Opponents of abortion in Ohio are spending millions on attack ads targeting a proposed November ballot measure that would enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution.
But his attacks are focused on two other issues: the rights of transgender people and the rights of parents.
Officials from the group behind the ads, Protect Women Ohio, argue that the proposed amendment is intentionally worded to be construed to allow minors to obtain abortion services and undergo gender-affirming surgery without parental consent or notification. parents.
Nonpartisan experts say the ads are inaccurate and misleading, while reproductive rights advocates argue they are misdirection designed to distract voters from protecting abortion rights, an issue on which the public does not side with the anti-abortion movement.
The November proposed measure would allow voters to decide whether to insert language in the Ohio Constitution which enshrines the right of each person “to make and carry out their own reproductive decisions” including, “but not limited to”, decisions regarding contraception, fertility treatment, continuation of pregnancy, miscarriage care and abortion. It also specifies that the state will not “charge, penalize, prohibit, interfere with, or discriminate” against those rights.
Organizations on both sides of the abortion divide have allocated tens of millions of dollars in advertising. Officials from the reproductive rights coalition who support the amendment have said they plan to spend at least $35 million through November, more than groups opposing it.
But Protect Women Ohio, the biggest anti-abortion spender, has used your ads to argue that the proposed amendment would do allow minors undergoing “sex reassignment surgery” without the “knowledge or involvement of their parents”. So far, the group has committed $25 million for ads, some of which began running in March, that will run through the November election.
The ads claim that the “not limited to” language is a way for abortion rights advocates to expand the measure to provide protection for a greater number of culture war issues, some of which, such as the issue of allowing minors undergo a sex change. operations without parental consent: polls indicate that voters are more likely to reject them.
in those ads and in their websiteProtect Women Ohio alleges that decisions about a person’s gender identity, including gender reassignment surgery, are an integral part of “reproductive decisions,” a key phrase in the proposed amendment.
It also has an aggressive target, in particular, against the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, a civil rights organization that works on a wide variety of issues, including the rights of transgender people. Protect Women Ohio ads and statements they argue that the group’s presence in the pro-amendment coalition is evidence of a push beyond abortion rights.
But there is no mention of transgender rights or parental rights in the amendment. In addition, nonpartisan constitutional law experts say there is virtually no way the language could legally be construed to apply to most issues not specifically mentioned in the measure’s language, even when considering the phrase “not limited to”.
“Opponents have seized on ‘but not limited to’ language to say that this could provide a constitutional right to, among other things, gender-affirming rights to care. That is not a legally persuasive argument,” said Jonathan Entin, an expert on constitutional law and professor emeritus at Case Western Reserve School of Law in Cleveland.
Entin said that for “decades, perhaps centuries,” courts have developed rules on the interpretation of legal documents that include lists, including those with language “but not limited to,” that dictate that that language covers things considered only ” plausibly related” to the specific. mentioned items.
“Gender-affirming care is a great extension of the items that are on the list,” Entin said.
Rather, Entin and abortion rights supporters said, the opponents’ argument is political, possibly designed to take advantage of voter attitudes that are far less favorable to providing transgender rights for minors than they are to protecting abortion rights.
Kellie Copeland, treasurer of Ohioans for Reproductive Freedom, one of the groups behind the amendment, said: “They are promoting a false narrative about our campaign. None of the accusations made in these ads are true. Our reproductive freedom amendment is not not impact gender-related care.”
There’s a reason anti-abortion groups may want to talk about more than just abortion: abortion access is popular, much more so than expanding transgender rights, for example.
Public surveys have found that about 59% of Ohio voters support enshrining abortion rights in the state constitution.
Compared, That poll, conducted last fall by Baldwin Wallace University, near Cleveland, found that just 25% of voters said they strongly or somewhat supported laws “allowing medical professionals to provide medical care to persons under the age of 18 for a gender transition.” Sixty-six percent of those polled said they were strongly opposed or somewhat.
Amy Natoce, a spokeswoman for Protect Women Ohio, said in a series of emails that the group’s message was “well founded,” claiming that the proposed amendment was “intentionally written using extremely broad language.”
Natoce said it was “no coincidence” that “the words ‘female’ and ‘adult’ do not appear anywhere in the amendment.”
“The language means that minors can obtain abortions and other life-altering medical procedures,” he wrote.
In a separate email, Natoce accused the ACLU and its Ohio affiliate of having a “long and well-documented record of attacking parental rights, pushing trans ideology in classrooms, and encouraging child sex changes.” “.
The ACLU of Ohio is one of the eight founding partners that formed the Ohioans for Reproductive Freedom coalition. It contributes “time and resources” such as funding, staff, knockers and lawyers, said Gabe Mann, a spokesman for the coalition.
When asked about the attacks, Jocelyn Rosnick, policy director for the ACLU of Ohio, said in a statement that “the ACLU has spent more than a century protecting personal liberties.”
“These freedoms are exactly what groups like this are attacking right now, so it’s no surprise they are attacking the ACLU along with the protections Ohio families need,” Rosnick said.
Meanwhile, Protect Women Ohio has used the same strategy in ads urging Voters approve an August ballot measure that could make it harder for abortion rights supporters to amend the state constitution in November. The Aug. 8 ballot measure, known as Issue 1, will ask voters to decide whether to increase the limit of support required for future state constitutional reforms at 60%. Currently, only a majority is needed.
In the year since the US Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade, Republicans across the country have had a hard time talking to voters about abortion rights.
For example, abortion rights advocates enjoyed a sweeping victory last year in all six states (including conservative ones like Kentucky and Kansas) where they placed referendums on the ballot that, like Ohio’s bill, proposed enshrining reproductive rights in states. constitutions
Reproductive health care advocates said the results have forced opponents of abortion to shape the November election around a different issue.
“These groups have had 50 years to make their case for extreme abortion bans, but people don’t buy it. That is why they are spending millions to spread these lies to Ohioans,” Copeland said.
His group, along with Protect Choice Ohio, submitted the required number of signatures to place the proposed amendment on this month’s ballot.
State officials are still reviewing the signatures for duplicates and other possible errors, and Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose has until Tuesday to formally sign if the measure is placed on the ballot.
