I'm glad to see this response to the Supreme Court's rejection of its long-held notion that the federal Constitution implies a right to abortion. That left the matter to the state, and the strongest move a state can make in response is to add the right to the state constitution in express, explicit terms. And that leaves the matter to the individual, where it belongs.
ADDED: The vote was not close — 56.6% to 43.4%.
Posts
74 comments:
I would appreciate it if you refrained from making comments that repeat observations made many times before about abortion and kept to the specific topic of what the people of Ohio did in the vote yesterday. The Supreme Court left the question to the states, as many anti-abortion people advocated, and now this state has given the decision to the individual. This is about federalism, decentralization, and individualism.
With several states on course to settle abortion questions and with the Supreme Court finally deciding obvious gun law cases after 75 years of neglect and denial, perhaps we can finally move on from fruitless stagnation and trench warfare?
Maybe we can attempt to bring back to coherent civics? Bring back the draft (public service if not military) to force everyone to talk to each other again? Teach the stunted social media people how to interact face-to-face? Show people the on-the-ground consequences of their votes?
Apparently the Ohio legislature can now place restrictions on abortion only after the baby has a "significant" chance of survival outside the womb. I imagine that courts will ultimately determine what is significant, but my google research seems to indicate some point in the 20-25 week period.
"That leaves the matter to the individual, where it belongs."
Nobody's gonna mention how silly and insane women have looked, protesting all this, right? All the groups that either A) don't understand the law or B) just get women whipped up into a frenzy over nothing? Actually getting them to fight against this result, which is in their best interest and the best interest of the country? The "blame" they've thrown at men and the Supreme Court? The public disruptions? I can only imagine the personal damage. Break ups, divorces, etc.. All over nothing.
The ignorance, and cruelty, that rule this country is off-the-charts.
Ann Althouse said...
"This is about federalism, decentralization, and individualism."
Not if you're a common citizen. Then it's about being yelled at. Ignorance. Persecution. Derailing relationships. Conniving politicians. Regular people are concerned about federalism, decentralization, and individualism. We're concerned about right and wrong. And what's been going on, around this issue, was wrong.
cry harder bitches
The similarity to the debate around Israel is amazing: Women have done a bad thing, to get a certain result, and now - once they achieve it - they say you either can't talk about how they did it, or you have to talk about it only in the terms that they dictate.
This is also how the gay rights debate has gone.
The NewAge sucks.
Good for Ohio to take a stand for itself. That was the point of the Dobbs decision, after all. Other states need to set their standard as well. They won’t all be the same. Dobbs is effectively deflating abortion as a contentious issue since people can now have a say in their own state, and aren’t blocked by the erroneous Roe v Wade ruling.
That’s also federalism, decentralization, and individualism. Let freedom ring.
So hooray- contentment!!!
/sarc off
The grumpy and inconsistent commentary sounds more like the ramping up for the endless struggle with every Presidential election cycle as an opportunity to reconstitute SCOTUS to get the rickety old decision back.
This is exactly why Roe should have been overturned, states and their voters should be making the laws, not the Supreme Court.
Republicans never actually wanted to ban abortion — they just wanted to campaign on it. Now they’re the dog that caught the car and have no idea what to do with it.
"effectively deflating abortion as a contentious issue since people can now have a say in their own state"
So far very few states have put it on the ballot, ie actually letting the people decide. After Ohio you can be sure the GOP is going to make sure voters don't get this opportunity in other states.
In Wisconsin the voters only got a chance to weigh in on the subject during recent judicial elections, otherwise its what our gerrymandered Legislature decrees.
The polls are clear the abortion access and legalization would pass in Wisconsin, thus pur GOP is making sure voters never get a choice and that their opinions trump the people's.
That said, 2024 is another chance for the people to speak. Hopefully its with improved maps taboot.
I'm perfectly fine with Ohio. The people of Ohio self governing. Those people who disagree (that live in Ohio) have a process to shift the public opinion and change the law/constitutions.
Ditto pot.
Good. Now women can vote for less wokeness and lower taxes without risking abortion rights. It's a net win for Republicans, just shutting down fundamentalist pandering by the Republican legislature.
It serves them right for passing a heartbeat law. Idiots.
