Bill addresses decision-making for Ohioans with developmental disabilities
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) – A bill in the Ohio Statehouse seeks to establish a presumption that all adults with developmental disabilities are capable of making their own decisions unless otherwise determined by a court.
Senate Bill 35, sponsored by Sens. Michele Reynolds (R-Franklin County) and Jerry Cirino (R-Kirtland), was introduced in January. Along with declaring that adults with developmental disabilities should be presumed capable of managing their affairs, the bill would legally establish a 'less restrictive' alternative to guardianship, called 'supported decision making' (SDM), according to Reynolds.
SDM allows individuals with developmental disabilities to retain their legal decision making authority while receiving support from chosen advisers who can help them understand, make and communicate their decisions. The bill would allow the advisors to be formally chosen through a written plan, or chosen informally.
In a guardianship, a family member or other entity is in charge of an individual's affairs and ultimately makes decisions for them, when a court finds that person is incapable of making their own decisions due to a mental disability, according to the nonprofit Disability Rights Ohio.
'This legislation addresses a significant need in our current system,' Reynolds said at the bill's first hearing in February. 'Many adults with developmental disabilities find that full guardianship is more restrictive than necessary, while complete independence may not provide adequate support.'
Under the bill, entering into a SDM plan could not be used as grounds for a court to find that an adult is incapable of managing their own affairs. Adults with developmental disabilities who use a SDM plan would be allowed to act independently of their advisors and end the plan at any time. The bill additionally clarifies that adults with developmental disabilities could not be forced into a SDM plan.
Reynolds said that the approach recognizes that 'disability exists on a spectrum' and that many adults with developmental disabilities are capable of making their own decisions. Twenty-three states have enacted similar legislation, according to the lawmakers.
'Supported decision making protects adults with developmental disabilities from exploitation because they maintain control over their own lives and decisions,' Cirino said.
If the bill were to pass, the Ohio Department of Developmental Disabilities would develop example SDM plans and educational materials.
The bill had its second hearing earlier this month, where 13 entities testified in support of the legislation, including the Down Syndrome Association of Central Ohio and the Ohio Association of County Boards of Developmental Disabilities (OACB).
'Unfortunately, in many instances, guardianship represents an all-or-nothing decision for the courts to make when they are asked to balance a person's health and safety with their ability to make decisions about their own future,' said Jake Dowling, a legislative affairs manager with OACB. 'Supported decision making offers a middle path that preserves both.'
Greg Carter, the parent and legal guardian of an adult with developmental disabilities, told NBC4 he questions how the legislation would affect those currently under a guardianship arrangement.
'A parent who has been a part of their child's life all along should not have to jump through any hoops to continue in the role of decision maker for their loved one simply because the calendar turns a page,' Carter said. 'I question the motivation and need for a [policy] such as this.'
While a hearing for opponent testimony has not yet been held for the legislation, some critics of the concept have come out against a recently introduced budget bill including language that would codify SDM in Ohio law.
Caroline Lahrmann, an Ohio mother, testified against the budget bill (HB 96) saying those with developmental disabilities can already have friends and family assist them with decision making without new legislation. Harris Capps, a parent and legal guardian, echoed the same sentiment, calling sections of the bill addressing SDM 'unnecessary' and 'redundant.'
'SDM as policy could result in a degradation of Ohio's guardianship system while providing more opportunities for frivolous lawsuits,' Capps said.
Current Ohio law requires those with developmental disabilities to be able to manage their financial affairs if they are able, participate in decisions that affect their lives, and select a parent or advocate to act on their behalf.
Cirino introduced a similar bill in the last General Assembly that did not pass before the end of the legislative session. SB 35 was assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee and currently has one Republican cosponsor.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Yahoo
Reynolds vetoes bill restricting eminent domain for pipelines. Special session possible.
