Voters in Ohio reject GOP-backed proposal that would have made it tougher to protect abortion rights
Voters in Ohio reject GOP-backed proposal that would have made it tougher to protect abortion rights
While abortion was not directly on the special election ballot, the result marks the latest setback for Republicans in a conservative-leaning state who favor imposing tough restrictions on the procedure.
Ohio voters on Tuesday resoundingly rejected a Republican-backed measure that would have made it more difficult to change the state’s constitution, setting up a fall campaign that will become the nation’s latest referendum on abortion rights since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned nationwide protections last year.
You're viewing a single thread.
-
This isn't just about abortion, I don't get why all the headlines are focusing on that
-
It's really hard to see why this is a partisan issue, "let's make it hard to change the constitution" doesn't really sound like an inherently right-wing position.
Making it harder to change the constitution is an inherently conservative position. That's basically what conservative means – it's a desire to keep things mostly how they are (or how they used to be, in the supposed "good old days").
The GOP regularly violates their own rules and norms whenever it suits them. Small government? Personal freedom?
Because it was pushed through as an august election not long after august elections were banned (due to high cost and low turnout), but almost immediately after legalizing abortion wound up on the November ballot. Sure it’s about more than abortion, but it’s also very much about abortion, otherwise it would’ve waited until November.
Hey! So I had just learned about the historically low turnout of August elections, but what is the high cost about?
Elections themselves are expensive affairs. Not just for the sides, but also for the host government. Worth it of course, but it’s a huge strain including shipping and hosting the ballots, machines, etc to every location. Add in that poll workers are paid. And it uses a ton of space. All for one yes or no question to be asked 3 months before all this was going to happen anyways. Elections happen on their own every year, that’s the default. And there’s usually one in the spring too. It’s one thing if it actually cannot wait, like if we were asking for a referendum on an ecological catastrophe or a Supreme Court shenanigan that opened up a stupid outdated law to happening with serious effect. But this, this absolutely was not worth the cost and could have waited 3 months unless your sole concern is to make abortion or marijuana harder to access in this state even if the majority of Ohioans want them.
Cool, thank you!
The high cost comes from having to mobilize polling locations, poll workers, logistics for voting infrastructure, ya know, all the stuff that goes into making an election happen.
Special elections like this need to have all the same setup as a general election, but since it's focused around one (or a handful) of issues, AND the general election still has to take place in November, it's pretty wasteful. I've seen the estimates are around $20-30 million to make a special election happen.
Cool, makes perfect sense. Thank you!
You are thinking of the Old GOP. New GOP doesn't vote on conservative values. They're just an underfed truffle pig scrounging in the dirt for any crumbs that will increase their power. It's pathetic. Theyll eat their own leg if they get hungry enough.
The reason people focus on the abortion angle is because there is a vote to enshrine abortion rights in the constitution in November. This bill would apply to that vote. It would also make it harder to try again and harder to have grassroots initiatives in general.
I wonder why changing the constitution is suddenly an issue the Ohio GOP wants to vote on…
Headlines are focusing on abortion because this proposal was very clearly meant to make it substantially harder for the later vote on an amendment to protect abortion rights to succeed. The GOP knows that, when put to a direct vote, at least 50% will vote for legal abortion. But in a state like Ohio, 60% just might be a realistic ceiling.
I mean, do you really think it was a coincidence that this proposal was done in this particular moment?
Currently abortion is not protected in Ohio, which means that we could go to a complete abortion ban, with no exception for rape, incest, or danger to the mother or fetus. There is a proposal that the populace put forward to add a right to reproductive healthcare to the Ohio Constitution. It has already gathered enough signatures and will be voted on in November, but it did not clear the 60% bar that Issue 1 would have set. This was a last minute Hail-Mary pass by extremely hypocritical Republicans to change the rules before the voters of Ohio got a direct voice on reproductive rights. Republicans in Ohio saw what happened when people voted on abortions rights as a single issue in Kansas. They are now willing and boldly showing that they will throw out the democratic principles the US, and Ohio, were founded on in order to prop up a theological government with the intent to punish women simply for not being men.
Issue 1 was about abortions, and it was never anything different.
It's because the majority of Americans are actually united on many issues. The chances an amendment passes with 51% is highly unlikely. So anything unconstitutional getting passed is a none issue. That's why no abortion ban has made it to amendment status. Amendments override lower laws. So a body autonomy amendment would take all abortion bans of the table even when the state senate which in this case is held by the GOP despite not having the population vote.
Amending the constitution is how states pass laws. This isn’t like the US constitution.
That and this issue was brought up by conservatives in proactive response to an abortion vote in November.
It's because the right want to make sure the people can't go and do something like enshrine fundamental rights like reproductive freedom. Safe from their meddling
Isn't conservative at least partially about maintaining the status quo? I'd say making it harder to change government is pretty conservative.
-