I suspect the result will eventually be the same here in Virginia, as our newly elected Democrat legislature wants to put abortion right on our constitution, as well.
I will likely vote yes, just to end the discussion. I find it horrible that abortion debate eclipses all other topics.
My yard sign survey in rural Ohio (so very red) was 5 supporting amending the constitution to needing 60% to change it, in August, and one against. So 5 to 1 for banning a change to the constitution.
Then for this election, five to zero against the change to the constitution, although two of those were in front of the same church.
So there's a lot of silent support for overturning the Ohio heartbeat law.
For the record, I don't have a problem with this decision, just as I didn't have a problem with overturning Roe v. Wade in order to get this decision. What I have a problem with is being called misogynistic - for years - because I wanted this outcome.
There's got to be a better way.
I'm okay with it as long as the kid signs off on it.
Some abortion providers say there is resistance as early as fifteen weeks. And here I thought jump school made me a hard guy....
I'm on the side of the kid with defensive wounds on his hands. Say, does the mom get to see that?
I'm okay with it as long as the kid signs off on it.
Some abortion providers say there is resistance as early as fifteen weeks. And here I thought jump school made me a hard guy....
I'm on the side of the kid with defensive wounds on his hands. Say, does the mom get to see that?
The 20th century drive to permit women to abort freely or reproduce wantonly, assured in all cases of the largesse of the state, has produced outstanding results.
Nobody's gonna mention how silly and insane women have looked, protesting all this, right?
I will, though silly and insane wouldn’t be my choice. I’ll go with crass and demented.
Before Dobbs, Ohio had a 6 wk ban that then went into effect when the SCOTUS ruled. I wonder how Ohio would've voted yesterday if a more moderate law had been on the books.
an individual right to one's own reproductive medical treatment, including but not limited to abortion
That would include sex change operations? No age restrictions? No parental rights?
Big picture view is there will be whipsaw reactions, actions and votes to create laws and amendments or whatever. This will take time and energy, more in the early phases, less in the later ones. We’ll pay attention more now, less later on. The good thing is this issue will become a non-factor at the federal level, so voters can focus on the things I personally care about more - economy, jobs, security, energy policy, etc. I do care about the abortion issue, of course, but I don’t think it should swamp the others out as much as it has over the last few decades.
This is actually the process as it should have been all along. Leave it to the states. Let every state get on with their own program, and let's get to the point of moving on from this. It's been used as a Democratic and Republican talking point- whipping point- for far too long. The entire culture, our nation is decaying in huge chunks from San Francisco to Baltimore.
Get this done across the nation and let's focus on things to move forward. When the kids cannot read, add, or think, when its not safe for kids to walk to school, when the cities are busy putting in outdoor urinals and handing out needles to support their massive homeless addict problem, when our southern border is a wide open sieve and bad people with bad plans are among those coming in, when regional banks are closing at 2 per week, while the big banks just keep getting bigger, when the shipping industry is showing a bankrupt trucking company at a clip of 2 per month, when our President more closely resembles a rutabaga than a world leader, we have a lot of problems to deal with. When and how many babies you can kill in the womb should probably not be our top priority as a nation. Let's get on with it. Get it done- however it ends up. And move on.
"Rich said...
This is exactly why Roe should have been overturned, states and their voters should be making the laws, not the Supreme Court."
Bingo !
People like me, who are pro-life, should continue to work on turning public sentiment against the murder of innocent babies in the womb.
So far, it's playing out exactly as predicted and the result will be much closer to what the people actually want than anything they were ever going to get from Supreme Court mandates.
Republicans should be congratulated for the result, even if it doesn't shake out they way they hoped. (Though I bet in the end, when the will of the people is fully recognized, it will be much closer to what the Republicans want than what the Democrats want--and the media will never admit it.)
Seems like exactly what those evil right wingers on the Supreme Court had in mind when they decided Dobbs. The sausage is being made.
Note that the Ohio Republicans wanted a law to require a 60% vote to change the state constitution. That lost. So what is now "enshrined" is subject to being unenshrined by majority vote somewhere down the line.
Abortion and pot are losing issues for the GOP.
iowan2 has it exactly right.
Nebraska Dems want to do the same thing as Ohio did. It might work.
