You’re missing the point that it’s no longer illegal under Ohio’s Constitution. These arrests would be because some legislators illegally said people should be arrested and nothing else.
The closest equivalent would be if the legislators banned interracial marriage after it was codified in the state’s Constitution (Roe v. Wade being struck obviously leaves abortion up to the states while interracial marriage is federally protected as the main difference).
No one is winning anything other than a Gaetz style profile doing this, not Governor, not Senator, nothing higher than an MTG, Boebert, or or Gaetz styled psychotic district in the House. That’s far less powerful than being a Sheriff or D.A. in one of these places. Plus it comes out of their yearly budget and time resources. I just don’t see it. The only point is to scare providers, which invites a higher form of heat. In this discussion I’m only interested in the arrest side, which I don’t see happening.
I don’t even know if what you just did is a strawman it’s so absurd. I’m saying an actual person(s) who has the authority to arrest and prosecute a woman for having an abortion in Ohio who currently has no profile, who then uses that arrest/prosecution to get a higher office that has to be elected via a statewide vote (Governor, Attorney General, Senator). I’m not talking about an idiot former president winning a state that he has nothing to do with.
You should probably note that abortion was gutted after he was out of office. His party has been losing elections and referendums left and right in states that are very far right in general on abortion since then. Abortion will likely be the number one issue that drives the 2024 election unless something even bigger comes along. It’s not an accident that states where people know they can and will be prosecuted for abortions or miscarriages are reacting the way they are at the polls. Now that Texas is living under the reality of this in a draconian way, it will be interesting to see how it tracks in 2024. This isn’t a problem in blue states, it’s a problem in red states and that could change the outlook in several states beyond what people would generally expect in an election like the one coming up in 2024. It might not result in Democratic wins in Republican strongholds, but it will be closer than usual most likely.
I just don’t understand the distinction. You’re saying that an individual who arrests someone after this new referendum passed and the legislature does something to counteract it has no chance of winning a state wide election. But someone who doesn’t actually do that but is otherwise openly and notoriously pro-life in a state that just passed this is somehow an entirely different situation (and their chances of winning statewide election are dramatically different).
I give up, because we’re talking past each other. I’m talking about specific action, you’re talking about words. The GOP is about inaction, not action. That’s why Texas put whistleblowing in the hands of citizens. It’s just words until there is an action. This isn’t passing a law that can be used for prosecution with Roe v. Wade gone, this is ignoring a Constitutional amendment to the point where people will be arrested just because some corrupt legislators say so.
Ohio is on the precipice of secession if they can just perpetually do whatever they want with no ramifications from that, especially in regard to their own state laws and Constitution. What I’m saying is when stark reality hits the citizens of that state, they will react, and they did. What that legislature does next may cause them big problems. That’s not saying a wildly Republican district turns Democratic, it’s saying it opens the door for a Republican to say these idiots are crazy and I’m going to restore normal things like following the Constitution of the state and judicial rulings. They can run on that and still say f the federal government like always.
Again, with refusing to implement an election map, that’s intentional inaction that can’t be forced. Forcing someone to arrest someone that is against what was just voted in because you say so is very very different. I don’t understand why this is so hard to see and I’m tired of talking about it. Feel free to @ me when the first arrests come in and then again when that person makes it to be Governor, Attorney General, or Senator because of it.
They say they will vote to remove abortion from the state Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. “Ohio legislators will consider removing jurisdiction from the judiciary over this ambiguous ballot initiative.”
In other words, by removing jurisdiction over the abortion issue the amendment would become meaningless text. Here’s the order of events: The state legislature passes an abortion ban. Litigants sue arguing that the law violates the express language of the state constitution. But the Supreme Court now lacks jurisdiction over the issue. So nothing happens. End of story.
The additional part of the puzzle is that state Supreme Court is now stacked with Trumpy right-wing Republicans. So we shouldn’t imagine a disinterested court will be looking for a clever way out of under the state legislature’s power grab. They’ll be happy to take the permission slip the legislature has given them to ignore the new language in the constitution.
I want to stress this again. This is easier said than done. It’s similar to Wisconsin Republicans’ threat to impeach newly elected Justice Janet Protasiewicz before she even ruled on her first case – a dire and unprecedented power grab but one they’ve also clearly been wary of pulling the trigger on.
You have one group of Republicans saying: can we please just stop losing elections over this? Please? But many more want to keep running up that hill. For the key players – state legislators – there’s nothing to lose. They don’t care. Their seats and their majorities are so gerrymandered that they can’t really lose. The rub comes for people running statewide, where gerrymandering has no impact.
I don’t think they’re going to be able to take this quite as far as they’re suggesting. But we can’t rule it out. That would put it right back on the ballot in 2024. It would be a gift for Sherrod Brown.
I would expect that it only goes to federal appellate courts if the argument is that there is a federal law that supercedes state law, given that state Supreme courts are supposed to be the final arbiters of state laws. For abortion per sec, SCOTUS is abundantly clear that abortion is up to states. But can states remove state judicial overview of an issue if the state legislature and judiciary agree it can? I am not sure there is a federal statute preventing this, so I would bet on a ghoulish state supreme court getting to nullify this referendum if they please.
The first data on births since Roe v. Wade was overturned shows how much abortion bans have had their intended effect: Births increased in every state with a ban, an analysis of the data shows.
By comparing birth statistics in states before and after the bans passed, researchers estimated that the laws caused around 32,000 annual births, based on the first six months of 2023, a relatively small increase that was in line with overall expectations.
Until now, studies have shown that many women in states with bans have ended their pregnancies anyway, by traveling to other states or ordering pills online. What they have been unable to show is how many women have not done so, and carried their pregnancies to term. The new analysis, published Friday as a working paper by the Institute of Labor Economics, found that in the first six months of the year, between one-fifth and one-fourth of women living in states with bans — who may have otherwise sought an abortion — did not get one.
The analysis showed that the increased births were disproportionately among women in their 20s and Black and Hispanic women, which researchers said could be because these groups tend to be poorer, making it harder to travel.
So I’ve read a few articles on the subject like above. From what I can tell is that both abortions in the US and births in the US went up after Dobbs. Is that correct and consistent with other sources are showing?
It is not surprising and easily explained, I just want to make sure that is correct.
That’s what it seems. The overall effect seems marginal but it seems like women who have easier access to abortions are having more of them and those who don’t have access are not. So the overall birthrate goes up slightly while the abortion rate also goes up.
But in his letter, Mr. Paxton warned the order would not constrain state officials or private citizens from filing criminal or civil lawsuits against the hospital or others, such as Ms. Cox’s husband, who might help her obtain an abortion.
He reiterated that position in his filings to the Texas Supreme Court.
“Nothing will prevent enforcement of Texas’s civil and criminal penalties once the T.R.O. erroneously prohibiting enforcement is vacated,” the filings from his office read.
This is so batshit insane I just can’t process it. I guess the equivalent would be if Democrats passed a law that any gun company employee can be sued by private citizens if that gun is used in a crime.