The abortion rights constitutional amendment is heading back to the Ohio Supreme Court — this time over the summary language that voters will see on the Nov. 7 ballot.

The Ohio Ballot Board recently approved language for the amendment that supporters of the proposal say is misleading. Opponents of the abortion rights ballot issue say the summary language from the ballot board is more accurate than what pro-choice supporters propose.

The board consists of five members: two Republican state legislators, two Democratic state legislators and Secretary of State Frank LaRose, a Republican who heads the body and is a vocal opponent of the proposal.

The constitutional amendment language reads: “Every individual has a right to make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions, including but not limited to decisions on contraception, fertility treatment, continuing one’s own pregnancy, miscarriage care and abortion.”

It also would ban the state from interfering with that right except for “widely accepted and evidence-based standards of care.”

In a 3-2 party-line vote, the Republican-written summary of what will be Issue 1 on the Nov. 7 ballot uses the word “abortion” seven times compared to the three times it is used in the proposed constitutional amendment.

The constitutional amendment language, titled “The Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protection for Health and Safety,” was deemed accurate by Attorney General Dave Yost, a Republican who opposes abortions.

But it will appear on ballots, after the board’s vote, as “A Self-Executing Amendment Relating to Abortion and Other Reproductive Decisions.” While those other reproductive decisions are listed individually in the amendment’s first section, they aren’t in the ballot board’s approved language.

The board also replaced “fetus” with “unborn child,” and replaced “pregnant patient” with “pregnant woman.”

The board language states the amendment would “always allow an unborn child to be aborted at any stage of pregnancy, regardless of viability if, in the treating physician’s determination, the abortion is necessary to protect the pregnant woman’s life or health.”

The amendment states: “Abortion may be prohibited after fetal viability. But in no case may such an abortion be prohibited if in the professional judgment of the pregnant patient’s treating physician it is necessary to protect the pregnant patient’s life or health.”

Fetal viability usually is around the 22nd to 24th week of pregnancy and was the Roe v. Wade standard before the U.S. Supreme Court overturned it last year.

LaRose said during the board meeting: “Having worked extensively on drafting this, I do believe it’s fair and accurate.”

Created Equal, a group opposing the amendment, said: “Radical abortion advocates need their vague and misleading amendment to be on the ballot instead of an impartial and factual summary of the ballot language.”

Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights, the lead organization supporting the issue, disagreed.

“The summary that was adopted by the ballot board is intentionally misleading and fails to meet the standards required by Ohio law,” said Lauren Blauvelt, its spokesperson.

The organization filed a lawsuit earlier this week with the state Supreme Court seeking to change the language approved by the ballot board.

“Any attempt to alter wording away from the text of the amendment should be seen for what it is: an attempt to confuse and mislead voters,” Blauvelt said.

The organization wants the full text of the proposed amendment on the Nov. 7 ballot.

The Ohio Supreme Court, which has a 4-3 Republican majority, dismissed a lawsuit on Aug. 11 to keep the proposed amendment off the ballot.

The court will hear arguments Sept. 27 on the state’s six-week abortion ban, also known as the “heartbeat law,” that a judge has stopped Ohio from enacting.

In the past, the court has ordered ballot language be written.

The court ruled June 12 that the board had to change the title and some language in Issue 1 that was on a special Aug. 8 ballot. That issue, which was rejected by voters, would have made it more difficult for future constitutional amendments, including the abortion rights one, to pass.

It would have required a threshold of at least 60% for passage rather than the existing simple majority of 50% plus one.

Skolnick covers politics for the Tribune Chronicle and The Vindicator.