Ohio voters may face anti-abortion amendment in 2012

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Columbus Dispatch

Ohio voters may face anti-abortion amendment in 2012
By Catherine Candisky
The Columbus Dispatch Wednesday August 31, 2011 11:50 PM

Abortion-rights advocates are vowing to fight efforts to place a constitutional amendment before voters that, if approved, would outlaw abortions in Ohio by redefining when life begins.

Personhood USA is circulating petitions in Ohio and elsewhere, part of the Colorado-based group’s effort to rewrite the laws of every state to recognize a fertilized egg as a person. Such recognition would make abortions illegal.

Colorado voters defeated such proposals in 2008 and 2010, but undeterred, Personhood USA hopes to have proposals on the November 2012 ballot in two dozen states, including Ohio.

“Here we go with another out-of-state extremist group trying to take away reproductive rights of Ohio women,” said Kellie Copeland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio.



Read more: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2011/08/31/ohio-voters-may-face-anti-abortion-amendment-in-2012.html

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Just like the Energizer Bunny...

They just keep going at it....

Over and over and over and over...

NGU.

We could take a big lesson from them. Persistence is how they get anywhere.


I hope Ohio stops them.

[Kalidurga]

2. Does this mean some medical fertilization methods would be outlawed as well...

lets say a woman is implanted with 8 embryos and all 8 take, but her doctor advises that she only carry 2 to term for her health as well as the health of the surviving embryos. Would that mean she is going to be forced by law to try to carry all 8 of them to term even if it means she could die and her embryos as well?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. That's a good question, and I really don't know.

[JohnnyRingo]

4. What a coincidence!

With SB5 on the ballot, and conservatives needing every vote they can get to uphold the ammendment, they come up with an incentive to get their wack-a-doodle base to the polls.

This is like 2004 when they were faced with a similar situation, and Taft introduced a "one man & one woman" bill to get Republicans fired up.

[femrap]

5. Well, since I'm in

Ohio, I will do my utmost to screw up their petitions. I can sign the wrong name and address over and over and over.

Ohio used to be a state where education was valued and there was some common sense....WTF happened??? When did Ohio become a part of the bible belt???

Welcome to the Dark Ages! We've got more humans than the planet can handle. And I know for a fact that over 10,000 kids are stuck in the foster care system in Ohio. Why aren't these 'we love life' assholes not adopting these unwanted kids?????

People need to mind their own business and keep their collective noses out of my uterus. Goddess help us.

[ehrnst]

6. And if someone at the in vitro facility drops a dish - is that murder? (nt)

[Odin2005]

9. Involuntary Manslaughter?

[karynnj]

7. Horrible as this is, it likely helps us - as a wedge issue that really does work in our favor

Though the side trying to end abortion in Ohio will likely have more visible support, there are likely more people in the middle who do not want it to be illegal. They may be surprised that there is a silent majority here.

I assume that the people placing it on the ballot hope that it works like the 2004 gay bashing amendments, but I suspect it will backfire.

[Odin2005]

10. No, the purpse of this is to bait the crazies to the polls.

if you get the crazies to the polls using this crap they will vote puke by default.

[Odin2005]

8. This shit has no purpose except to get the crazies out to vote.

It's bait to increase turnout by RW nuts.

[jberryhill]

11. "Such recognition would make abortions illegal."

No it wouldn't.

I don't know which is dumber: these types of resolutions, or people who think it has anything to do with the reasoning of Roe v. Wade.

Roe v. Wade did not strike down abortion bans on the basis of some idea that unborn fetuses were not persons. Instead, it was premised on competing interests between self determination and the state, concerning who may exercise authority, and when, over the circumstances.