Ohio Board Sued For Approving 'Politicized, Deceptive' Language In Abortion Measure
Reproductive rights advocates in Ohio are suing a state board for approving “politicized, deceptive” and incorrect language on a ballot measure asking voters to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution.
The board refused to put the “clear, simple 194-word text of the Amendment” on the ballot and insisted on doing a rewrite, but “the adopted language is longer (by word count) than the Amendment it purports to condense,” the lawsuit states.
The text approved by the board uses language straight from the anti-abortion movement’s playbook. As Ohio state Rep. Elliot Forhan (D), a member of the board who opposed the rewritten language, noted at a hearing, the amendment “uses the medically correct term, ‘fetus,’ but the proposed language substitutes the phrase ... ‘unborn child,’ which reflects a personal viewpoint.”
The approved text also leaves out crucial information about the proposed amendment, the lawsuit states.
“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,” the plaintiffs wrote. “Yet the ballot language mentions only abortion, obscuring much of the Amendment’s scope.”
I think the Republicans are again hurting themselves and the opposition to abortion by resorting to dirty tricks rather than making a clear pro-life case against the amendment.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first hear of the possibility of this Amendment I was wondering whether I could support it, and that might depend mostly on its language.
The Republicans have made it a completely political process, and therefore a completely political rather than a moral decision.
I suspect many people will decide to vote for the Amendment simply because the Republicans have been so deceptive in their attacks on the Amendment. People will assume it must be a good idea because the Republicans are using such unfair methods to oppose it.
The Amendment may be defective, but it is probably better to vote for it than against it, given the Republican control of government in Ohio.
Thé GOP cannot be trusted to do things honestly. I used to think that true only of Democrats, but the GOP today is even worse.
ReplyDeleteI agree that pro-life advocates should try to make winning arguments rather than deceive voters. And as a practical matter, I believe the attempt to deceive blew up in their faces last year in Kansas.
ReplyDeleteThat said: some of the objections are more tendentious than others. Certainly, the wording on the ballot should accurately describe the content of the initiative (although I doubt the proposed alternative is completely slant-free). The claim that "fetus" is somehow more objectively correct than "unborn child" doesn't really pass muster.
Disagree. Those who do not think that abortion is murdering an unborn child differentiate between born people who are unquestionably persons, and the developing stages that pre edge personhood - those stages include zygote, blastocyst, embryos and fetuses. The prolife folk insist that a human being exists from the moment of conception - that the single celled zygote is a person and that ending its development is murdering a human being. Most do accept that a fetus at 24 weeks has all of the attributes of human beings other than being very dependent for survival on the host - the mother. But most fetuses who are born prematurely- at 24 weeks or later - can survive outside the womb with current NICU medical technology. In some rare cases even earlier.That’s why most Americans would agree to a first trimester or 15 week limit for legal abortion.
DeleteThe correct terms are fetus and embryo. Those who want to make abortion the equivalent of murdering a person from birth on are trying to slant the argument.
Whatever the language on the ballot, the actual change that will take place in the constitution is what the proponents had on the initiative which was signed by the appropriate number of citizens. Those changes to the constitution will use the language of fetus, not unborn child. People who are voting for or against the amendment have the right to see the actual amendment not a biased opinion about the amendment.
DeleteFor the opponents of the constitutional change to place their argument against it in the language of that is on the ballot is extremely offensive. It continues to demonize people who believe the unborn child is a fetus with the charge that they are baby killers.