Heavier-than-normal turnout is expected Wednesday as early voting begins in Ohio’s closely watched off-year election to decide the future of abortion access and marijuana legalization in the state.
Of greatest interest nationally is Issue 1, a proposed constitutional amendment giving every person “the right to make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions.” The effort comes on the heels of a string of victories for abortion rights proponents around the country who have been winning in both Democratic and deeply Republican states since the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion was overturned.
Both sides tried to gin up enthusiasm over the past week as they hosted rallies and canvassing events across the state.
Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights, the yes campaign, emphasizes the measure’s ability to keep Ohio’s ban on most abortions after fetal cardiac activity is detected from taking effect. A judge’s order has placed the 2019 law on hold, but the Ohio Supreme Court is considering whether to lift that stay.
“the right to make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions.”
It is absolutely amazing (and incredibly depressing) that this is even up for debate.
Indirectly, this is also a vote for OBGYN access. Doctors aren’t required to evenly distribute themselves across the states, they choose.
If they know they can’t follow through on the best care for their patients, whatever that looks like, that doesn’t incentivize an OBGYN to choose Cleveland over other places.
If you have a good doctor in a city dubbed the mitsake on the lake, it's probably best to not vote them out of state.
Unironically Cleveland has some of the best health care in the world.
The silver lining here is that because the Republican supreme Court so vastly overplayed their hand here, they might inadvertantly have saved the nation from a fascist takeover.
Hear me out:
Joe Biden was previously doomed to be a 1-term president. The last election was an anti-Trump referendum, and it was a squeaker! Very little abundant base was actually excited be voting for Biden.
Heading into the next election we were ALWAYS going to have a mediocre Biden presidency, where none of our major crisis was solved, because Biden never aimed that high to begin with. It was never going to be enough to excite the base on the left.
And worse, with Republicans controlling the House, the second half of Biden's term was doomed to be a do-little presidency. Going into the election we were going to be asked to vote for a man who hadn't done much for the last two years, and who never even talked a good game about the radical change we need (universal healthcare, universal basic income, removing ALL student debt, etc).
Trump being back in the ballot helps a bit, but I'm not sure people are still feeling the immediacy and the urgency to keep him out of the oval office as they did at the end of this last term.
It was going to be another squeaker, and my money was on the Republicans because of their ability to ratfuck the vote with gerrymandering and voter suppression.
But NOW we have the supreme Court lighting a fire under the left. They struck down roe, and they struck down student loan forgiveness.
That may be enough to put us over the edge.
Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights, the yes campaign, emphasizes the measure’s ability to keep Ohio’s ban on most abortions after fetal cardiac activity is detected from taking effect.
Can anyone explain why fetal cardiac activity is an appropriate delimiter?
It's not. It's a disingenuous way to enact early abortion bans that targets people's emotions, but is meaningless from a healthcare perspective. We don't treat heartbeat as the ultimate arbiter of "life" in fully grown adults; we use brain function.
If we want to apply a similar standard for determining the cutoff for elective abortions, it's more complicated because the fetal brain assembles itself slowly. Hearing starts to become intact some time in the late second trimester, but the capacity to experience pain doesn't develop until after viability (the point in development when a fetus can be sustained medically outside the womb.)
https://www.acog.org/advocacy/facts-are-important/gestational-development-capacity-for-pain
Even using those potential physiological markers can't be relied on to enact a full permanent ban without exceptions because a fetus can develop defects that are incompatible with life, such as severe hydrocephalus or anencephaly, which complicate the process of gestation and birth in such a way that a late term abortion may be medically appropriate considering the fetus will not develop the ability to live independently outside the womb anyway.
And the real kicker here: Doctors are already very good at making these kinds of nuanced distinctions and making decisions in consultation with their pregnant patients and their families. We do not need legal regulation to do what medical ethics regulations already do very well.
Amazingly well-said and reasoned
Also, determining viability isn't so cut and dry.
No.
Not without waving at a book written by guys who thought bronze tools were high-tech.
(A book that says first breath, not first heartbeat, means someone is alive. But it's not like they read it.)
It’s only a good delimiter if you want to prevent women from exercising their bodily autonomy.
Oh man, cedar point is gonna be a lot more fun if this passes
Sure, you've fed handfuls of nutrient pellets to carp fish, but have you fed handfuls of nutrient pellets to carp fish, onnn weeeeed?
That light up tunnel on Maverick would be dope
