Main Edition
US
FR
August 7, 2023 - 8:00pm
There is perhaps no issue that has hurt Republicans at the polling booth more than abortion over the last year and a half. And a special election in Ohio this Tuesday looks like it will be further proof of this.
On the day, there will be a lone statewide ballot item which proposes raising the threshold to amend the Ohio constitution to 60% of votes, up from a simple majority. The process has been in place for more than a century in the state, but in November voters will use it to decide whether to protect abortion rights.
If passed, it would establish “a fundamental right to reproductive freedom” with “reasonable limits”. This change in legislation would make it different from the current law where, after the Supreme Court’s overturning of the landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade, Ohio lawmakers passed a “heartbeat bill” that banned doctors from performing abortions after cardiac activity was detected, which can be as early as six weeks into a pregnancy.
Recent polls show that about 58% of Ohioans support the abortion rights amendment, which is why the anti-abortion Right wants to raise the threshold to 60%. And while this move may appeal to Christian conservatives, it is driving away a key demographic: women.
What Republicans do not seem to understand is that — both for the Ohio statewide vote and nationally — women outvote men by a large number, and this anti-abortion Republican stance drives away suburban women, a key voting bloc that has shifted lately in the Democrats’ direction.
Indeed, in the 2020 national election women outvoted men by 53-47%, a difference of almost 10 million voters nationwide. The reason this is important is that those 2020 voting numbers were in the pre-SCOTUS abortion ruling period. But given that roughly 60% of women see abortion as a healthcare and civil rights issue of personal significance to them, many who once aligned themselves with the GOP or were categorised as “undecideds” might look more closely at getting under the Democrats’ tent.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeAbortion is a difficult question, and people understandably hold different opinions. It seems a good practical solution, to me, to allow States to pass laws as their voters decide. I expect different States to decide differently, so people can move to a State with the laws they personally prefer.
Which is what has been happening, though in Ohio they seem to want to change the rules to suit themselves by raising the threshold to 60% instead of the usual simple majority. If they get away with it it would be extremely undemocratic in my view.
I think you’ll see less Republican states putting the issue to referendums though, as they’re being defeated almost every time they do
Personally I think that a clear majority rather than just 50% plus 1 should be required for any change from the existing. Change can be good in the long term but almost always difficult in the short term and simple majority could easily lead to laws flip flopping constantly.
Personally I think that a clear majority rather than just 50% plus 1 should be required for any change from the existing. Change can be good in the long term but almost always difficult in the short term and simple majority could easily lead to laws flip flopping constantly.
In the abstract, I agree. But in practical terms, many of those in the most dire circumstances, such as a teenager in abject poverty with a down syndrome baby, or pregnancies that result from rape and incest, will not be able to even leave the state they are in, much less re-locate according to their preferred state-abortion-laws.
Ohio’s policy makes
novery few exceptions and none for rape or incest,including life of the mother(*I was wrong on that, please excuse me). In various states, multiple women with, in effect, dead unborn babies in their bellies, have nearly died because some doctors are too afraid of personal liability for performing an abortion-like procedure on a baby who is dead before delivery or hopeless to survive outside the womb. Can such a “pregnant” woman in critical condition–a woman who was hoping to deliver her baby alive–just rise up and travel to another state before she dies too?I am not an abortion advocate, but I think a uniform federal limit of 15 weeks, the compromise which Ms. Finch reluctantly settles on above, makes sense given all the grim realities and mother-endangering complications that can arise.
Isn’t 15 weeks the standard used in most of Europe? That seems to be a reasonable common sense compromise, which pretty much guarantees no serious political candidate or party will endorse it.
Haha! Too close to true.
Haha! Too close to true.
Isn’t 15 weeks the standard used in most of Europe? That seems to be a reasonable common sense compromise, which pretty much guarantees no serious political candidate or party will endorse it.
Which is what has been happening, though in Ohio they seem to want to change the rules to suit themselves by raising the threshold to 60% instead of the usual simple majority. If they get away with it it would be extremely undemocratic in my view.
