Ohio voters will determine the level of ease for pro-abortion interest groups to amend their constitution.

Protecting Ohio Against Special Interest Groups

A ‍special election in Ohio next week will ⁤determine if ‍Republicans’ push to protect their state against special interest groups’ abortion activism is successful.

Outside activist groups are‌ aware ​of the struggles they face when trying to ram ‌their radical abortion and anti-parent agenda through Republican-led⁢ states. Ohio,​ where⁣ the governorship, ​state ​legislature, secretary of state’s office,‍ and attorney general’s office are controlled by Republicans, is no exception.

Current⁤ state law requires a simple majority, 50 percent plus ⁣one, for ​voter-proposed constitutional‍ amendments​ to be ratified. ⁤Issue 1, which Ohio voters‌ will ‍settle on Aug. 8, ensures that the state’s governing document may ⁢not be so ‍flippantly modified.

Bigger Than One Ballot Measure

Tuesday’s special election is ⁢an explicit attempt by the state ⁣GOP to prevent an outsider‍ operation⁣ like the one executed in Kansas in 2022 from significantly changing Ohio’s political landscape on abortion, parental rights, and even guns, which ‌Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb has ​ already promised to target ‌via ballot measure.

In⁢ Kansas,⁢ out-of-state ​ donors and special interest groups that opposed a⁢ homegrown pro-life amendment raised millions to expand⁣ Midwestern abortion operations.​ Their deliberately deceptive practices led voters to ⁣reject a⁣ proposal ⁢that‌ would have declared there is no ‌constitutional​ right in Kansas to abortion, taxpayer-funded or​ otherwise.

Ohio voters are already facing their ⁤first hurdle in a similar battle.

National activist organizations like the ACLU, Planned​ Parenthood, and various LGBT groups banded together earlier this year to add⁢ a ballot proposal that would enshrine abortion up until birth ⁣in the state ‌constitution, as well as override parental consent laws for minors seeking irreversible ⁣gender experiments.

The deliberately vague​ proposal would decree that “every individual has a right” to “reproductive decisions” regardless of age‌ or trimester. ‌Advocates ⁣and their petitioner pawns promise ⁣abortions “may be prohibited after fetal viability,” but all a woman needs to get around such⁤ a law,​ thanks to the proposal’s generous ⁣language, is a doctor’s opinion that she needs an‍ abortion for the sake of her “health,” which is left open to interpretation.

In February, an attorney for the ACLU⁤ of Ohio, a member of the euphemistically-named⁢ Ohioans for Reproductive Freedom ⁢(ORF) coalition, confirmed that if ⁢their​ constitutional amendment passes, laws requiring parents to consent before ⁤their teen daughter gets an abortion would not necessarily be enforced.

Unite for⁤ Reproductive ⁤& Gender Equity, another member of the ORF coalition and ‌proud supporter of “sex-positive, gender-expansive, ‍and abortion positive” policies,‌ also openly opposes parental consent legislation.

The ballot proposal‌ won’t be up for a vote until November but is directly intertwined with the​ special election next week.

The Battle for Ohio

Ohio Republicans recognize the long-term consequences a proposal like the ⁤one scheduled to ⁤appear on the⁤ ballot in November would have for their ‌state and constituents, so ​they passed a resolution in May that asked voters to decide this month if constitutional amendments should require ⁤a ‌supermajority — a ⁤60 percent threshold vote —⁣ to be ratified.

Issue ⁢1 also asks voters to sign off on “elevating the standards” for constitutional amendments by ⁣requiring petitions “be signed ⁣by at least five percent⁤ of the electors ⁤of each ​county based on the ⁣total‍ vote in⁢ the county” for ⁤the‍ latest gubernatorial election‍ and ⁤banning the⁢ addition of signatures to a petition​ after submission to the ‌Ohio secretary of state.

For their efforts to protect their elections from external forces, the GOP government ⁣was smeared⁢ by local papers, corporate media outlets,‌ and the groups touting ⁣the pro-abortion and gender⁢ ideology proposal. Planned Parenthood activist‍ and⁤ ORF chair Lauren Blauvelt went‌ so far as to ⁢accuse lawmakers of “working overtime to dismantle democracy as⁢ we know ‍it.”

Intrastate polling yields conflicting data on⁣ how​ Ohioans plan to vote on Issue 1. ​Yet even the‍ competing results ⁤of polls ​from Ohio Northern University and USA Today/Suffolk University, the latter of which was criticized for overinflating opposition to ⁣Issue 1, both acknowledge ‌that a significant portion of voters were still undecided on the issue in the weeks preceding the election.

Pro-life ⁢and pro-parent groups in the state who have a vested ‌interest in the November ballot proposal capitalized⁢ on⁣ this gap‌ by⁢ rolling out millions of dollars⁢ of ads that expose the leftist campaign to‍ transform Ohio’s⁤ constitution.

“The secret is out: Ohio has some of the weakest requirements in the country for passing constitutional amendments and greedy, out-of-state special interest ‍groups ​with deep pockets know it,” Protect ‌Women Ohio board member Molly Smith said ‌in a statement. “That makes Ohio a prime target for radical special interest groups, like the ACLU, to parachute into the state and ​strip parents of their rights. Enough is enough. It’s time to pass ‌Issue 1⁤ and put long​ overdue, common-sense protections in​ place.”