Gov. Kim Reynolds has vetoed a bill aimed at curbing eminent domain use by carbon capture pipelines and other infrastructure projects, saying the legislation is written too broadly and could damage economic development in Iowa. The veto, one of only a handful this year, deals a blow to the dozens of Republican lawmakers who supported the bill and to landowners who have shown up at the Iowa Capitol for years to call for greater restrictions on eminent domain. In a veto message included with her rejection of House File 639, Reynolds said, "I've consistently said that if eminent domain is used, it must be rare, fair and a last resort." "But HF 639 isn't just about eminent domain," she said. "It goes much further — and in doing so, sets a troubling precedent that threatens Iowa's energy reliability, economy and reputation as a place where businesses can invest with confidence." Lawmakers reacted swiftly to Reynolds' veto, illustrating the deep divide among legislative Republicans over the issue. House Speaker Pat Grassley, R-New Hartford, released a statement saying he has asked all members of the Iowa Legislature to sign a petition to reconvene for a special session to override Reynolds' veto. Overriding a veto requires a two-thirds vote of both the Iowa House and Senate. "This veto is a major setback for Iowa," Grassley said. "It is a setback not only for landowners who have been fighting across Iowa, but for the work the House of Representatives has put in for four years to get legislation like HF 639 passed. We will not stop fighting and stand firm on our commitment until landowners in Iowa are protected against eminent domain for private gain." House Republican lawmakers have worked for years to pass legislation reining in eminent domain use, only to see their proposals fail to advance in the Senate. Finally, this year, the GOP-led Senate debated late into the night as 13 Republican senators joined with most Democrats to pass House File 639 over the objection of 21 of their Republican colleagues. Senate Majority Leader Jack Whitver, R-Grimes, said he supports Reynolds' veto. "Based on the votes on that bill in the Iowa Senate, a significant majority of our caucus supports a better policy to protect landowner rights," Whitver said. "I expect that majority of our caucus would not be interested in any attempt to override her veto." The veto is good news for Summit Carbon Solutions, which is proposing to build a $9 billion carbon capture pipeline that would span more than 2,500 miles across several states, including Iowa, and connect 57 ethanol plants and bury carbon dioxide from the plants deep underground. Bruce Rastetter, Summit's co-founder, is a prominent Republican Party donor. Rastetter has given Reynolds $175,000 since 2015 in donations and in-kind campaign contributions, according to reports filed with the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board. The bill would have said hazardous liquid pipelines, including carbon capture pipelines, cannot receive eminent domain powers unless they qualify as common carriers, meaning they can prove they will sell the commodity to an unaffiliated buyer. It also would have required pipeline companies to carry more insurance for their projects, allows more people to intervene in Iowa Utilities Commission proceedings and requires commission members to be present at more meetings. "We can do better," Reynolds wrote in her veto message. "And I'm committed to working with the Legislature to strengthen landowner protections, modernize permitting and respect private property." In the meantime, Reynolds said she would direct the Iowa Utilities Commission to implement two of the bill's provisions: requiring all Iowa Utilities Commission members to be present at hearings on proposed public utility regulations, electric transmission lines and pipelines and at least one commissioner to be present at informational meetings held in counties along the project's route. Supporters of the bill, including landowners who are unwilling to sign agreements with Summit, say a private company should not be granted eminent domain powers for a private project that does not serve a public use. Rep. Steven Holt, R-Denison, one of the bill's main supporters in the Iowa House, said in a Facebook post that Reynolds "has chosen to ignore landowners, the vast majority of the Legislature, the Republican Party Platform and the Iowa Constitution." "I am profoundly disappointed over the governor's decision to veto HF 639," Holt wrote. "The Iowa Constitution is clear that the power of eminent domain can be used only for public use projects. The Republican Party of Iowa Platform strongly opposes eminent domain for economic development projects and the CO2 pipeline specifically." Opponents of the bill say pipelines like Summit's are necessary to open new markets for low-carbon ethanol that can be used for sustainable fuel for industries like aviation and shipping. The Republicans who opposed the law said they believe it will harm Iowa's economy and land the state in a lawsuit for interfering with a project that has already received approval from the state. Several of the bill's requirements apply to hazardous liquid pipelines, which include not just carbon pipelines, but pipelines that transport crude oil, refined petroleum products, liquefied petroleum gases, anhydrous ammonia, liquid fertilizers, alcohols and coal slurries. "That's a bill that's just going to facilitate activists," Senate President Amy Sinclair, R-Allerton, said June 5 on an episode of "Iowa Press" on Iowa PBS. "And there were so many problems with that and ultimately it will cost the state of Iowa money, both in economic impact as well as potential lawsuit, and I think we have to say those words out loud." Groups representing the ethanol industry issued a flood of statements thanking Reynolds for her veto. Monte Shaw, executive director of the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, said the group is "deeply grateful" to Reynolds for her veto. 