Ohio passes Issue 1 ballot measure enshrining abortion protections

Ohio has passed a ballot measure, Issue 1, that enshrines abortion protections into the state constitution. The measure protects access to abortion up until fetal viability, with exceptions for the life and health of the patient. This is a significant win for Democrats and abortion rights advocates in a state that has become increasingly red. The passage of this measure could have implications for other states and highlights the ongoing importance of the abortion issue in politics.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4295884-ohio-issue-1-ballot-measure-abortion-rights/

A ballot measure seeking to enshrine abortion protections into Ohio’s state constitution is projected to pass, according to Decision Desk HQ, delivering a major win for Democrats and abortion rights advocates ahead of 2024.

The proposed constitutional amendment would protect access to abortion up until fetal viability, with exceptions for the life and health of the patient beyond that point. It’s the first time that abortion rights advocates have been able to pass abortion protections in a state that’s trended increasingly red in recent years.​

 

lots of younger republicans voted yes. The pro Issue one side spent 3-4 times more money than the anti side and the ads by Pro Issue One were more effective, IMHO. the anti vote ads were mainly Mike Dewine saying it went too far without explaining why and some blonde claiming she was pro choice but it allowed partial birth abortion (almost never happens in reality). The pro legalization issue also won fairly easily too-I wonder if lots of stoners voted pro choice? I voted yes on both BTW. the ban on abortion was way too early-in most cases before women even knew they are pregnant

 

anti-choice republicans are so out of touch with the people

 

it depends how anti choice they are. those who want to ban abortion in all cases are way out of touch and are harming the GOP in MOST elections. Those who support abortion for the rape of the mother, incest, medical necessity, and before say 20 weeks etc, are in tune with much of America. Of course they run the risk of being attacked for inconsistency by the bible thumpers-because to the bible thumpers-the "child" is innocent no matter how it was conceived. Many people have no use for those who use abortion as birth control or for those women who brag about having had multiple abortions. And there are people such as me, who believe it should be legal-at least for the first 20-24 weeks for ANY reason and for rape and incest and medical reasons, who have a dim view of those who make no effort to prevent unwanted pregnancy and then kill what is a living entity-even if it is not a legal human. That being said, the alternative-a ban on abortion is worse IMHO

 

States rights are a great way to protect individual rights. Way easier to convince a couple million people than a couple hundred million. This is how we'll end up having to protect 1A and 2A rights as well- at the state level. The feds dont seem interested in any rights anymore.

 

Abortion is becoming a losing cause for Republicans now. A few years ago it was same sex marriage. Hopefully they will at least decriminalize weed.

 

Yes, in tune with much of America-- and not "anti-choice," a.k.a., Pro Life. The inconsistency here, is your own. When a person favors some gun control measures (which describes the vast majority of the public) you have stated that you suspect they want to ban guns, altogether-- which only applies, in reality, to a tiny minority. When it comes to Pro-Life (or anti-Choice) supporters, however, is when your never-satisfied model, actually would have validity; yet you do not see it? LOL.

No matter how limited the time frame, it is always longer than the anti-Choice crowd would like it to be. They look at every restriction as only a partial victory. Tell me what Pro Lifer, after getting abortion restricted to 15 weeks, was ever happy to leave it at that? Or at 12 weeks? Even in all the states which reduced it to six weeks, you have got to know that anti-Choicers want to get rid of that window, as well. It is because the philosophy behind their reasoning, is the belief that:
1) life begins at conception; so that
2) all abortion is murder.

This same, absolutist mentality, does not exist in everyone who sees the sensibility in Red Flag laws, or believes in universal background checks, or even among those who feel that assault weapons should not be available to the public. So you misapply your "gun banners" term, while being blind to the "abortion-banners?"

That's pretty funny.

 

completely different topics except for one thing-many anti abortion types claim they want to ban abortion to save "innocent life." many gun banners claim th e same thing

and in many cases both are lying-rather they want to ban something to harass people they don't like

 

That’s a mentally lazy conclusion.
Living to harass others is a petty, puerile approach, more worthy of a trump whine.
It’s more likely that they are zealous in their beliefs and engaged in life’s competition of ideas.

 

Democrats are amazed at how Democracy should work. Thanks conservatives on the USSC for saving our Democracy from the anti-democracy Democrats.