I think you’ll see less Republican states putting the issue to referendums though, as they’re being defeated almost every time they do
In the abstract, I agree. But in practical terms, many of those in the most dire circumstances, such as a teenager in abject poverty with a down syndrome baby, or pregnancies that result from rape and incest, will not be able to even leave the state they are in, much less re-locate according to their preferred state-abortion-laws.
Ohio’s policy makes
novery few exceptions and none for rape or incest,including life of the mother(*I was wrong on that, please excuse me). In various states, multiple women with, in effect, dead unborn babies in their bellies, have nearly died because some doctors are too afraid of personal liability for performing an abortion-like procedure on a baby who is dead before delivery or hopeless to survive outside the womb. Can such a “pregnant” woman in critical condition–a woman who was hoping to deliver her baby alive–just rise up and travel to another state before she dies too?I am not an abortion advocate, but I think a uniform federal limit of 15 weeks, the compromise which Ms. Finch reluctantly settles on above, makes sense given all the grim realities and mother-endangering complications that can arise.
Abortion is a difficult question, and people understandably hold different opinions. It seems a good practical solution, to me, to allow States to pass laws as their voters decide. I expect different States to decide differently, so people can move to a State with the laws they personally prefer.
Abortion is a tragedy as life begins at conception. Who would ever think it a happy option? But democracy seems to suggest that the majority are in support so a policy allowing abortion up to the point that the baby can feel pain (around 15 weeks) seems reasonable.
Abortion is one of the very few really difficult moral philosophical issues of the last century or so. Logically life either begins at conception or at birth and so abortion should either not be allowed at all (except possibly to prevent death of mother or other exceptional cases) or at any time up to birth.
However neither of those positions is bearable to huge numbers of people and so there is the current fudge which, in many countries/states. allows abortion up to some arbitrary time limit.
Maybe it is the only real solution in the real world but it leaves a nasty taste in the mouth for all.
Abortion is one of the very few really difficult moral philosophical issues of the last century or so. Logically life either begins at conception or at birth and so abortion should either not be allowed at all (except possibly to prevent death of mother or other exceptional cases) or at any time up to birth.
However neither of those positions is bearable to huge numbers of people and so there is the current fudge which, in many countries/states. allows abortion up to some arbitrary time limit.
Maybe it is the only real solution in the real world but it leaves a nasty taste in the mouth for all.
Abortion is a tragedy as life begins at conception. Who would ever think it a happy option? But democracy seems to suggest that the majority are in support so a policy allowing abortion up to the point that the baby can feel pain (around 15 weeks) seems reasonable.
Pro-life is not a “fringe” position, though the author may wish it were so.
Pro-life is not a “fringe” position, though the author may wish it were so.
This issue is being framed as being about abortion, which is the proximate cause of the current controversy. But that is very short-sighted. A Constitution should represent the basic values and activities – of the State of Ohio in this case.
The US Constitution is very difficult to amend for a very good reason. This prevents a back-and-forth amendment fight every time the mood of the country changes. Increasing the required vote to amend the Ohio Constitution from 50% to 60% would prevent this from becoming a frequent means of sneaking terrible legislation through with only 50% + 1 vote, which can be ginned up from a vocal minority.
I plan to vote for the Amendment AND for the ballot measure in November.
This issue is being framed as being about abortion, which is the proximate cause of the current controversy. But that is very short-sighted. A Constitution should represent the basic values and activities – of the State of Ohio in this case.
The US Constitution is very difficult to amend for a very good reason. This prevents a back-and-forth amendment fight every time the mood of the country changes. Increasing the required vote to amend the Ohio Constitution from 50% to 60% would prevent this from becoming a frequent means of sneaking terrible legislation through with only 50% + 1 vote, which can be ginned up from a vocal minority.
I plan to vote for the Amendment AND for the ballot measure in November.
