Doris Peters calls voters during a phone bank event Thursday, Sept. 28, 2023, at the Republican Party of Cuyahoga County in Independence, Ohio. (AP Photo/Sue Ogrocki)
In the heartland of Ohio, a fierce battle rages, a clash of convictions and strategies within the ranks of abortion opponents. As the November ballot approaches, the anti-abortion movement finds itself in tumultuous waters, torn not only on how to frame their opposition to a pivotal reproductive rights initiative but also on the broader objectives they wish to pursue in restricting the procedure.
This internal discord, surfacing just six weeks before the Election Day, offers a glimpse into the challenges the anti-abortion movement anticipates facing in the coming year. The stage is set for a series of initiatives across multiple states aimed at protecting reproductive rights, making abortion a central issue in races up and down the electoral ladder.
Ohio, a bellwether state in this struggle, showcases a scattered campaign narrative that reflects the internal strife among the diverse anti-abortion factions rallying against the proposed constitutional amendment known as Issue 1, designed to safeguard abortion access in Ohio.
The initial advertisements exploited voters’ anxieties by painting a grim picture of Issue 1, portraying it as a gateway for teenagers to access abortions and gender-transition procedures without parental consent. Simultaneously, other efforts delved into the intricate legal arguments surrounding the amendment’s wording, particularly the interpretation of “reproductive health care.”
In a recent development, the opposition campaign, Protect Women Ohio, took a different route. Their statewide TV ad, unveiled just last week, aimed to unite both Republicans and Democrats against Issue 1. It featured clips of former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden, attempting to position the proposal as a threat to late-term abortions, despite statistics indicating that such procedures are exceedingly rare and typically reserved for life-threatening situations.
Terry Casey, a prominent Ohio Republican consultant, expressed doubts about the effectiveness of this disjointed approach, emphasizing the need for a clear and comprehensible message. He questioned whether the opposition possessed the resources and cohesion necessary to communicate their stance effectively to Ohio’s 11.5 million residents.
In contrast, Casey noted that Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights, advocating for a “yes” vote, seemed to have honed a consistent message – freedom from government interference in personal reproductive health decisions. This unity becomes more accessible when you’re on a winning streak, he observed.
The seismic shift came with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last year, overturning Roe v. Wade and returning the abortion debate to the states. Since then, various states, both Democratic and deeply Republican, have voted to protect abortion rights in some form. More states are poised to tackle abortion rights questions in the coming year.
David Zanotti, President and CEO of the conservative American Policy Roundtable, remarked that the abortion rights movement was well-prepared for the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, while the anti-abortion community was caught off guard. He emphasized that after five decades of fighting to decentralize abortion decision-making, his organization does not support federal intervention. Instead, they have launched their campaign against Ohio’s amendment, focusing on its language and legal implications.
Within the anti-abortion movement, divisions run deep. The Catholic Conference of Ohio, a major player in this arena, is part of a statewide coalition but concurrently runs its campaign against the amendment. Their campaign emphasizes parental rights, the safety of women, and the assertion that the amendment would permit abortions throughout all nine months of pregnancy.
Austin Beigel, President of End Abortion Ohio, disapproves of the 15-week policy backed by Susan B. Anthony, considering it insufficiently “pro-life.” He has adopted the term “abortion abolitionist” for himself, contending that the label “pro-life” has lost its meaning as various groups have shifted their objectives.
The fractures within the anti-abortion movement became glaringly evident in May 2022 when Louisiana was on the cusp of passing a bill defining abortion as homicide, a move that could subject women to criminal prosecution and imprisonment. Over 75 anti-abortion groups, led by National Right to Life, issued an open letter condemning the legislation, even as the president of Ohio Right to Life signed it. This divide deepened further when Ohio contemplated a similar bill banning abortions from conception, causing a rift among anti-abortion activists.
Ohio’s Governor, Mike DeWine, a staunch Catholic and abortion opponent, offers a distinct message to bolster opposition to the constitutional amendment. He pledges that if voters defeat Issue 1, he will endeavor to find a legislative compromise that aligns with the majority’s comfort.
To proponents of abortion rights, the divisions within the anti-abortion movement are superficial. According to Kellie Copeland, Executive Director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, the ultimate goal of the anti-abortion movement remains a complete ban on abortion without exceptions. The ongoing disputes, she asserts, revolve around strategy and tactics to retain support from voters not aligned with their cause.
COMMENTS