Abortion rights supporters in Ohio have filed a lawsuit with the state’s Supreme Court after officials approved new ballot summary language for a proposed amendment that would enshrine abortion rights into the state’s constitution.
The amendment, known as Issue 1, has been spearheaded by abortion rights activists and would establish “the right to reproductive freedom with protections for health and safety” in the state constitution.
The measure, which will be voted on in November, comes after a special election in August in which conservatives sought to make it harder to amend the constitution by raising the required threshold of support. The August measure, which was also known as Issue 1, was overwhelmingly rejected by voters in what was seen as a major victory for the abortion rights movement.
Now five voters, along with Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights, are arguing now that the language on the November ballot measure, which was approved last week by the Ohio State Elections Board, aims “improperly to mislead Ohioans and persuade them to oppose the amendment.”
The plaintiffs highlighted several issues with the newly approved language, including the use of the term “unborn child” rather than “fetus,” which was used in the original amendment; changing “pregnant patient” to “pregnant woman;” and the mention of only four of the five reproductive decisions afforded to patients.
According to the lawsuit, “the Amendment would protect reproductive decisions, including five express categories of personal reproductive decisions: those to do with contraception, fertility treatment, continuing a pregnancy, miscarriage care, and abortion.” By mentioning only abortion, those filing the suit argue that this purposely obscures and restricts the amendment’s scope.
The lawsuit also states that “after fetal viability, the Amendment would authorize the State to restrict abortion or to prohibit it outright, subject only to an exception to protect the pregnant person’s life or health.”
“Issue One was clearly written to protect Ohio’s right to make our own personal health care decisions about contraception, pregnancy and abortion,” said Ohio United for Reproductive Rights spokesperson Lauren Blauvelt. “The entire summary is propaganda that is written by anti-abortion politicians and we are going to talk about all of the reasons why Ohio voters should just be able to see the language for what it is.”
Backers of the amendment are calling on the Ohio court in their lawsuit to “reconvene and adopt ballot language that properly and lawfully describes the Amendment,” by reinstating the summary’s original language.
The board’s leader, Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose, who has publicly opposed the amendment and argued that its original version was too long, said that he believed the ballot summary was “fair” and “accurate,” according to reporting from the Ohio Capital Journal.
In a statement to The Hill, LaRose’s office pushed back on the criticism of the ballot measure language.
“Regarding the ballot summary, the ballot board didn’t ‘change’ any ballot summary language,” said interim press secretary Mary Cianciolo. “The ballot board is constitutionally required to adopt ballot language that properly identifies the substance of the proposal. The language adopted by the ballot board last week meets that constitutional requirement. The constitution does not require the ballot board to adopt the selective language proposed by initiative petitioners.”
“We cannot comment on the lawsuit that has been filed as this office does not comment on pending litigation,” Cianciolo added.
The lawsuit follows a long battle from pro-abortion advocates in the state who have had to contend with numerous conservative-backed efforts to make it tougher to amend the state constitution to protect abortion and raise the threshold for approving future changes to the state constitution. Attempts to block the amendment since it was approved in March were also rejected by the Ohio Supreme Court.
The Ohio ballot measure has become the next big test case for abortion rights in the country, an issue that has conjured up widespread concerns among Republicans as the 2024 election cycle continues.