Ohio’s current amendment process has been used to eke through a number of disastrous amendments. The most galling one to date is the casino gambling amendment that not just legalized casinos in state, but (per the state constitution) awarded them on specific pieces of land to a single casino corporation. Ohioans voted this down multiple times, but every damned cycle it was back, paid for by the same corrupt outfit, each time promissing a bigger and bigger and bigger payoff in terms of jobs and tax revenues. The reality, more than a decade later, has proven the entire campaign a miserable lie, but now we’re stuck with a constitutionally protected monopolistic racket. There’s more than abortion at stake here. Various marijuana amendments have been tried again and again and again, all voted down because of the same corruption concerns. We need this fix, amendment by 50%+1 is rife with abuse.
Ohio’s current amendment process has been used to eke through a number of disastrous amendments. The most galling one to date is the casino gambling amendment that not just legalized casinos in state, but (per the state constitution) awarded them on specific pieces of land to a single casino corporation. Ohioans voted this down multiple times, but every damned cycle it was back, paid for by the same corrupt outfit, each time promissing a bigger and bigger and bigger payoff in terms of jobs and tax revenues. The reality, more than a decade later, has proven the entire campaign a miserable lie, but now we’re stuck with a constitutionally protected monopolistic racket. There’s more than abortion at stake here. Various marijuana amendments have been tried again and again and again, all voted down because of the same corruption concerns. We need this fix, amendment by 50%+1 is rife with abuse.
Seems to me Republicans would be better off, tactically at least, taking a gradualist approach. It must be possible to find a middle way, the ‘safe, legal and rare’ approach that allows for a common ground. It’s not ideal for pro-lifers, but there’s no point being right and out of power. It also gives time to change the mood, bring people along, and provide practical financial remedies for mothers.
‘Safe, legal and rare’ was a Democrat slogan.
SO it is now ‘hate speech’
‘Safe, legal and rare’ was a Democrat slogan.
SO it is now ‘hate speech’
Seems to me Republicans would be better off, tactically at least, taking a gradualist approach. It must be possible to find a middle way, the ‘safe, legal and rare’ approach that allows for a common ground. It’s not ideal for pro-lifers, but there’s no point being right and out of power. It also gives time to change the mood, bring people along, and provide practical financial remedies for mothers.
Wow! What a dishonest piece of writing this is. The GOP is “playing to the fringe”? Perhaps the author has not done any research and is just reflecting his own prejudices. Poll after poll in the United States show that a clear majority of citizens favor limits on abortion. That, by definition, is no fringe. But the media love to parrot the agenda of the unbelievably well-funded Planned Parenthood ( an organization founded by Margaret Sanger, the infamous eugenicist ).
The problem for voters is that legislation – including propositions – are generally worded by progressivist legislators or activist groups in “either/or” language. It’s like the old question,”Have you stopped beating your wife?” There’s usually no way to vote on these engineered proposals without sounding like an extremist.
Wow! What a dishonest piece of writing this is. The GOP is “playing to the fringe”? Perhaps the author has not done any research and is just reflecting his own prejudices. Poll after poll in the United States show that a clear majority of citizens favor limits on abortion. That, by definition, is no fringe. But the media love to parrot the agenda of the unbelievably well-funded Planned Parenthood ( an organization founded by Margaret Sanger, the infamous eugenicist ).
The problem for voters is that legislation – including propositions – are generally worded by progressivist legislators or activist groups in “either/or” language. It’s like the old question,”Have you stopped beating your wife?” There’s usually no way to vote on these engineered proposals without sounding like an extremist.
As a man, I’ve always felt that abortion is an issue where I should defer to women. I can’t have a baby or an abortion, so I can’t fully appreciate the implications of the issue in any case. This is a fundamental biological difference that can’t be overlooked. I honestly think it would be proper to allow only women to vote on abortion rights, though I know that won’t happen. It’s sort of like how I only listen to rhetoric about black racism that comes from black persons and ignore white politicians and college professors that claim to understand the subject. Regardless, I don’t think this is as big an issue as the author claims. Abortion was never a deciding factor in national elections, and now that it’s not a federal issue, it will make even less difference. It will be an issue in statewide referenda and for state legislatures but I think as the immediate effect of overturning Roe recedes and states reach their various abortion compromises, the issue will simply fade to nothing at the national level.