'This is a classic example of why our system of government has checks and balances," Shaw said in a statement. "Any thoughtful review of this bill would determine that it would lead to higher energy prices for Iowans, hamper future economic development, hold back job creation, and stifle new markets for Iowa farmers. IRFA thanks Gov. Reynolds for listening to Iowans, studying the actual legislation, and ignoring the rhetoric that was as inaccurate as it was loud." Jeff Broin, founder and CEO of POET, the world's largest ethanol producer, said the bill "unjustly singles out CO2 projects and sends a dangerous message that Iowa is closed for business." "Thank you, Gov. Reynolds, for your steadfast support of family farms and bioethanol producers," he said in a statement. "At a time when commodity prices are low, these CO2 investments will expand market access for Iowa corn, biofuels and bioproducts across the globe, increasing the value of every bushel of corn and every acre of Iowa cropland. This decision will bring benefits to Iowa farmers for generations to come." A range of Republican and Democratic lawmakers, political candidates and landowners criticized Reynolds' veto. "The governor has failed the state of Iowa," said Rep. Bobby Kaufmann, R-Wilton. "She has soiled her legacy permanently." Kaufmann, who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee responsible for tax policy, called Reynolds' action "unforgiveable" and said he would work to block her legislative agenda moving forward. "I vow from this moment on to not allow a single bill that she produces to move forward," he said. "I will work to kill every single piece of legislation that she initiates." David Pautsch, a Republican running against U.S. Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks in the 1st Congressional District, called it "a betrayal of the people." "The governor slow-walked this bill while lobbyists swarmed Terrace Hill," he said in a statement. "In the end, she sided with powerful pipeline interests over Iowa farmers. It's government-sanctioned theft — plain and simple." Senate Minority Leader Janice Weiner, D-Iowa City, said she was disappointed in Reynolds' veto, "but unfortunately I cannot say I'm surprised." "There is simply no amount of political posturing or legislative stonewalling that can deny the fact that Iowans' right to private property should never be infringed upon for private gain," Weiner said. House Minority Leader Brian Meyer, D-Des Moines, said "it's no surprise that Gov. Reynolds has once again sided with her political donors rather than Iowa landowners." "Iowa House Democrats and Republicans worked together to protect property rights," he said. "At the end of the day, there is only one group to blame for the failure of the eminent domain bill: Iowa Republican lawmakers." Mary Powell, a landowner in Shelby County, was one of several landowners to condemn Reynolds' action. 'Gov. Reynolds' veto of HF 639 let Iowans know that to her the Iowa motto was just empty words," Powell said in a statement. "Gov. Reynolds chose to support the millionaires and billionaires at the expense of Iowans and their property rights." If the bill had become law, it would have placed several requirements on hazardous liquid pipelines and the Iowa Utilities Commission. The bill's provisions said: Hazardous liquid pipelines could not receive eminent domain powers unless they qualify as common carriers, meaning they can prove they will sell the commodity to an unaffiliated buyer. Pipeline companies must prove that their project is insured sufficiently to cover any losses or injury from the pipeline construction and any discharge. The company would have to either buy insurance for affected landowners or reimburse them for increased insurance premiums due to the pipeline's presence. All Iowa Utilities Commission members must be present at hearings on proposed public utility regulations, electric transmission lines and pipelines and at least one commissioner must be present at informational meetings held in counties along the project's route. The Iowa Utilities Commission could not renew any permit granted to a liquefied carbon dioxide pipeline and no CO2 pipeline would be allowed to operate longer than 25 years. State lawmakers, city and county officials and 'any resident with a minimally plausible interest' would be allowed to intervene in Iowa Utilities Commission cases. The Iowa Utilities Commission could not file sanctions against intervenors unless the commission determines the intervenor was knowingly dishonest, committed a crime or caused injury to the commission. (This story has been updated to add new information.) Stephen Gruber-Miller covers the Iowa Statehouse and politics for the Register. He can be reached by email at sgrubermil@ or by phone at 515-284-8169. Follow him on X at @sgrubermiller. This article originally appeared on Des Moines Register: Kim Reynolds vetoes Iowa eminent domain, carbon capture pipeline bill
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Yahoo
Two Democrats enter Ohio's 2026 Senate race
