11 Comments

Ohio resident here and it’s absolutely infuriating what LaRose et al have done to this proposed amendment. My local Dem group (I live in a rural county, so we’re all swimming upstream here) was passing out fliers with both versions of them and seeing the differences laid out on paper is unreal. I hope enough people can see through this ploy again to vote yes, but the new language is so awful I’m quite worried about it.

Expand full comment

The justice who granted the process was tainted but washed their hands of actually doing anything about it was a tad precious. A bit of Kavanaugh, perhaps.

This was a sham job. The people's proposed amendment is a broad measure about reproductive liberty. As well it should be. The ballot board made it about abortion, using the usual partisan ideological language, down to changing a reference to "pregnant individual" to "pregnant woman."

An ethical board here would have seen their ministerial function. The gaslighting of the per curiam is infuriating. It's a basic abuse of their duty as public servants.

Expand full comment

looks like there need to be ads everywhere titled: Here is the ballot description. First was approved by the AG. Second was changed by GOP majority. Is there a place we can donate to help cover that expense?

Expand full comment

One of the things nestled in this opinion that I haven't seen discussed much: the court states that "unborn child" is a factually accurate term. Relator's argument was that the term "unborn child" is improperly argumentative. The Court shuts that down by sidestepping into (what I think is) a much bigger can of worms. I've never seen a court do this before. It seems like a small but ominous stepping stone for future courts to cite.

Expand full comment

In everything they do, Republicans just really love to stick it to trans people. I noticed how "pregnant patient" transformed into "pregnant woman". At least a summary is not what would be codified or else that would create a problem.

Expand full comment