What if your wife wanted to abort your child? Does she have the right to kill your baby? After all, “you’re not a woman”.
As you are a man, I have ignored your post.
What if your wife wanted to abort your child? Does she have the right to kill your baby? After all, “you’re not a woman”.
As you are a man, I have ignored your post.
As a man, I’ve always felt that abortion is an issue where I should defer to women. I can’t have a baby or an abortion, so I can’t fully appreciate the implications of the issue in any case. This is a fundamental biological difference that can’t be overlooked. I honestly think it would be proper to allow only women to vote on abortion rights, though I know that won’t happen. It’s sort of like how I only listen to rhetoric about black racism that comes from black persons and ignore white politicians and college professors that claim to understand the subject. Regardless, I don’t think this is as big an issue as the author claims. Abortion was never a deciding factor in national elections, and now that it’s not a federal issue, it will make even less difference. It will be an issue in statewide referenda and for state legislatures but I think as the immediate effect of overturning Roe recedes and states reach their various abortion compromises, the issue will simply fade to nothing at the national level.
I believe the “Supreme Court leak” was done purposely by Democrats for only political gain. Our justice system is too lame to find out who leaked to the press when so few had access? It’s ludicrous. By the way a 15 week limit unless extenuating circumstances is fine for me but radical up to birth abortion IS NOT
I believe the “Supreme Court leak” was done purposely by Democrats for only political gain. Our justice system is too lame to find out who leaked to the press when so few had access? It’s ludicrous. By the way a 15 week limit unless extenuating circumstances is fine for me but radical up to birth abortion IS NOT
Banning abortion will have a disastrous effect on the number of Black people being born each year in the US.
The downvotes must mean that a lot of people want abortions of Black babies to continue at their current rate of about 4 times higher than white women.
‘In Mississippi, Black women accounted for 74% of abortions in 2019’
No wonder that some people are battling for abortion rights…..
The downvotes must mean that a lot of people want abortions of Black babies to continue at their current rate of about 4 times higher than white women.
‘In Mississippi, Black women accounted for 74% of abortions in 2019’
No wonder that some people are battling for abortion rights…..
Banning abortion will have a disastrous effect on the number of Black people being born each year in the US.
I have never understood why men have a vote on this subject. I know many women who feel the same. It might be similar to a proposed states’ ‘law that required men to get a vasectomy for some reason, which I cannot fathom. But for the sake of argument , pretend there was a reason.
Would any man want a woman to vote on that issue? Give me a reasonable argument and I will listen.
Men should be banned from working in abortion clinics.
Playing devil’s advocate, but women are not yet capable of creating children without the help of a man. All pregnancies, and therefore all abortions, impact on men as well. Fathers should have a veto.
If fathers were forced to look after their offspring that might be a reasonable proposition,
“If fathers were forced to look after their offspring”
They are. There is an entire branch of the UK government dedicated to collecting child support.
“If fathers were forced to look after their offspring”
They are. There is an entire branch of the UK government dedicated to collecting child support.
If fathers were forced to look after their offspring that might be a reasonable proposition,
Vasectomy isn’t killing a baby. Vasectomy is comparable to woman’s ligation ( tying of her tubes), which would be birth control.
Vasectomy is comparable to woman’s tubal ligation and very different from an abortion
So you want women to have the absolute right to say whether or not a human life should continue or be terminated. Do you also want women to bear absolute responsibility for that life when it is not terminated? Do you wish to absolve men of all their responsibilities towards that life? With absolute rights come absolute responsibilities. If men have no reproductive rights, then you cannot reasonably expect them to accept responsibilities towards the lives they are part of creating. And what about husbands? Can we reasonably argue that a man who has committed himself fully to a woman and to their future offspring should have no say in these matters?
Do womb dwellers get to vote on the matter?! Not according to the landlady!
Men should be banned from working in abortion clinics.
Playing devil’s advocate, but women are not yet capable of creating children without the help of a man. All pregnancies, and therefore all abortions, impact on men as well. Fathers should have a veto.
Vasectomy isn’t killing a baby. Vasectomy is comparable to woman’s ligation ( tying of her tubes), which would be birth control.