ADDED: The vote was not close — 56.6% to 43.4%.
so, what's it take in Ohio to alter their state constitution? a simple majority?
if so, then enough people to elect a governor (50.000000000001%) is enough to nullify ANY law?
I wonder what percent they need, for bond issues?
"that leaves the matter to the individual, where it belongs"
You mean, just one of the three individuals involved? Not to mention other "individuals" involved in providing the medical "service."
On with the lucrative business of selling baby parts. Ohio has a new business model. Come to think of it where do all those loped off bosoms go, I wonder?
If many women with deep reservations about abortion still want the right to make the decision for themselves and their daughters, abortion restrictions are a losing proposition. I turned on the television occasionally during the 2022 election and was swarmed with ads from "Fatso" Pritzker stoutly proclaiming that he would protect the right to abortion in Illinois.
Abortion rights are not under threat in Illinois.
The results in various referenda speak for themselves. The GOP needs to drop the issue. Then they might start winning again.
Three cheers for abortion!!
Ohio! Ohio! Ohio!
At the moment Ohio sets a limit to abortion access at 21 weeks. Let's be thankful it's not 39.
Seems like a victory for limited access.
Yes, this certainly is an example of federalism, decentralization, and individualism. We are fortunate to still live in a country where we are free to choose any of 50 states to live in, and thus be among like-thinking people who share our values. This Thanksgiving, I will give thanks for that.
May each of us find that state (place and mind) among those who share our values, and fully experience all the consequences of that choice.
pacwest said...
“an individual right to one's own reproductive medical treatment, including but not limited to abortion
That would include sex change operations? No age restrictions? No parental rights?“
Answer: Yes. It was written in language so broad that it also enshrined a child’s right to change their gender. In a few years the people who voted for this are going to be crying when the state takes their kids away because they won’t let them take puberty blockers.
I applaud the Federalism and the lessons in direct democracy that are right here in plain sight, for those willing to learn it.
I can see this as a rebirth for the GOP.
Ronna has to go- yesterday was (yet another) electoral disaster for the R's.
Ronna is Trump's girl. I'm a Trump supporter, but only so far as he can salvage what's left of the USA. I'm not sure he can do it.
This should decrease Trump's support in the party by a few points. The non-Trump candidates will start to coalesce around Nikki or RDS soon. We may get a contested convention.
I'm thinking Nikki, as a WOC, can start talking about how Planned Parenthood has led a not-so-slow motion genocide of black babies over the past 50 years- 40 million black babies aborted.
That should start some conversations.
The Supreme Court left the question to the states, as many anti-abortion people advocated, and now this state has given the decision to the individual. This is about federalism, decentralization, and individualism.
Dobbs was rightly decided. Handmaids Tale is not forthcoming.
For all the wailing right after Dobbs, the Supreme Court could have given 14th amendment rights to fetus's and Ohio wouldn't have been able to pass what they did.
What does it mean to have a "constitution" that can be changed in any election with a simple majority vote? Does such a document constitute a polity? Does it guarantee any actual rights? Does it protect minorities of any kind? What is it, exactly?
Crack Emcee For the record, I don't have a problem with this decision, just as I didn't have a problem with overturning Roe v. Wade in order to get this decision. What I have a problem with is being called misogynistic - for years - because I wanted this outcome.
There's got to be a better way.
While I suspect we have opposing view points on the issue, I agree with this post.
I will suggest that the term "misogynistic" may be more related to comments like this one though rather the outcome you say you wanted.
Nobody's gonna mention how silly and insane women have looked, protesting all this, right? All the groups that either A) don't understand the law or B) just get women whipped up into a frenzy over nothing? Actually getting them to fight against this result, which is in their best interest and the best interest of the country? There's got to be a better way.
Implying women are ignorant and/or that they are easily misled and that they don't know what is best for themselves, usually doesn't gather support.
Maybe the "better way" is assuming the person with whom you disagree, has a valid, well thought reason for their choice just as you have for yours.
El Predicto sez:
Even with abortion enshrined in the Ohio constitution the left will still use fear of losing your rights in the 2024 campaigns.
There is no mystery in sex and conception. Human rites are performed for social, clinical, political, criminal, and climate progress. A wicked solution to a hard problem: keep women affordable available, and taxable, and the "burden" of evidence sequestered in darkness. #HateLovesAbortion
What does it mean to have a "constitution" that can be changed in any election with a simple majority vote?
