Except for a minor tweak, the Ohio Supreme Court decided to keep ballot language for the reproductive rights constitutional amendment that will appear on the Nov. 7 ballot intact.

But no matter what the court decided, many people are unlikely to read the ballot language before they vote or understand it.

Voters know the proposal would make abortions accessible in Ohio if it passes.

Also, we will be inundated with ads from both sides telling what they see as the impact of the constitutional amendment.

There will be those swayed by what they read and see. Why else would there be a need to spend tens of millions of dollars on advertising?

But abortion is an issue that a number of people feel strongly about and they are going to vote in favor or in opposition regardless of how the ballot language reads.

The Ohio Ballot Board, with three Republicans and two Democrats, approved language Aug. 24 for the amendment. It’s known as Issue 1 and should not be confused with a different Issue 1 that failed during last month’s special election.

Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights, the lead organization supporting the issue, filed the lawsuit against the ballot board over the language, saying it was misleading.

Opponents of the abortion rights ballot issue contend the summary language from the ballot board is more accurate than what pro-choice supporters are actually proposing.

The Ohio Supreme Court was divided ä largely along political-party lines ä on the lawsuit.

The only change made by the court was to language approved by the board stating the amendment would limit “citizens of the state” from passing laws to restrict abortion access. The amendment was written to limit the “state” – meaning state government ä from restricting access.

Even that was a 4-3 vote with Republican Pat Fischer joining the three Democratic justices.

The ballot board made the change Thursday.

Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights wanted the language it submitted ä and determined to be accurate by Attorney General Dave Yost, a Republican and abortion opponent ä to be used instead of the ballot board language.

The ballot language, which is supposed to be a summary, is actually four words longer than the constitutional amendment proposal.

The board changed the title of the amendment, used the word “abortion” more than twice the amount of the proposal, replaced “fetus” with “unborn child,” and replaced “pregnant patient” with “pregnant woman.”

The court’s majority decision states Ohioans United didn’t argue unborn child “is factually inaccurate. To the contrary, their argument asserts that “unborn child” is a divisive term that elicits a moral judgment whereas the terms “fetus” and “fetal viability” are more neutral and scientific. But the argument does not establish that the ballot board’s language constitutes improper persuasion.”

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 is usually 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.

In a dissent, Justice Jennifer Brunner, a Democrat and former secretary of state, said the Republicans on the ballot board “obfuscated the actual language of the proposed state constitutional amendment by substituting their own language and creating out of whole cloth a veil of deceit and bias in their desire to impose their views on Ohio voters about what they think is the substance of the proposed amendment.”

She added: “It was their intent to use their positions on the board to influence the outcome of the election with the ballot language.”

In a dissent against making any changes, Justice Joe Deters, a Republican and former state treasurer, wrote the “ballot board’s language does not mislead, deceive or defraud voters.”

Amy Natoce, spokeswoman for Protect Women Ohio, the lead opposition group to the amendment, said the board language “accurately reflects the impact of Issue 1.”

Lauren Blauvert, Ohioans United’s spokesperson, said the board “tried to mislead voters yet again. Issue 1 is clearly and concisely written.”