Abortion Amendment is too Radical for the Mainstream Media
Editor’s Note: Even though the vote on this issue did not go our way, we are keeping this piece posted on OTR so readers can see for themselves whether the author's predictions following the vote are coming true.
Issue 1 is not only the most radical pro-abortion proposal in our nation’s history – it has hidden dangers permitting atrocities that would make it the most gruesome law we have ever seen.
Even our state media are beginning to recognize that truth.
In last week’s editorial, I detailed how the proposed constitutional amendment would be catastrophic for the Black community, already suffering under a hideous legacy of abortion.
My colleague Sen. Kristina Roegner explained how this law would allow abortion on demand for any reason – which is why we, and our senate colleagues, voted to approve Resolution 215, opposing Issue 1 on the November ballot.
This week, I would like to alert you to the equally frightening hidden dangers in the proposed amendment that would allow horrifying atrocities including:
- genital mutilation of children without parental consent
- children having abortions without parental consent
- gruesome late-term abortions of fully conscious babies
Proponents and some media fact-checkers say that is not true – Issue 1 would not allow these procedures because they are never explicitly mentioned.
They have it exactly backwards. Issue I would allow these atrocities precisely because they are never mentioned in the amendment.
The point is not that they are not explicitly permitted.
The point is they are not explicitly prohibited.
Therefore they ARE permitted.
That’s because the wording of the amendment says what it allows is:
“...not limited to decisions on:
1. contraception;
2. fertility treatment;
3. continuing one’s own pregnancy;
4. miscarriage care;
5. and abortion.”
“Not limited to” literally means without limit. There are no limits on what “reproductive decisions” a person may make.
Including children obtaining puberty blockers. With or without parental consent. Or even notification. The law would permit doctors to perform genital mutilation on children under the guise of the horrific euphemism “gender-affirming care.” With or without parental consent. Or even notification.
Who could blame a judge for ruling that any of the atrocities mentioned above must be allowed if the vague, shoddy, and dangerous wording of this amendment were to become law?
Despite what they may say, proponents of this bill know it would allow genital mutilation surgery. That’s because they consider “gender-affirming care” to be a “reproductive decision.”
Here’s proof – straight from the horse’s mouth.
Planned Parenthood publicly and unequivocally states in a tweet that it believes “abortion goes hand-in-hand with advocating for gender-affirming care.”
In their minds, "gender-afffirming care" includes providing puberty blockers to children and surgically performing genital mutilation on them.
Is that what you want to vote for?
We understand that Americans can have legitimate differences of opinion on abortion. It is an extremely difficult, complex, and emotional issue. And good people can come to different conclusions in good faith.
But do any of us really want to sign up for this?
Do we really want a law that permanently enshrines in our state’s constitution the right to surgically mutilate children?
That allows a Planned Parenthood doctor to perform the gruesome torture of a late-term abortion at any moment up to birth?
That allows children to have abortions without obtaining their parents’ consent -- or even notification?
I think all of us – those who support abortion and those who oppose it – I think we can all agree – this is too much.
This law goes way too far.
The public seems to be catching on to the truth. Opposition to Issue 1 is gaining momentum as a shift in public opinion seems underway.
Opinion-makers in Ohio’s mainstream media are having second thoughts, apparently finding this amendment too much for reasonable people to support, no matter whether they are liberal or conservative.
The Cleveland Plain Dealer announced it would not endorse Issue 1 in an editorial board statement published just last Sunday.
The Akron Beacon Journal also just decided to neither support or oppose Issue 1.
The Toledo Blade Editorial Board decided to do more than straddle the fence. It just published a piece titled “Issue 1 overreach,” opposing the amendment.
The Blade concludes, “This amendment to the state constitution goes too far and should be defeated.”
And, “it would likely liberalize abortion policy beyond the rulings of Roe vs. Wade.”
The board added, “With just one doctor’s say-so, this amendment would allow late-term elective abortions of nearly fully grown unborn babies, something Ohioans should not be willing to stomach as a constitutional right.”
We couldn’t agree more.