OHIO VOTES TO ENSHRINE ABORTION RIGHTS INTO STATE CONSTITUTION

[LadyTevar]

Ohio overwhelmingly votes to add abortion rights to state constitution

Ohio voted to enshrine abortion rights in its constitution on Tuesday, marking a major victory for pro-choice campaigners in the state.

The BBC's US partner CBS News projected a decisive victory for the amendment.

Early returns showed almost 56% of voters in the conservative-leaning state had backed it.

Its success is likely to bolster Democrats' hopes that abortion rights remain a winning issue ahead of elections in 2024.

It also extends an unbeaten record for ballot measures designed to protect abortion rights since the nationwide right to the procedure was rescinded by the Supreme Court last year. This is the seventh such measure to pass.

But Ohio's measure, known as Issue 1, was widely seen as the toughest fight so far for abortion rights supporters as it was the first Republican-led state to consider changing its constitution to explicitly guarantee the right.

The amendment will change the state's constitution to include protections for abortion access. It will establish "an individual right to one's own reproductive medical treatment", including on abortion, contraception and miscarriage care.

This makes 7 states to support Free Choice after Roe v Wade was overturned.
I honestly doubt WV would have the votes to do this, and far as I know it's yet to be tried, but at least WVians in trouble won't have to drive far for help.

[fnord]

How does conflict of laws get resolved in the US when it's a federal law (ie, a possible US-wide abortion ban) colliding with a state's constitution (such as in the OP)? I'm not sure if/how federal supremacy would apply here.

From what I understand, plain federal law vs plain state law falls under federal supremacy, so is straight up and down.

[bilateralrope]

How does conflict of laws get resolved in the US when it's a federal law (ie, a possible US-wide abortion ban) colliding with a state's constitution (such as in the OP)? I'm not sure if/how federal supremacy would apply here.

From what I understand, plain federal law vs plain state law falls under federal supremacy, so is straight up and down.

First we need to figure out if the Federal Government is allowed to create that law. If not, then the law is invalid.

If it's a valid law, then Federal Supremacy kicks in.

Unfortunately, that first question is one for the Supreme Court.

[LadyTevar]

How does conflict of laws get resolved in the US when it's a federal law (ie, a possible US-wide abortion ban) colliding with a state's constitution (such as in the OP)? I'm not sure if/how federal supremacy would apply here.

From what I understand, plain federal law vs plain state law falls under federal supremacy, so is straight up and down.

State Constitutions are special things. There MUST be one approved by the Federal Government before they'll accept a State into the Union, but otherwise there seems to be no laws on if the Feds have to approve amendments to it.

So... yeah. This will be a SCOTUS issue.

[Highlord Laan]

How does conflict of laws get resolved in the US when it's a federal law (ie, a possible US-wide abortion ban) colliding with a state's constitution (such as in the OP)? I'm not sure if/how federal supremacy would apply here.

From what I understand, plain federal law vs plain state law falls under federal supremacy, so is straight up and down.

State Constitutions are special things. There MUST be one approved by the Federal Government before they'll accept a State into the Union, but otherwise there seems to be no laws on if the Feds have to approve amendments to it.

So... yeah. This will be a SCOTUS issue.

"Alito has made his decree. Now let him enforce it."

SCOTUS is illegitimate, anyway.

[Ralin]

State Constitutions are special things. There MUST be one approved by the Federal Government before they'll accept a State into the Union, but otherwise there seems to be no laws on if the Feds have to approve amendments to it.

So... yeah. This will be a SCOTUS issue.

Seems like it would be pretty fucking silly to say that the federal government gets exactly one chance to approve or reject a state constitution but after that anything they add in can trump federal law unless it specifically violates the national constitution or something. I don't see why whether federal law > state constitution is a serious question if it's already established that federal law > state law.

[Gandalf]

SCOTUS is illegitimate, anyway.

Do go on.