 

And they legalized mari-chu-huana.

 

The anti-Democrats are amazed at how a Democracy is suppose to work. Let the people decide and not have this issue shoved down peoples throats. Thank you USSC conservative justices for saving our Democracy.

 

Pelosi while Speaker had a bill to legalize MJ but she never took a vote on it. This should be legalized at the federal level. Thankfully States are utilizing democratic values to do the right thing. State's rights are a wonderful thing. More power to the people where it belongs. Big government destroys democracies.

 

Dems have had many bills to do it but they have all failed.

Some States are, while others like Florida won't allow things like pot legalization or abortion on the ballot because they know people would vote to legalize it.

 

The republicans in the Seneate refused to pass it

"House passes landmark marijuana legalization bill"

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-vote-bill-legalize-marijuana-rcna22527

"Pelosi said the legislation would deliver "justice for those harmed by the brutal, unfair consequences of criminalization," open opportunities for people to participate in the industry and decriminalize pot at the federal level "so we do not repeat the grave mistakes of our past.""

 

it is not anti-choice because the baby being killed is never given a choice.

That being said, I absolutely believe that it should be a states issue, not fed. It comes down to morality and morality cannot be, and should not be legislated. The same should be said with forcing electric vehicles down our throats by attacking fossil fuels. It is not the role of govt let the market decide.

The more we put things back upon states, the more folks can choose where they want to live.

 

absolutely. We have allowed too much power to reside in DC.

 

glad to hear you would be against a federal law banning abortion

agree, I am against the government forcing EV's on people, when they are good enough, people will choose them

same with religion, if it's good enough, people will choose it themselves, only a bad religion needs to be forced on people via the government

 

read my post. Abortion must never be determined by the fed govt. Is it up to you or me to try and punish a woman for killing a baby? In the end, that is what occurs. A baby gets killed. While I find abortion to be reprehensible; I am not the one to pass judgement . It is not a woman's health issue like some try and claim. A life gets extinguished, plain and simple. It is a morality issue. Naturally the next step would be to question why murder is a criminal offense. Is the killing of one life different from the other because one of the lives happens to be a baby? Those are moral questions and cuts right to the core of who you or I are and what we believe.
The taking of a life is a taking of a life, no matter what you want to call it.

 

as long as you are pro-choice, that is good enough for me, not choosing an abortion is part of being pro-choice too

 

ISSUE 1 was a ballot initiative. Meaning it's a law that the people voted on. I think prior the OH legislature (or was it the OH Supreme Court? ) wanted to put it at 6 weeks. Nuts to that. Ohioians 'the people' said 'NO!'

 

What does it say about a country that the most important issue seems to be mothers being able to kill their unborn babies simply because they do not want them to live?

 

If a mother kills her born baby do you think you should be able to pass judgement? Do you think you should be able to pass judgement on rape? Robbery? Assault? What about someone who murders a grown adult?

 

You mean Republicans who do not believe unborn babies should be killed simply because their mother doesn't want them to be born? Pro-kill the baby Democrats do seem to be winning so what does that say about our country?

 

No, no, it's not 'plain and simple'.

No one knows when life begins. Does it begin at inception? 10 weeks, 22 weeks? No one knows.

The idea of forcing a child raped to give birth is also reprehensible, and most anti-abortion folks at least allow for abortion on a rape/incest victim.

However, if they allow for it, they are 'killing an innocent baby' if we accept your belief.

So, by your own belief, most of you who think abortion before viability is murder, are literally complicit in murder when you allow for abortion for rape/incest, and, again, 'if we accept your belief about when life begins'. "IF".

Now, I don't believe life begins at inception. I follow eastern philosophy which asserts that life begins prenatally, at some juncture, but not right away. My view is that, looking at it logically, the more a fetus resembles a human, the more likely a soul has reincarnated or will reincarnate into it. But souls do not reincarnate into a zygote, or whatever they are called, at inception. That's nonsense. However, that is my own spiritual belief which is close to spiritual teachings by some Eastern gurus. And, of course, religion and beliefs should have nothing to do with public policy ('whose religion?' is the dilemma). But, the point is, your view isn't necessary the truth, it's just your belief versus mine, versus others. Know one knows. I say it's on the woman and her medical people, family too, perhaps, and not the government and at least we agree (I think) on that much.