Ohioans: Don’t Be Deceived about Issue One!
Ohioans: Don’t Be Deceived about Issue One!
Ohioans vote Tuesday on Issue 1, a referendum question that would write abortion on demand through birth into the state constitution.
John M. Grondelski - NOV 6, 2023
Ohioans vote Tuesday on Issue 1, a referendum question that would write abortion on demand through birth into the state constitution. Buckeyes: Don’t let pro-abortion advocates lie to you about the extremes of this amendment.
This amendment legalizes abortion through birth for any reason. No restriction on abortion prior to birth would be constitutional in Ohio.
Anybody who claims that is not true is lying. The amendment pays lip service to the notion of “viability” — i.e., the point at which a fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb, generally about 20 weeks (5 months).
But the amendment’s “restriction” is no restriction at all. Why? Three reasons.
The amendment itself carefully does not say when viability occurs.
It does say that determination is up to the person performing the abortion — i.e., somebody who has a vested interest in removing that restriction.
And the amendment says the restriction can be waived in the name of the mother’s “health” — but does not define “health.” That definition is not self-evident or common sense. We know from nearly fifty years of Roe v. Wade that the Supreme Court stretched “health” to include emotional and psychological satisfaction. So if you’d be unhappy that you can’t have an abortion when you want it? Your “health” is endangered. That’s not fantasy. That’s not fiction. That’s almost half a century of precedents.
Do you believe that abortion should be legal for any reason at seven, eight, or nine months of pregnancy? Issue One guarantees abortion at those stages.
Do you believe that an abortionist should be able to carry out partial-birth abortions? (A partial birth abortion occurs in the last three months of pregnancy, when the fetus is delivered but for its head, which is then punctured with a surgical scissor.) Federal law bans that procedure. Issue One would put Ohio into conflict with federal law. Perhaps even more importantly, it would protect that barbarism in Ohio.
Sure, abortionists will say “there is no such thing as ‘partial-birth abortion,’” because they don’t like the name of the procedure. They prefer “dilation and evacuation.” Po-tae-to, po-tah-to. That procedure as a way of delivering — and delivering the fatal coup de grâce to an unborn child that is generally capable of living outside the womb — is used and would be protected under Issue One.
I keep writing in this article about “abortionists” performing abortions. It’s not just because it’s accurate but because, if Issue One passes, Ohio would not necessarily limit performing abortions to physicians.
Many pro-abortion states — California, for example — allow nurses to perform abortions. Interestingly, California law still requires veterinarians — animal doctors — to perform abortions on animals. (Apparently, prenatal complications with cows and horses sometimes require them.) But not on human beings.
Abortionists will claim that abortion is so “safe” a procedure that there’s no reason to restrict performing abortions to doctors. Do you want an invasive procedure permitted by somebody not a doctor? Why is abortion always the only “medical procedure” abortionists want no regulations of?
Not limited to doctors.
Not limited to OB-GYNS. (Kermit Gosnell, the Philadelphia abortionist serving a life term for illegal, late-term abortions and manslaughter during a botched abortion of a Bhutanese refugee woman — pleaded down from third-degree murder — was not an OB-GYN. He was a general practitioner. Pennsylvania, which had pro-life laws, also had a pro-abortion governor unwilling to enforce them, whose Health Department overlooked Gosnell’s unsanitary conditions. Ohio would not even be allowed to have those laws.)
Not requiring doctors to be have admitting privileges in a local hospital. (Abortionists claim it’s “unnecessary” because, sure, a hospital will take in an emergency patient. But it’s also a dirty little secret that lots of abortionists have no local connections, but often travel to multiple places.)
Not requiring normal statistical data and reporting. (One reason there is a lack of clarity about abortion is that some states with large numbers of abortions don’t report them to federal health care data collectors. Do you want Ohio in that pool?)
If you are a parent, do you think your consent should be required for your minor daughter to get an abortion? Under Issue One, that would not be true.
If you are a parent, do you think you should be told (notified) if your minor daughter is to get an abortion? Under Issue One, you would have no right to that information.
It’s November. School started two months ago. Think back. You probably had to sign a bunch of papers as to what medicines or medical procedures you authorize for your child. Do you allow the school nurse to give her an aspirin for a headache? To take her to the hospital if she has a concussion on the soccer field playing against a “trans-girl”? Yes? Yes?
Then why is your consent needed for an aspirin but not an abortion? For a clinic visit for a concussion but not dilation and curettage?
Ask yourself what Issue One really entails. Because, if you do, I’m betting you’re going to vote “no” Tuesday...and you’re going to share this column with friends to explain why they should vote “no,” too.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/11/ohioans_dont_be_deceived_about_issue_one.html