[Tribble]

State Constitutions are special things. There MUST be one approved by the Federal Government before they'll accept a State into the Union, but otherwise there seems to be no laws on if the Feds have to approve amendments to it.

So... yeah. This will be a SCOTUS issue.

Seems like it would be pretty fucking silly to say that the federal government gets exactly one chance to approve or reject a state constitution but after that anything they add in can trump federal law unless it specifically violates the national constitution or something. I don't see why whether federal law > state constitution is a serious question if it's already established that federal law > state law.

Wouldn’t it boil down to whether or not abortion is ultimately a state or federal area of jurisdiction? IIRC in theory powers not explicitly given to Congress are reserved for the states, or the people. There should be a strong argument that abortions are therefore within the powers and scope of the individual states (or the people) instead of congress.

IMO it would take quite a bit of pretzel twisting for Scotus to explain why the federal government can pass laws on abortions when it should be under state jurisdiction, (especially after they tossed out Roe vs Wade) but I wouldn’t put it past the current group to try.

[Zwinmar]

With their overturning of Row that pretty explicitly state that its up to the state as well. At least that the narrative given by the right.

[LadyTevar]

Wouldn’t it boil down to whether or not abortion is ultimately a state or federal area of jurisdiction? IIRC in theory powers not explicitly given to Congress are reserved for the states, or the people. There should be a strong argument that abortions are therefore within the powers and scope of the individual states (or the people) instead of congress.

IMO it would take quite a bit of pretzel twisting for Scotus to explain why the federal government can pass laws on abortions when it should be under state jurisdiction, (especially after they tossed out Roe vs Wade) but I wouldn’t put it past the current group to try.

Yes, it would.

However The Ohio GOP are already trying to twist and gut it.

Ohio House of Representatives Republican Newsroom: "To prevent mischief by pro-abortion courts with Issue 1, Ohio legislators will consider removing jurisdiction from the judiciary over this ambiguous ballot initiative. The Ohio legislature alone will consider what, if any, modifications to make to existing laws based on public hearings and input from legal experts on both sides."[8]
U.S. Senator J.D. Vance (R): "A lot of people are celebrating right now, and I don’t care about that. I do care about the fact that because we lost, many innocent children will never have a chance to live their dreams. There is something sociopathic about a political movement that tells young women (and men) that it is liberating to murder their own children. So let’s keep fighting for our country’s children, and let’s find a way to win."[9]
Ohio House Speaker Jason Stephens (R): "As a 100% pro-life conservative, I remain steadfastly committed to protecting life, and that commitment is unwavering. The legislature has multiple paths that we will explore to continue to protect innocent life. This is not the end of the conversation."[4]
Senate President Matt Huffman (R): "This isn't the end. It is really just the beginning of a revolving door of ballot campaigns to repeal or replace Issue 1."[10]

[Tribble]

So Republicans are planning to strip the courts of the ability to review this amendment to the state constitution, while indicating that they also view it as flawed and illegitimate.

Republicans explicitly state this is because the courts will find their current abortion laws violate the new amendment to the state constitution.

So instead they’ll make the legislature solely responsible for determining the validity of the law, where naturally the legislature will find that all the current laws are perfectly valid and consistent with this amendment (even though they clearly aren’t).

What’s particularly disturbing is that Republicans are claiming they have a “God given right” to restrict abortion access, constitution be damned.

And you can bet it won’t stop there - once Republicans are on a roll, they’ll strip the courts of the ability to rule on any laws that they think they have a God-given right to enforce. Abortion today, heathenism, socialism, atheism, and homosexuality etc. tomorrow.

If the Republicans are successful in this scheme you can officially say goodbye to democracy, constitutional rights, the separation of powers and rule of law in Ohio.

[Solauren]

If the Republicans are successful in this scheme you can officially say goodbye to democracy, constitutional rights, the separation of powers and rule of law in Ohio.

You think they'll stop in OHIO?