Vasectomy is comparable to woman’s tubal ligation and very different from an abortion
So you want women to have the absolute right to say whether or not a human life should continue or be terminated. Do you also want women to bear absolute responsibility for that life when it is not terminated? Do you wish to absolve men of all their responsibilities towards that life? With absolute rights come absolute responsibilities. If men have no reproductive rights, then you cannot reasonably expect them to accept responsibilities towards the lives they are part of creating. And what about husbands? Can we reasonably argue that a man who has committed himself fully to a woman and to their future offspring should have no say in these matters?
Do womb dwellers get to vote on the matter?! Not according to the landlady!
I have never understood why men have a vote on this subject. I know many women who feel the same. It might be similar to a proposed states’ ‘law that required men to get a vasectomy for some reason, which I cannot fathom. But for the sake of argument , pretend there was a reason.
Would any man want a woman to vote on that issue? Give me a reasonable argument and I will listen.
The “pro-life” movement is nothing more than an attempt to control women and their bodies by those who call themselves Christian.
It will fail.
No, it isn’t. It’s a sincere desire to protect unborn children whose right to life is denied, and not in most cases because of serious health risks to the mother or rape or incest – as the original proponents of legalisation claimed was all they wanted.
Furthermore, the 24 week limit in the UK – already among the most liberal in Europe – was set at a time when most births at that point would not be viable. Now the majority are. Yet any attempt to question that limit is routinely shouted down and mis-characterised as “an attempt to control women and their bodies” as you term it.
Despite my beliefs, however, I accept I live in a democratic society, and if the consensus is to continue to allow abortion on a demand up to 24 weeks, then I have to accept that. Society has to agree at what point the rights of the unborn and their mothers are balanced. The extremists now are those on the other side who want to take “the right to choose” to its logical extreme and remove any limit at all right up to birth – which is what would effectively happen if abortion were “de-criminalised” as many are campaigning for.
Just a pedantic point but in the UK abortion is NOT, legally, allowed on demand. Rather only when 2 doctors agree it meets certain specified criteria. In practice however……
So should the law be enforced as it is or be changed to reflect current reality or some other position. Whatever it should not stay as it is with an important law being ignored!
Just a pedantic point but in the UK abortion is NOT, legally, allowed on demand. Rather only when 2 doctors agree it meets certain specified criteria. In practice however……
So should the law be enforced as it is or be changed to reflect current reality or some other position. Whatever it should not stay as it is with an important law being ignored!
How to contrive so much stupidity in one short sentence.
Sorry, but women’s bodies are already being controlled by the people who demanded that they must wear face-masks.
Or mandatory vaccination for certain jobs or travelling to the US
Or mandatory vaccination for certain jobs or travelling to the US
This person is a troll. He deals with slurs, insults, and crude mudslinging. Don’t engage.
No, it isn’t. It’s a sincere desire to protect unborn children whose right to life is denied, and not in most cases because of serious health risks to the mother or rape or incest – as the original proponents of legalisation claimed was all they wanted.
Furthermore, the 24 week limit in the UK – already among the most liberal in Europe – was set at a time when most births at that point would not be viable. Now the majority are. Yet any attempt to question that limit is routinely shouted down and mis-characterised as “an attempt to control women and their bodies” as you term it.
Despite my beliefs, however, I accept I live in a democratic society, and if the consensus is to continue to allow abortion on a demand up to 24 weeks, then I have to accept that. Society has to agree at what point the rights of the unborn and their mothers are balanced. The extremists now are those on the other side who want to take “the right to choose” to its logical extreme and remove any limit at all right up to birth – which is what would effectively happen if abortion were “de-criminalised” as many are campaigning for.
How to contrive so much stupidity in one short sentence.
Sorry, but women’s bodies are already being controlled by the people who demanded that they must wear face-masks.
This person is a troll. He deals with slurs, insults, and crude mudslinging. Don’t engage.
The “pro-life” movement is nothing more than an attempt to control women and their bodies by those who call themselves Christian.
It will fail.