Ohioās Supreme Court late Tuesday ruled that much of the GOP-controlled state ballot boardās language to describe a November question about abortion is accurate, dealing a blow to the abortion rights groups that challenged the boardās description.
The sharply divided court said only one element of the description is misleading and must be rewritten. The justices ruled that all other elements that were challenged, including the substitution of āunborn childā for āfetus,ā can remain.
In November, Ohioans will vote on a citizen-initiated amendment that would create a constitutional right to reproductive freedom in the state, which would protect decisions on contraception, fertility treatment, continuing a pregnancy, miscarriage care and abortion up to the point of fetal viability.
The Ohio Ballot Board is tasked with writing the actual words of statewide ballot measures. The wording is supposed to be fair and nonpartisan, without attempts to mislead or deceive voters.
Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights, the coalition supporting the amendment, sued the board after it adopted wording drafted by the Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose that the coalition said was āa naked attempt to prejudice voters against the Amendment.ā
LaRose, who is running in the GOP primary to challenge Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) next year, has publicly opposed the amendment.
But the Supreme Court rejected the argument that the phrase āunborn childā solicits the boardās āethical judgment or personal view.ā
This is the best summary I could come up with:
In November, Ohioans will vote on a citizen-initiated amendment that would create a constitutional right to reproductive freedom in the state, which would protect decisions on contraception, fertility treatment, continuing a pregnancy, miscarriage care and abortion up to the point of fetal viability.
LaRose, who is running in the GOP primary to challenge Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) next year, has publicly opposed the amendment.
But the Supreme Court rejected the argument that the phrase āunborn childā solicits the boardās āethical judgment or personal view.ā
āBy rejecting special interest attempts to substitute their own carefully crafted and poll tested language for that of the ballot board, they have ensured Ohio voters will have a full and accurate understanding of the proposed measure when they go to cast their ballots,ā spokeswoman Mary Cianciolo said in a statement.
The court ordered the ballot board to adopt language that accurately describes that the amendment would regulate actions by the state rather than citizens.
Cianciolo said the ballot board would quickly reconvene to make the āminor change ordered by the court.ā
The original article contains 481 words, the summary contains 176 words. Saved 63%. Iām a bot and Iām open source!