More than 170 clergymen who lead congregations in 23 counties across Ohio issued a joint statement on Thursday condemning a radical ballot measure that could codify a supposed “right” to abortion in the state constitution.
“The Ohio faith community has consistently advocated for the sanctity of life and also advocated for moral clarity regarding childhood sexuality. With the mandate from GOD, we will not be silent on issues affecting our culture,” the statement reads in part.
“[W]e support the sanctity of life and believe the anti-family Issue 1 will normalize child abuse and strip parents of their God-given roles to raise their own children,” the statement continues. “This Fall on Tuesday November 7th, we encourage Ohioans to protect life and “VOTE NO” on Issue 1.”
The clergymen further called the language of the measure “diabolical” and warned that it “may bring sweeping changes with it” if passed.
“As lead clergymen from 171 congregations, we believe the language of Issue 1 is deceptively vague and detrimental to the basic, inalienable, and GOD-given rights of parents and children. In fact, parents and children are not even mentioned in Issue 1,” they said.
The statement comes after more than 100 prominent black faith and community leaders from across the political spectrum in Ohio released a letter encouraging a “no” vote on Issue 1. The letter reads:
This is not a party line vote, nor is Issue 1 a Republican or Democrat issue. This is a moral issue and for the Black community in particular, it is a life-or-death matter. Only 13 percent of Ohio’s population is Black, yet 48 percent of abortions undergone by residents of our state are performed on Black women – a tragic and difficult reality that our community cannot ignore.
“Even more alarming is the number of Black children – 20 million – who were killed in the womb between 1973 and the overturning of Roe v. Wade by the U.S. Supreme Court last June. That is enough to fill Ohio stadium more than 194 times,” the letter continued.
“Enough is enough. The Black community supports life. We have a rich pro-life history, rooted in our love of family and in our abiding faith and belief that God is the ultimate author of every life,” it reads. “As Psalm 139:13-14 declares, ‘For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.'”
Ohio Abortion Activist Fails to Clarify Broad Wording of Issue 1 in TV Debate
The clergymen and pastors joined other critics of the abortion ballot measure who have urgently warned that the broad language of the amendment would decimate parental rights, lead to abortion throughout pregnancy, and even allow minors to pursue sex-change procedures. Members of the pro-abortion coalition have notably long campaigned to end parental involvement laws.
The amendment was put forward by Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights (OURR)— a coalition comprised of far-left groups such as URGE, ACLU of Ohio, and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Ohio. The amendment notably uses the broad term “individual” rather than defining an age limit, and uses the umbrella terms “health” and “reproductive decisions,” which has left many Ohioans confused about just how far reaching the amendment could be.
The pro-abortion groups pushing the amendment have dumped significant sums into framing a “yes” vote on Issue 1 as a vote for “freedom,” and have invoked conservative imagery, opposition to government overreach, and mentions of “faith” and family” to convince Ohioans to support the killing of the unborn. Pro-abortion groups successfully employed a similar strategy in the 2022 midterms, when abortion was on the ballot in states like Kansas and Michigan.
The language of the Ohio amendment, which was changed significantly by Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose (R), 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.” It would also:
- 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 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;
- Grants 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 id 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.
Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost published a legal analysis of Issue 1 and found that, while the language makes no mention of parental consent laws, “the parental-consent statute would certainly be challenged on the basis that Issue 1 gives abortion rights to any pregnant ‘individual,’ not just to a ‘woman.”’
Yost also noted that regulation of post-viability abortions would be “technically possible but would be ineffective” if the amendment passes.
“The Amendment allows the State to prohibit abortion after viability, ‘but in no case’ if the doctor thinks it necessary to protect the mother’s life or health — a broad concept that is not defined in the Amendment,” he wrote. “Issue 1 gives sole discretion to the physician in deciding if the law applies, with no requirement for a second opinion or objective criteria for evaluating the physician’s professional judgment.”
On the topic of transgender drugs and surgeries becoming available to any Ohioan if the amendment passes, Yost said the vague ballot language leaves “outcomes uncertain.”
He wrote:
These other areas of law are harder to assess because Ohio does not have specific statutes addressing minors’ access to these medical treatments or products. However, if the word “individual” as used in the Amendment includes minors, Ohio’s general laws concerning minors and health care could be affected.
Some other States have enacted, and some Ohio legislators have proposed, laws regarding transgender treatment of minors. Given the uncertainty of the breadth of the terms “reproductive decision” and “individual,” as discussed above regarding parental consent for abortion, challenges are certainly likely, with outcomes uncertain.
It would certainly be too much to say that under Issue 1 all treatments for gender dysphoria would be mandated at the minor individual’s discretion and without parental involvement. This is a developing area of the law nationally, and all that could be said with certainty is that Issue 1, if passed, would impact the analysis of any future law.
The ACLU of Ohio is responsible for crafting the broad original language of the proposed abortion amendment, along with other groups such as Planned Parenthood. Left-wing fact-checkers have quickly asserted that the amendment would not impact parental rights. But when local media questioned the ACLU of Ohio about whether the language of the measure would undo parental consent and notification laws, the organization vaguely indicated that those laws would not stand if the amendment passes.
Ohio election officials are predicting the issue may drive “heavier-than normal turnout for an off-year vote,” AP reported. Ohioans will also vote on whether to legalize recreational marijuana.
Early voting began last week in the Ohio election and continues through election day on November 7.
Katherine Hamilton is a political reporter for Breitbart News. You can follow her on X @thekat_hamilton.
