Ohio - the result of overreach
-
Horrible. But it never had to happen. Now Ohioans can get high and kill full term babies. Oh, happy day.
@Mik, “Issue 1” places the power on whether to abort back in the hands on individuals — individual pregnant women and individual physicians. You still have faith in the power of the individuals, right? Trust that these individuals will do the right thing on a case by case basis.
-
I have no problem with voters deciding whether abortion should be legal. After all, that's basically what Dobbs did.
I do have a problem with enshrining it in the State's Constitution. Make it a matter of law, not a matter of the foundation of the state.
My understanding is also that Issue 1 allows the state to restrict abortion after fetal viability.
Allows ≠ Mandate.
-
I have no problem with voters deciding whether abortion should be legal. After all, that's basically what Dobbs did.
I do have a problem with enshrining it in the State's Constitution. Make it a matter of law, not a matter of the foundation of the state.
My understanding is also that Issue 1 allows the state to restrict abortion after fetal viability.
Allows ≠ Mandate.
@George-K said in Ohio - the result of overreach:
I have no problem with voters deciding whether abortion should be legal. After all, that's basically what Dobbs did.
I do have a problem with enshrining it in the State's Constitution. Make it a matter of law, not a matter of the foundation of the state.
My understanding is also that Issue 1 allows the state to restrict abortion after fetal viability.
Allows ≠ Mandate.
It enshrines in the State’s Constitution the individuals’ freedom to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether abortion is right for their individual circumstances. It allows the individuals to make that decision, it does not mandate the decision for individuals. Roe v. Wade used to give all individuals throughout the Union the latitude to make those decisions, then Dodd took that away and now some state’ individuals have lost the freedom to make that decision. Ohio’s Issue 1 gives back to the individuals in Ohio what they used to have with Roe v. Wade before Dodd.
-
@George-K said in Ohio - the result of overreach:
I have no problem with voters deciding whether abortion should be legal. After all, that's basically what Dobbs did.
I do have a problem with enshrining it in the State's Constitution. Make it a matter of law, not a matter of the foundation of the state.
My understanding is also that Issue 1 allows the state to restrict abortion after fetal viability.
Allows ≠ Mandate.
It enshrines in the State’s Constitution the individuals’ freedom to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether abortion is right for their individual circumstances. It allows the individuals to make that decision, it does not mandate the decision for individuals. Roe v. Wade used to give all individuals throughout the Union the latitude to make those decisions, then Dodd took that away and now some state’ individuals have lost the freedom to make that decision. Ohio’s Issue 1 gives back to the individuals in Ohio what they used to have with Roe v. Wade before Dodd.
@Axtremus said in Ohio - the result of overreach:
Ohio’s Issue 1 gives back to the individuals in Ohio what they used to have with Roe v. Wade before Dodd.
THat's basically what I said.
But, in Dobbs, SCOTUS said there's no constitutional right to abortion. What states do is up to them. If a state wants to enshrine that in its constitution, fine. I think it's unwise - every other special-interest group will be clamoring for constitutional amendments to secure their vision of what a "right" is.
It allows the individuals to make that decision, it does not mandate the decision for individuals.
@Axtremus my comment about mandate referred to the state being able to determine the point after which an abortion is proscribed. Do you think the state should mandate the time during which an abortion is allowed? That's in Issue #1.
-
This is my problem with Ohio's referendums - they all change the constitution. We elect representatives to craft and enact laws. The issue 1 language is so vague that it could apply to all sorts of other issues. Laws are carefully and deliberately crafted, as they should be. This is not. It is crafted as a camel's nose under the tent for all sorts of things that can be construed to constitute reproductive health.
-
This is my problem with Ohio's referendums - they all change the constitution. We elect representatives to craft and enact laws. The issue 1 language is so vague that it could apply to all sorts of other issues. Laws are carefully and deliberately crafted, as they should be. This is not. It is crafted as a camel's nose under the tent for all sorts of things that can be construed to constitute reproductive health.
@Mik said in Ohio - the result of overreach:
This is my problem with Ohio's referendums - they all change the constitution. We elect representatives to craft and enact laws. The issue 1 language is so vague that it could apply to all sorts of other issues. Laws are carefully and deliberately crafted, as they should be. This is not. It is crafted as a camel's nose under the tent for all sorts of things that can be construed to constitute reproductive health.
I heard a pretty sharp lawyer say the wording of Issue 1 is so vague, it begs lawsuits.
And it was done that way on purpose.
