Correspondent photo / Sean Barron Attorney David Engler conducts an informational town hall meeting Tuesday evening at New Life Christian Fellowship church in Girard about Ohio Issue 1, a citizens initiative pertaining to reproductive rights in the Nov. 7 election.

By SEAN BARRON

Correspondent

GIRARD — When it comes to trying to pass an initiative to amend the state constitution, single words can carry a lot of weight, a longtime attorney contends.

“It has very wide-ranging effects,” Warren-based attorney David L. Engler said.

Engler, who has practiced law about 38 years, was referring to the word “individual” in the language of state Issue 1, which is on the Nov. 7 general election ballot.

The controversial citizens’ initiative that, if passed, would amend the state constitution, was the topic Engler expounded on during an informational town hall session Tuesday evening at New Life Christian Fellowship church, 2088 Tibbetts-Wick Road, in which he offered his perspectives on its legal implications.

Issue 1, often referred to as the “Ohio Reproductive Rights Initiative,” would establish a state constitutional right to make and carry out a person’s own reproductive health care and decisions, including those regarding abortion, contraception, fertility treatment and miscarriage care. It also would allow the state to restrict abortion after fetal viability, except when necessary to protect a pregnant woman’s life or health, but with “the least restrictive means” of regulation.

Viability normally falls around the 23rd or 24th week of gestational age, close to the point where most abortions are illegal in Ohio. That benchmark also was a longstanding standard under provisions in the landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision Roe v Wade, which was overturned last year.

In short, Issue 1 would recognize abortion as a medical right, many of its supporters say.

Engler, a former Youngstown assistant law director, explained to an audience of about 25 that “fetal viability” is the ability of a human fetus to reasonably be able to survive outside of the uterus. He noted that if Issue 1 passes, no regulations will be in place up to viability.

In addition, passage would allow a juvenile to petition a family court judge for reproductive care and bypass parental consent, Engler explained. He added that the word “fetus” is not mentioned in Issue 1’s language.

Those leading the campaign for Issue 1 include Ohioans for Reproductive Freedom, Ohio Physicians for Reproductive Rights and Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights.

Proponents say the initiative would keep government from encroaching on females’ personal lives regarding reproductive care; allow individuals to prevent, continue or end a pregnancy; restore certain such rights and protections after Roe v Wade was overturned; restore many doctor-patient relationships; empower people to make their own reproductive decisions without outside political or other interference; protect families and patients from extreme abortion bans; and prevent patients and providers from being jailed for seeking and providing miscarriage care and abortion.

Attempts to reach Gabriel Mann, Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights’ communications director, for further comment were unsuccessful.

Leading the opposition to the controversial initiative is the Protect Women Ohio political action committee, which said in a statement: “Using the label ‘reproductive freedom,’ the abortion industry wants to bring taxpayer funded abortion at any time during pregnancy, including beyond the point at which an unborn baby can feel pain, to Ohio.

“Their proposal would outlaw protection for the most vulnerable and would eliminate basic health and safety regulations in place to protect women.”

Another flaw in Issue 1 is its failure to explicitly define viability while giving abortionists the final say on when a child is viable on a case-by-case basis, Amy Natoce, Protect Women Ohio’s spokeswoman, said. As a result, the initiative “leaves wide open the door for painful, late-term abortions,” Natoce added.

In addition, the Catholic Conference of Ohio has argued that use of the word “individual” in the citizen-initiated constitutional amendment would allow girls under age 18 to “have an abortion, or make any reproductive decisions without their parents’ consent or notification.”

Earlier this month, however, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost conducted an analysis of the initiative and admitted that prior abortion rights cases have upheld parental consent laws, and said of Issue 1, “the amendment does not specifically address parental consent.”

Nevertheless, he went on to say that consent “would certainly be challenged on the basis that Issue 1 gives abortion rights to any pregnant ‘individual,’ not just to a ‘woman.'”

Others who are urging no votes, including many Republican state lawmakers, contend Issue 1’s language would render unconstitutional Ohio’s parental consent law governing minors’ access to abortion. Ohio is among 36 states with such a law.

In addition, the state’s six-week abortion ban that contains no exceptions for rape or incest is blocked in court, allowing abortion procedures before 22 weeks of pregnancy.

Engler said he feels the Ohio constitution “shouldn’t be messed with,” and should be changed only for an initiative on which nearly everyone agrees, as opposed to a political hot-button one such as Issue 1.

“I just don’t think a constitutional amendment is the way to go,” he said.

Early in-person voting began Oct. 11. Voters also can request absentee ballots through Oct. 31.

news@vindy.com

news@tribtoday.com