish Republican congressmen Max Miller (OH-7) responded to Marbach on Twitter that "this is one of the most bigoted tweets I have ever seen" and to "delete it, Lizzie." The conversation continued with Miller stating that "God says that Jewish people are the chosen ones, but yet you say we have no hope. Thanks for your pearl of wisdom today" and that "religious freedom in the United States applies to every religion".[17] Several Catholic anti-abortion activists urged opponents of the measure to not cast a ballot, or, cast one intentionally spoiled as a protest vote in the wake of the controversy, stating that the "against" campaign was furthering anti-Catholicism.[16]

Proponents of the amendment initially suggested that the amendment appear in full on voters' ballots in November. However, the Ohio Ballot Board substituted its own summary wording to appear before voters. The summary, written by Ohio Secretary of State and Republican Senate candidate Frank LaRose and approved by the Ballot Board's Republican majority, received criticism for its allegedly biased language, including substituting the word "unborn child" for the medically accurate term "fetus" and omitting reference to other rights the proposed amendment would protect, including contraception, miscarriage care, and fertility treatment. Abortion rights groups sued to have the full text of the amendment presented on the ballot, but the Republican majority on the Ohio Supreme Court sided with the Ballot Board, allowing the contentious language to appear in the ballot summary.[35]

The Ballot Board's summary received criticism from medical groups as well as some voices opposed to legal abortion access, who have described it as deliberately deceiving voters to vote "no" under false pretexts.[36] National conservative columnist Jude Russo wrote that "[we] have failed to persuade the American people. Simply put: Lawyerly tricks (and tricky lawyers) are losers. Asking the commons to cede power voluntarily is a loser"[37] and that "a rush of [intentionally] badly-worded state referenda is not a program."[38] The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecology stated: "The language used to discuss abortion has a profound impact on how people form their opinions about reproductive health care, and the emotionally charged language that will now be presented to voters is neither clinically nor legally sound."[36]

Advertisements from the "against" campaign falsely claiming that the referendum would take away parental rights and force transgender surgery on children has received widespread criticism from legal experts who described it as misleading and baseless.[39] Constitutional law expert Jonathan Entin writes:[39]

The opponents are saying, "Well, but there's this language that says 'including but not limited to'..." But that's bogus.

and:[39]

If you drink too much alcohol, if you ingest certain drugs, if you drive too fast — all of those things could have shorter or longer term implications for your ability to reproduce... That doesn't mean that speed limits and drug laws and alcohol regulations are somehow going to be affected by this amendment if it's adopted.

Anti-abortion Catholic columnist Mary Pezzulo criticized the advertisements: "They’re claiming that the constitutional amendment will somehow lead to children being allowed to get gender transition surgery without their parents knowing or being able to stop it. Again, this is nonsense. Children can’t get elective medical procedures without a parent’s consent. And the proposed amendment says absolutely nothing about gender transition." and that "they’re lying to get people to vote against Issue One."[40] She went on to state:[40]

Opposing abortion is supposed to be all about the personhood of the unborn baby. Why are we [lying] about parents’ rights [being taken away]?