[Ralin]

Wouldn’t it boil down to whether or not abortion is ultimately a state or federal area of jurisdiction? IIRC in theory powers not explicitly given to Congress are reserved for the states, or the people. There should be a strong argument that abortions are therefore within the powers and scope of the individual states (or the people) instead of congress.

IMO it would take quite a bit of pretzel twisting for Scotus to explain why the federal government can pass laws on abortions when it should be under state jurisdiction, (especially after they tossed out Roe vs Wade) but I wouldn’t put it past the current group to try.

I don't see how the Supreme Court ruling that the US Constitution does NOT include an implied right to privacy that therefore means that the Constitution gives an absolute right to legal abortion which no state law can override (and always did but we just didn't realize it until the 1970s) means that the Constitution gives state constitutions the authority to override any federal laws on abortion. That seems like a very weird and rather convoluted argument. Not unlike Roe vs Wade was in the first place.

Seems much simpler to say that state constitutions are another form of state law and that federal law trumps state law.

[bilateralrope]

If the Republicans are successful in this scheme you can officially say goodbye to democracy, constitutional rights, the separation of powers and rule of law in Ohio.

You think they'll stop in OHIO?

Hopefully that thought worries SCOTUS enough that they predict this precedent is a threat to their power.

[Khaat]

Hopefully that thought worries SCOTUS enough that they predict this precedent is a threat to their power.

This SCOTUS did shoot down "Independent State Legislature" (which would have the same effect), so for what it's worth, they have set precedent.

[Tribble]

Wouldn’t it boil down to whether or not abortion is ultimately a state or federal area of jurisdiction? IIRC in theory powers not explicitly given to Congress are reserved for the states, or the people. There should be a strong argument that abortions are therefore within the powers and scope of the individual states (or the people) instead of congress.

IMO it would take quite a bit of pretzel twisting for Scotus to explain why the federal government can pass laws on abortions when it should be under state jurisdiction, (especially after they tossed out Roe vs Wade) but I wouldn’t put it past the current group to try.

I don't see how the Supreme Court ruling that the US Constitution does NOT include an implied right to privacy that therefore means that the Constitution gives an absolute right to legal abortion which no state law can override (and always did but we just didn't realize it until the 1970s) means that the Constitution gives state constitutions the authority to override any federal laws on abortion. That seems like a very weird and rather convoluted argument. Not unlike Roe vs Wade was in the first place.

Seems much simpler to say that state constitutions are another form of state law and that federal law trumps state law.

True, but IIRC Roe vs Wade and its successors were about whether or not there was an implied right to privacy in the consititution, which would indeed trump state law (and federal law if it conflicted with that right). Did that case (or other court cases) discuss whether abortions fall under federal jurisdiction? IIRC in the USA the presumption is that any power not expressely given to the federal government defaults to the states, or the people. Unless the power to regulate abortions falls under an expressly given federal power, shouldn't that mean that the power to regulate abortions would default to the states, or the people? If that were the case, wouldn't that mean that any federal law on abortion would be unconstitutional since it would be an infrigement of states' rights and outside federal powers to regulate?

You think they'll stop in OHIO?

OH HELL NO!

Of course if they pull something like this off it'll just be a precedent that they'll use on the rest of the country.

This SCOTUS did shoot down "Independent State Legislature" (which would have the same effect), so for what it's worth, they have set precedent.

I certainly hope so! If Republicans are able to get away with saying "we're not going to let courtsrule on anything we'd rather rule on ourselves" then the whole concept of division of powers and rule of law goes right out the window.

[bobalot]

Abortion is an example of the dog catching the car for the Republicans.

They wanted an issue to lock in evangelicals as a motivated voting base but didn't realise the desires of this minority (complete abortion bans or very strict abortion laws) is unpopular with the broader electorate. However, they can't back away from these stances because:

1) Their religious base would be outraged; and
2) Nobody else would believe they changed their opinions on a issue they have loudly held for decades.

Basically, they are fucked.