To the editor:
In November we'll be voting on a very important amendment.
The text on the ballot will read as follows: "The proposed amendment would: Establish in the Constitution of the state of Ohio an individual right to one's own reproductive medical treatment, including but not limited to abortion; create legal protections for any person or entity that assists a person with receiving reproductive medical treatment, including but not limited to abortion; prohibit the state of Ohio from directly or indirectly burdening, penalizing, or prohibiting abortion before an unborn child is determined to be viable, unless the state demonstrates that it is using the least restrictive means; grant a pregnant woman's treating physician the authority to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether an unborn child is viable; only allow the State to prohibit an abortion after an unborn child is determined by a pregnant woman's treating physician to be viable and only if the physician does not consider the abortion necessary to protect the pregnant woman's life or health; and always allow an unborn child to be aborted at any stage of pregnancy, regardless of viability if, in the treating physician's determination, the abortion is necessary to protect the pregnant woman's life or health."
The amendment's promises are vague.
Does an individual's right to reproductive medical treatment include trans procedures such as surgery or hormone blockers and is there an age limit?
Would this allow a 5-, 10- or 15-year-old to decide for himself/herself that they want to undergo such treatment?
It protects "entities" who help people exercise their right to such vague treatments.
It blocks Ohio from "burdening" individuals. Given the state of our legal system, a left-wing judge who wants to legislate from the bench can determine that a burden is anything they want it to be.
It allows the physician to determine viability which sounds fine until you realize the physician can be the abortionist, too. It's like putting the wolf in charge of the hen house.
We often hear of abortion exceptions including the life of the mother but also "health." Again, an intentionally vague word choice.
It doesn't mean your blood pressure or bodily health exclusively. It could be mental health, emotional health, financial health, etc.
"Always allow an unborn child to be aborted at any stage of pregnancy, regardless of viability if, in the treating physician's determination, the abortion is necessary to protect the pregnant woman's life or health."
Again, the wolf gets to decide, *up until the moment of delivery" if the baby is viable and if it messes up the mother's "health."
This is not a straightforward abortion rights amendment no matter how some writers in this paper or ads on TV will present it. This is the first Trojan Horse progressives will try and sneak into the state Constitution. This is what you were warned about back in August and, trust me, there are more coming down the pike.
Hold the line and vote no.
Brian Moffat
Wintersville