Ohio Republican lawmakers pushing an even more restrictive abortion bill than Texas’ new ban

Republican lawmakers in Ohio are pushing for a new abortion law that may be even stricter than the restrictions of the new Texas law now being challenged in state and state courts.

Ohio law known as the “2363 Act,” refers to the average number of abortions performed daily in the United States. In contrast to Texas law that bans abortion after about six weeks, Ohio law calls for a complete ban on abortions at any stage of pregnancy.

House Bill 480 does not contain any exemptions for pregnancies caused by incest or rape. It calls for citizen enforcement like Texas law.

One of the sponsors, Rep. Jenna Powell, said in a statement when the bill was tabled on Nov. 2 that the enforcement mechanism of Texas law is necessary in Ohio as well, “because the constitutional fiction of Roe v. Wade prevented communities ”. to protect our youngest children for the past fifty years. “

While Republicans have praised the proposal, Democrats and reproductive rights advocates, including the Ohio-based Planned Parenthood Advocates, vow to fight back.

“Ohio has proven yet again that it is one of the most extreme states for access to abortion,” said Lauren Blauvelt-Copelin, vice president of the government affairs and public advocacy group. “This law goes further than Texas Senate Law 8, the most extreme ban on abortion in the country, and would prohibit all abortions.”

It would “allow anyone, including anti-abortion protesters unrelated to the patient, to act as paid bounty hunters, bringing doctors, health centers, and anyone helping another person access to an abortion to justice bring and get no less than $ 10,000, “said Blauvelt-Copelin said. “A ban on abortion would be catastrophic for communities across Ohio. Legislators and vigilantes against abortion have nothing to do with making personal medical decisions for their neighbors. “

Abortion has been legal nationwide since the 1973 US Supreme Court ruling in the Roe vs. Wade case. But Natalie Nanasi, law professor and director of Judge Elmo B. Hunter Legal Center for Victims of Crimes Against Women at SMU, said the Texan legislature may have found a way to get around this by using citizens to enforce, not that Government ..

“The state of Texas provides the funding, but does not enforce it. That is the crucial difference, ”said Nanasi. “You need government action to break the constitution, and Texas has deftly removed itself as an enforcer of this abortion ban.”

This “funding,” which Nanasi is referring to, is the $ 10,000 bounty offered to those who successfully sue someone who sponsors or supports a person seeking an abortion. This is described in both HB 480 and SB 8. This is being directly challenged by the other side, said Nanasi, who questions the role of judges who act as “state agents working to enforce the bans”. According to Nanasi, this is where things get “legally complicated”.

SMU political science professor Cal Jillson said that regardless of the outcome of the litigation, supporters of the restrictions score with their conservative constituency.

“There are many ways to win a political battle, you can win the rhetorical battle, you can gain some advantage while the law is being analyzed in the public opinion court and in state and federal courts,” said Jillson. “Even if you lose at the end of the day, those wins are on the way.”

Jillson said these bills were “a teaching moment” for right to life advocates.

Jillson said the Ohio proposal was just the beginning of the “copycat laws” that followed the Texas lead. Other states considering similar bills include Indiana, Missouri, and Arizona.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2021/11/11/ohio-republican-lawmakers-pushing-an-even-more-restrictive-abortion-bill-than-texas-new-ban/