The democratic/dictatorial duality threatens to follow a progressive path and grade, which is why America was founded as a constitutional republic in contrast to other governments past and present.
Planned Parenthood has led a not-so-slow motion genocide of black babies over the past 50 years- 40 million black babies aborted.
Some, Select Black Lives Matter (SS BLM) under the liberal ethical religion of the progressive church.
RoseAnne said...
"Implying women are ignorant and/or that they are easily misled and that they don't know what is best for themselves, usually doesn't gather support."
First, women proved themselves ignorant with the things they said. I didn't just pull that out of my ass. Second, anyone who convinced them that men were behind the Supreme Court's decision DID mislead them. They also got them to put on those goddamn pussy hats. Not me. And third, I didn't say they don't know what's best for themselves, I said they didn't know who to attack so they attacked the wrong people, and they didn't know what was best for the country. Which was this outcome, they fought so hard AGAINST.
And now, I'll add you can't read for shit.
My bad. I looked at my quote again, and I DID say women didn't know what was in their best interest. I'm gonna stand by that in this case.
The word I saw used in one headline was “enshrined”
How apt.
In fact, now that I’ve thought more about it,
I’m reminded of a scene from The Princess Bride, “bow, bow to the Queen of putrescence”
Abortion is a Democrat sacrament. Republicans need to remember that. The Dobbs decision was a good compromise. Republicans need to adopt that rule and emphasize it. It will eventually occur to women that it is reasonable but women vote on emotion, not facts, so it will take a while.
Republicans never actually wanted to ban abortion — they just wanted to campaign on it. Now they’re the dog that caught the car and have no idea what to do with it.
======
will the car be able to abort the dog?
I'm in full agreement that it should be a state issue, not a federal one. And I believe that abortion is a deeply personal, and deeply consequential decision. It should be legally available though, but only early in term, safely, and with regulatory controls and limited oversight. I believe it should be infrequent, not commonplace or encouraged as a norm.
But I am very much against enshrining a form of murder in the Constitution - and that's what abortion is, especially late term abortion. There's no sugar-coating that simple fact. What a ghastly stain to swear allegiance to. If the populace-of-the-moment wants to define acceptable formats for abortion, then this is what laws and regulations are for. In the Constitution? As a human right? The issue has been placed on the altar of government now, and enshrined. Big Mistake, if you want to move society forward, if you want to relegate this difficult issue to its rightful place in the course of the public debate. Now, it is a monument - back to where it was, before the Supreme Court sent it back to the States.
I am not a fan of abortion, but it's not my call.
As long as the government isn't paying for it.
Sounds like this is how it was supposed to work.
Now get the holy roller republicans to set support limits and maybe win an election.
Wouldn't this actually REINFORCE the Supreme Court's decision in that Ohio had to create a new right in their Constitution to protect abortion rather than summon it out "penumbras" and what not? There was nothing stopping people from trying to pass an amendment to the Constitution for just such a thing.
The amendment to the Ohio Constitution allows the state to restrict abortion after fetal viability, except when “necessary to protect the pregnant patient’s life or health.”
Generally it is said that viability is around 20 weeks which is somewhere around four and a half months of pregnancy. That is half-way through the so called second trimester.
I would expect the Ohio legislature to enact limits. The advanced countries of Europe put it around 15 weeks.
Who knew trying to take away women’s autonomy would turn out to be such a myopic decision with long-lasting ramifications?
This was the point. And, no one prevents you from driving one state over.
Temujin: "... When and how many babies you can kill in the womb should probably not be our top priority as a nation."
Perhaps not. And yet, it certainly appears that there's a very strong correlation between that set of people who share that particular value (i.e., unrestricted or minimally restricted right to kill their unborn children), as evidenced by their majority votes in specific jurisdictions, and those places that exhibit your list of examples of cultural decay. Coincidence? Or indicative of a mindset and entire constellation of life views that maximizes personal options and minimizes restrictions. Sex/gender and reproduction. Drug use. Criminal behavior. Financial responsibility. Etc. With directly related voting choices for their chosen leaders in those jurisdictions.
Aside from any question of "morality," what constellation of values and behaviors does each of us prefer to live in? We're about to find out. It appears that the Great Migration is already in progress.
