I think the proper way to look at it is from what it takes to make a change. I believe the change in the constitution, the foundational document of the state, should require a broad consensus and not merely a simple majority. As it is now, and will continue to stand, The Ohio Constitution can be changed by merely splitting along red/blue lines. I think the constitution is too important to not require a broad consensus. It looks like issue 1 is being defeated, and soundly, driven by the major urban areas. Personally, I think the writers of it went too restrictive. They added in too many features, not just require a 60% pass. They also required a certain number of signatures from every county in Ohio. I think that was too restrictive and I didn’t like it. They also removed the ability to cure invalid signatures. I also think that was overkill. I don’t know for certain, but it probably would’ve done better if they limited it to only 60% pass.
I can see the case for a higher threshold or implremeting or overturning an amendment. Generally amendments should have permanence. The problem with the Ohio thing is it was a naked play on banning abortion and making it permanent. That is really the only thing it was about.
I did not like that motivational aspect behind the issue, all the while agreeing that it should take 60% to change the constitution. By the way, most states don’t even allow citizen initiatives to change their constitution.
Love watching so-called conservative politicians undo all the great work President Trump did on the SCOTUS, whilst they stand idly by as he's hit with more indictments than the Parkland shooter.
No. You said there was evidence of an "illegal and unfair" election, i.e., one which should have been overturned, so put up or shut up. BTW, what "proclamation" did I make, much less an "ignorant" one?
Ohio has a highly gerrymandered legislature despite the people voting to try and prevent that. It is good that the people have the power to push through law when the gerrymandered legislature refuses to do their jobs. Except there's no need to jump through the hoops of the ballot initiative when something is supported by the party in power. It's much easier for them to enact a statute. What the ballot initiative does is allow people from the parties not in power to enact policies from their agenda if the majority of people in the state support it. That's a good thing.
There are some people that think all abortion should be illegal. There are some people that think all abortion should be legal. But those are both minority fringes. Most everybody else thinks there is a point at which it should become illegal, with some exception. The debate is largely where is that point. These word games are silly - you are calling out people who are pro choice, as most people who call themselves that (like me) are not for 100%. Choice. The same can be said for pro life. Some say 15 weeks. Some say 6 weeks. Some say exceptions for rape and incest. Also, people are who are pro life are not literally pro life on everything. They may be for capital punishment. They may be accepting of collateral damage when killing terrorists or as a result of war. They certainly do not think unlimited resources should be expended to save many lives worldwide that could be saved due to famine, disease, etc. As a general rule, most pro choice people are for something similar to what existed with Roe v Wade, give or take. Most people who are pro life desire much more robust restrictions than allowed for In Roe v Wade. This calling out one side or other vs the literal definition of an artificial label is just childish and does nothing to advance the actual issue.
so I’ll mark you down as pro abortion. BTW, I have sympathy for your position, but your position was co-opted by fraudsters long ago for this very reason you are arguing. Abortion proponents knew they could never sell the idea of abortion support to the masses. Few people would claim to support abortion, so in the late 60s early 70s they coined the term “pro choice”. This wasn’t by accident. They knew the term abortion had nothing but negative connotations. The term choice reflected freedom. They couched the discussion in terms of freedom and autonomy. It worked. But you know what they say about lipstick and pigs. The mistake they made was using the word “pro” with the vague descriptive noun, “choice”. Choice is noun which describes a selection between two or more possibilities. In this case the possibilities are destroying a fetus or letting in live and come to term. However you want to describe the “choice” it boils down to life and death in its basic form. Hence the term “pro life” ( which suffers from similar problems as pro choice). I agree with your conclusions about Americans’ position on abortion. You have 2 extremes and then about 87.6% of the people in the middle. But many moderates don’t want to labeled pro choice because it is too broad, and as you and others have stated on this thread, you are adamant you are not “pro” abortion. so perhaps it’s time for this nation to have an actual conversation about abortion, without the labels to try and determine a majority consensus on what should be allowed and regulated. Silence, through true democracy, both extremes. Can that be done? No Chance. Most politicians are stupid, the extremes on both sides scream the loudest, and the majority of Americans are frozen by apathy and/or manipulated by our 2 party system.
Everyone should be aware that they're at least two lawsuits pending trying to keep the issue off of November's ballot and keep the voters from expressing their will on the issue Lawsuit asks Ohio Supreme Court to block abortion rights measure from November ballot
Over and over again, we see that the GOP is the dog that caught the car on abortion. Even in a deep red state like Ohio, people are pissed about their rights being taken away. The GOP needs to find a way to bar young people and women from voting rather quickly.
Here's a link to Ohio's proposed abortion amendment. It allows the state to prohibit abortions after fetal viability except to preserve the mother's life or health. https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov...m-with-Protections-for-Health-and-Safety.aspx Compare to Florida's proposed amendment: No law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient�s health, as determined by the patient�s healthcare provider. This amendment does not change the Legislature�s constitutional authority to require notification to a parent or guardian before a minor has an abortion.
if the dems don't figure out how to ride this horse to capture more legislative seats in purple and even red states I don't know what to say. sad to say, their leadership will likely fail to take advantage of this opportunity too.
It doesn’t matter what you call it-it’s a losing issue for the theocrats. So people like UFL can keep pumping their extreme view and losing at the ballot box.
Roe was rational. Abortion up to viability with health exceptions. I’m pro abortion. If you want one, go get one. You don’t need a sob story. Like Hillary said, safe, legal, and rare. Almost all abortions after the first trimester are for health reasons.
