The contentious issue of abortion has turned an August ballot question in Ohio, which aims to make it more difficult to amend the state constitution, into a hotbed of misinformation and fear-mongering.
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- The contentious politics of abortion have turned an August ballot question in Ohio into a cauldron of misinformation and fear-mongering, aiming to make it harder to change the state constitution.
State Issue 1, the only question on the ballot, proposes raising the threshold for passing future changes to the Ohio Constitution from a simple majority to 60%. Additionally, it would double the number of counties where signatures must be gathered, from 44 to all 88, and eliminate the 10-day grace period for closing gaps in the total valid signatures submitted.
While Republican state lawmakers and the GOP elections chief insist that the measure is not intended to thwart an abortion rights question heading to the ballot this fall, early summer messaging on social media and in churches has consistently urged a yes vote on the August amendment "to protect life" – just one example of the loaded messages confronting voters during the campaign.
The campaign against the fall abortion issue, Protect Women Ohio, is airing pro-Issue 1 ads suggesting that abortion rights proponents in the state "encourage minors to get sex change surgeries and want to trash parental consent." However, the fall abortion amendment would protect access to various forms of reproductive health care but makes no mention of gender surgery, and the attorneys who wrote it assert that Ohio's parental consent law would remain unaffected.
Groups opposing Issue 1 have also utilized fear-based messaging against the 60% threshold. One ad by the Democratic political group Progress Action Fund shows a couple engaging intimately in their bedroom, only to be interrupted by a white-haired Republican congressman who has come to take their birth control. The ad concludes with a caption: "Keep Republicans Out of Your Bedroom. Vote No On Aug. 8."
While the advertisement is rooted in fears that the U.S. Supreme Court could restrict rights to at-home contraception and Issue 1 would make it harder to establish those rights in Ohio's state constitution, Susan Burgess, a political science professor at Ohio University, pointed out that "the direct, immediate issue is abortion."
The varying messaging surrounding abortion and Issue 1 reflects a significant challenge for Republicans in Ohio, as they strive to hold together an increasingly diverse voting bloc, according to Burgess. This coalition includes evangelicals, individuals on the far right, libertarians, and traditional Reagan Republicans. While they need to address abortion to maintain unity within a portion of their coalition, taking a hard-line stance on abortion is not a politically favorable strategy at present.
Supporters of Issue 1 have more targeted discussions that reflect this duality in their approach. Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose, who backs the measure, previously described Issue 1 as a "win for good government" that safeguards Ohioans from outside special interests.
However, at a Seneca County dinner for Lincoln Day in May, his tone was different, as he emphasized that the August measure "is 100% about keeping a radical, pro-abortion amendment out of our constitution." In an Associated Press interview, LaRose explained that this comment, which is now featured in ads throughout the state, was taken out of context and clipped from a lengthy speech.
Aaron Baer, the president of the Center for Christian Virtue, mentioned on a radio show this month that his organization is only connecting Issue 1 to abortion with certain segments of Ohio voters. He stated that when speaking to conservative audiences, they are emphasizing the life issue to motivate and encourage them to vote.
This two-track approach is evident in the pro-Issue 1 campaign's first statewide ad, which was launched on Monday and avoids mentioning abortion. Instead, it focuses on the fact that amendments to the U.S. Constitution necessitate a two-thirds vote, while Ohio's requires a simple majority of 50% plus one. In 1912, Ohioans overwhelmingly voted to set the lower threshold as a response to widespread political corruption during the Progressive era.
Kimberly Inez McGuire, the executive director of Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity, an advocacy group, believes that Issue 1 supporters are downplaying abortion in their statewide messaging because they are aware that public opinion is not in their favor on this matter.
"We're seeing more and more legislators and opponents of abortion who understand that their agenda is extremely unpopular with the American people," she said. "We're seeing special sessions, we're seeing anti-abortion bills passed in the dead of night, and we're seeing these denials from those who are pushing a measure that is designed to undercut democracy with the intention of hurting Ohio's abortion measure."
Mark Caleb Smith, a political science professor at Cedarville University in southwest Ohio, mentioned that abortion is emotionally charged and easy to understand, making it effective in engaging Ohioans to donate, volunteer, and vote, especially when they might otherwise not be motivated to participate in an off-season election about a seemingly esoteric topic such as amending the state's constitution.
Describing Issue 1 as abortion-related also reflects the reality that its passage is crucial to determining the fate of the abortion ballot issue in Ohio in November, according to Smith. Similar amendments protecting access to abortion in other states have typically passed with less than 60% of the vote. AP VoteCast polling conducted last year found that 59% of Ohio voters believe abortion should generally be legal.
Kayla Griffin, the Ohio state director of All Voting Is Local and an opponent of Issue 1, stated that her side aims to keep the messaging on Issue 1 broader than just abortion. She emphasized that while abortion is currently on the ballot, other critical issues like the minimum wage will be on future ballots, and it is essential to consider the larger scope of democracy when making voting decisions.
Voting rights groups and Ohio's former chief justice are also working on a constitutional amendment to reform Ohio's redistricting system, which has been criticized for being flawed.
As supporters and opponents of Issue 1 try to persuade voters, some of their messaging has veered into misinformation.
"Ohio Should Vote for Issue 1 to Help Stop Abortions Up to Birth," read a headline last week on LifeNews.com.
However, the November abortion initiative would not prevent Ohio's lawmakers from imposing restrictions on abortions after the fetus is viable outside the womb, typically around 23 or 24 weeks.
Medical experts challenge the notion of abortions "up to birth," stating that terminations at such late stages are very rare – only 0.7% of abortions in Ohio in 2021 occurred after 21 weeks – and are usually conducted through medication to induce early birth, which is distinct from a surgical abortion. This procedure, also known as an induction abortion, is typically performed when the fetus has a low chance of survival.
In addition to this, an email from Right to Life of Greater Cincinnati made an unsupported claim that sex traffickers and abortion providers were collaborating as "evil twins" to assist each other.
Democrat Teresa Fedor, a former state lawmaker who championed Ohio's sex trafficking crackdown in the legislature, stated that she did not find a significant connection between sex trafficking and forced abortion during her 20 years of work on the issue.
"My perspective is that the anti-reproductive health care advocates are so desperate to pass Issue 1 that they will, unfortunately, use a false narrative to influence their supporters," she said in an email.
%20(1)-Photoroom.png)