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) — Two Democrats have filed to run for U.S. Senate in next year's special election. Chris Volpe filed to run for the Democratic Senate candidacy on June 4, and Lynnea Lau filed to run on May 23. Lau is from Toledo and Volpe is from Columbus, according to Federal Election Commission filings. Former Lt. Gov. John Husted is serving as Ohio's Senator until a November 2026 special election. As Husted was appointed to fill the vacancy left by Vice President J.D. Vance, Ohioans will get the chance to vote on who will complete Vance's term, which runs through 2028. See previous coverage of Husted's appointment in the video player above. What Ohio State is and is not changing to comply with Senate Bill 1 Lau and Volpe both hope to compete with Ohio's Republican candidate for Senate next fall, likely Husted, who filed to retain his seat in April with President Donald Trump's backing. Lau graduated from the University of Toledo and honorably completed her service in the Air Force in 2006. She works in healthcare and academia, and her website lists both as priorities in her candidacy. She also said she wants to use her experience in executive leadership to bring jobs to Ohio. Lau also wants immigration reform that provides undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship, and hopes to support scientific research in Ohio. Volpe calls himself a 'son of Ohio' and graduated from Ohio State. He founded several companies in the computer game industry. Volpe said he is running without corporate or lobbyist funding, and won't spend money on 'expensive consultants and advertising.' He wants to run on a platform of increased accountability for lawmakers. Other Democratic candidates have been rumored to be running, but none have officially entered the race. Former Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, who narrowly lost his Senate seat to Republican Bernie Moreno in the fall, is the leading name but has not announced any run for political office next year. The long-serving Democrat has been linked to both the Senate race and a race for Ohio Governor. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Yahoo
Ohio lawmaker wants to create penalties for hospitals that don't cooperate with ICE
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) – A recently introduced Ohio bill is seeking to strip hospitals of state grants and Medicaid funding if they refuse to let ICE agents inside their facilities. House Bill 281, introduced by Rep. Josh Williams (R-Sylvania) in May, would require any hospital receiving funding through state grants or Medicaid reimbursements to allow ICE agents entry to make an arrest pursuant to a lawful warrant, interview someone or collect evidence. If a hospital denies an ICE agent entry, any funding from state grants would be revoked. Additionally, if the hospital is a Medicaid provider, the state Department of Medicaid would suspend its agreement with the establishment. 'HB 281 contains the changes necessary for Ohio to keep up with the increased illegal immigration we have seen in the past few years, and the current administration's attempts to curtail it using ICE and similar agencies,' Williams said at the bill's first hearing last week. The legislation comes after President Donald Trump rescinded a policy in January that limited ICE's ability to make arrests at 'sensitive locations,' such as houses of worship, schools and hospitals. Across the United States, ICE agents are already generally permitted to enter public areas of hospitals, such as waiting rooms. Health centers are also legally required to let agents enter private areas, including patient rooms, if they have the appropriate warrant. If hospitals interfere with such actions, they could face criminal charges. The main change HB 281 would make to current law in Ohio is the proposed punishments hospitals could face, according to Gary Daniels, a legislative director with the American Civil Liberties Union. He said the bill would benefit from some 'much needed' clarification, as if its intention is to ensure Ohio hospitals comply with ICE enforcement actions, it is 'unnecessary' since that is already required under federal law. Williams said at the bill's first hearing that the legislation would help ensure Medicaid funds are used for those who 'follow the law' and pay for such services. He said the medical treatment of individuals who are in the country illegally causes a 'massive strain' on taxpayer dollars, citing data from the Congressional Budget Office, which found state and federal governments spent almost $27 billion on Medicaid services from 2017 to 2023 on those who are ineligible for the program due on their immigration status. A study from the nonprofit research organization Kaiser Family Foundation stated the $27 billion represents less than 1% of overall Medicaid spending during that time period. The legislation would also require each hospital in the state to adopt written policies establishing procedures to comply with the measure. The Ohio Nurses Association has come out against the bill, claiming lawmakers should focus on other crises state hospitals face regarding chronic understaffing and workplace violence, rather than 'weaponizing' the healthcare system. 'We need safe, well-established protocols to handle law enforcement – not chaotic, politically motivated mandates that turn care spaces into zones of surveillance and fear,' a spokesperson said. 'This legislation would cause real harm to patients and health professionals alike.' HB 281 has been referred to the House's Public Safety Committee, where it awaits input from residents. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