I don't think states should have constitutional-amendment votes in off-year elections. We've had them here in NC, with results I liked, but it smacks of illegitimacy when only a very small fraction of people vote.
We finally had Voter Photo ID this year, after 2 decades of trying! Now if they could just stop changing congressional districts every other election.
Some folks may have just found a sudden approval of federalism.
Nah.
As I understand it, the legislature will have room to set a limit at "viability" which is about 20-25 weeks these days.
I have written it many times- there is a broad majority that would accept abortion as long as the limit is set between 15-25 weeks of gestation. There isn't a majority for no abortion at all or for abortion at 40 weeks. The electorate will work it out over the next decade which will leave us in the same place we were for the most part before Dodds, but with the voters having had their say on the matter, not a court- a politically healthy outcome.
Rich said...
"Who knew trying to take away women’s autonomy would turn out to be such a myopic decision with long-lasting ramifications?"
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Who's trying to take away a woman's autonomy? A bad law needed to be fixed. It had nothing to do with women or men or anything else but law. Framing it as being about someone taking away a woman's autonomy is a complete and utter fabrication. A fabrication we've been forced to listen to for years now. It needs to stop.
A lot of dishonesty in the reporting on this. The choice the voters had was between viability (amendment) and six weeks (current law).
They chose viability. The absolutists will continue to lose elections if they can't accept a 15 week compromise.
And these elections will drag down the conservative agenda with them.
And they will continue to damage their own cause as the public rejects the six week or complete bans they promote.
What's that HL Mencken quote? Democracy is the theory that the people know what they want and deserve to get it, good and hard.
Amendment also relates to gender identity and parents' rights.
Come to think about it, I believe we had a constitutional amendment in a Spring primary election, but it could have been a big bond issue for post secondary "education." It took them several tries to get that boondoggle approved.
\\\\Crack Emcee - My bad. I looked at my quote again, and I DID say women didn't know what was in their best interest. I'm gonna stand by that in this case.\\\
Still disagree but appreciate your making the update.
One area of agreement: those damn pink hats.
For some reason those wearing thought it empowering but I don't have a clue why.
Someone in the thread expressed surprise that the constitution could be changed with such a low percentage. I was surprised myself when it came up in the August election. Turns out it isn't that uncommon among states.
5 - 10 years ago people started talking about the need for a state constitutional convention. Politicians have gotten in the habit of throwing everything in but the kitchen sink. It needs a good editor to separate the necessary from those lawmakers who just like to hear themselves talk (write).
I think we should make shooting abortion doctors safe, legal, and rare.
Oh, I'm sorry. Is that objectionable for some reason?
Why is that, precisely?
Maybe we can attempt to bring back to coherent civics?
Start with rifle club!!
Gop leader Johnson most abortion extreme good luck with your 6 week federal ban and all other nonsense with this guy driving the car.This group of radicals do nothing but lose. Wake up if it's not too late.Yes it is too late :(
There's no need for conservatives to have a national/federal position on abortion. Our fearless/feckless leaders in Washington should say "the Supreme Court has overruled Roe, but did not outlaw abortions, and instead left it up to the states. We see no reason to have a national position on abortion, and we do not intend to support or oppose the process within a given state to come to resolution on abortion within that state". Democrats have a national position on abortion because it serves their interests, but it does not serve the interests or Republicans or conservatives to have such a position.
Six weeks to baby meets granny in legal state, if not process. The wicked solution is neither a good nor exclusive choice. #HateLovesAbortion
From our hostess: "The Supreme Court left the question to the states, as many anti-abortion people advocated, and now this state has given the decision to the individual. This is about federalism, decentralization, and individualism."
Before the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, slavery was a question left to the states (except in the Northwest Territory, where federal law prohibited it). Many states gave the decision to the individual (should I own slaves, or not?). The Supreme Court decided that the Constitution did not prohibit slavery. Then and now, it made the correct legal decision. I hope, though, that one day the common moral sense will be that a mother does not own an unborn child as a piece of property, to dispose of as she wishes, just as it eventually became the common moral sense that one person does not own another as a slave.
And for people who declare themselves tired of the issue and wish to move on, it falls into the most important class of political decisions: matters of life and death.
Post a Comment