The outcome is being closely watched by Democrats and Republicans looking to measure the strength of voter anger over the loss of federal abortion protections.
- Share full article
The outcome of Ohio’s abortion ballot is being watched closely by Democrats and Republicans looking to measure the continuing strength of the anger among voters over the loss of Roe v. Wade.
Ohio voters are deciding on a ballot measure that would amend the state’s Constitution to explicitly guarantee the right to abortion.
The outcome is being watched closely by Democrats and Republicans looking to measure the continuing strength of the anger among voters at the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which last year drove many new voters toward the Democrats.
Abortion-rights supporters have been on a winning streak with ballot measures since the court’s decision, winning six out of six last year, including in conservative states such as Kentucky and Kansas. They are looking to put similar measures before voters in at least four other red and purple states next year.
But Ohio has been their toughest fight. It is the first red state where voters are being asked to affirmatively establish a right to abortion in the state constitution, rather than reject a right established by courts. Historically, voters in Ohio have been inclined to vote against efforts to change the Constitution by ballot measure.
Republicans who control state government have leaned on the power of their offices to encourage a “no” vote. They called a special election in August to try to pass their own constitutional amendment that would have made future amendments harder to pass by requiring a supermajority instead of a simple majority. That measure failed, but as early voting began in October, the Republican secretary of state, Frank LaRose, without notice began purging registration rolls of people who had not cast ballots in recent years.
ImageSupporters of abortion rights gather at the Van Aken Market Hall to talk about the ballot measure in Shaker Heights, Ohio last month.Credit…Maddie McGarvey for The New York TimesImageMaddie Crytzer of Students for Life, which opposes abortion, talks to students about voting “No” on Issue 1 at Otterbein University in Westerville, Ohio last month.Credit…Maddie McGarvey for The New York Times
A “yes” vote would amend the Ohio Constitution to establish the “right to make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions,” including on abortion. The state could prohibit abortion after viability, or around 23 weeks, the standard under Roe, except in cases where the patient’s doctor determines it is necessary to protect her life or health.
But that amendment does not appear on the ballot. Instead voters see a summary approved by Mr. LaRose saying the amendment “would always allow an unborn child to be aborted at any stage of pregnancy, regardless of viability.”
Polls have shown that 58 percent of Ohioans, including most Democrats and independent voters, intend to vote yes. But a more recent poll showed less support for the amendment — still a bare majority — among people who were shown the summary rather than the actual amendment.
The state legislature has banned abortions after around six weeks of pregnancy since 2019, but that ban has been on hold pending a ruling from the state Supreme Court, whose members are believed to oppose a right to abortion.
Supporters of the measure have appealed to concern about government overreach, arguing that politicians should not have control over private health care decisions.
Anti-abortion groups have leaned into Americans’ disapproval of abortions late in pregnancy, with ads arguing the amendment would allow “partial birth abortions.” The phrase refers to a kind of abortion procedure that has been banned by federal law since 2007. Abortions after 21 weeks are extremely rare and usually because of severe medical diagnoses.
Kate Zernike is a national correspondent. She was a member of a team that shared a 2002 Pulitzer Prize for a series of stories about Al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 attacks. She is the author of “The Exceptions: Nancy Hopkins, MIT, and the Fight for Women in Science.” More about Kate Zernike
- Share full article
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
Source: nytimes.com
