Earlier this month, Ohio voters officially approved Issue 1, which will officially make abortion a constitutional “right” in the state. The final vote was 56% in favor of Issue 1 and 44% against it.
The language on the ballot itself leaves the door open for interpretation, which could indirectly enable abortions up until birth. For example, one of the proposed changes is to
“Grant a pregnant woman’s treating physician the authority to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether an unborn child is viable.”
It becomes clear how language like this could easily override any protective measures against abortion. Since the baby’s “viability” can be determined on a case-by-case basis, physicians can easily use abstract medical criteria to deny it. Though many advocates on the other side will be quick to label this statement as a slippery slope fallacy, it is further reinforced by its supporters’ refusal to outlaw late-term abortions to protect against this.
Beyond the horrid implications of the ballot initiative itself, the way it was voted in also leaves room for concern. Reports from various news outlets have shown that pro-abortion groups in Ohio received nearly 3 times the funding that pro-life groups received, with pro-abortion groups receiving roughly $29 million compared to $10 million for pro-life groups.
Furthermore, the many of the largest donations on the pro–abortionist side came from outside Ohio. For example, an AP report indicated that “three gifts totaling $5.3 million from the progressive Sixteen Thirty Fund, based in Washington, D.C.”
Rather than letting Ohio voters decide for themselves, abortionists nationwide felt compelled to take any measure possible to sway the election towards the outcome they felt was most favorable.
Since pro-abortion groups had both control of the media and access to drastically more funding, they were able to control the exact narrative surrounding Issue 1. Their strategy has always been to silence any opposition rather than entertaining any sort of intellectual dialect. This is because abortionists know their arguments could not withstand intense scrutiny, which is why they rely on emotionally-charged slogans and fallacious red herrings to respond to pro-lifers.
Unfortunately, abortionists will continue in their pursuit until something forces them to halt. Their goal has been and always will be to perform as many abortions as possible. For these reasons, the pro-life movement needs to emphatically emphasize both the physical and mental consequences of abortion and the reality that women have other options beyond it.
For the sake of both women and the unborn, Ohio’s Issue 1 must not set a precedent for other swing states in the future. The intentionally vague language on the ballot leaves room for interpretation when it comes to determining the “viability” of a baby, indirectly allowing physicians to administer abortions as they please. This amendment is unprecedented and extreme, and it must be exposed for what it really is.