Ohio lawmakers seek to ban abortions in the state, treat the procedure as homicide
Reps. Levi Dean (R-Xenia) and Jonathan Newman (R-Troy) introduced the 'Ohio Prenatal Equal Protection Act' on Wednesday, which would grant embryos and fetuses the same legal protections as citizens under state law from the moment of fertilization. Under the bill, having an abortion could lead to homicide charges. The proposed ban only grants exceptions for 'life-saving procedures' on pregnant women and spontaneous miscarriages.
Sweeping property tax reform may save Ohioans $850
The legislation conflicts with a constitutional amendment that was passed by about 56% of voters in 2023, which protects Ohioans' right to make decisions about abortion, contraception, fertility treatment, miscarriage care and pregnancy.
A nonprofit working with the lawmakers, End Abortion Ohio, announced the bill in a news release on Tuesday. The organization claimed Ohio's constitutional amendment protecting abortion should be 'treated as null' because it violates the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution by denying 'preborn persons' the right to life.
'In the Holy Scriptures, All men are created equal, being made in the image of God,' the news release states. 'We must obey God rather than men, and we call upon our governing authorities to follow in that obedience.'
Dan Kobil, a professor at Capital University Law School, said that any 'rational court' would rule the legislation unconstitutional if it were to pass the Statehouse.
Ohio State lost $29 million in three months through DOGE grant cuts
'The problem for the legislators is that they are bound by the Ohio constitution and cannot enact laws that are contrary to the Ohio constitution,' Kobil said. 'Given how directly this violates the Ohio constitution, this appears to be little more than a publicity stunt.'
Kobil further said the organization's argument regarding the U.S. Constitution would not hold up, as the state legislature does not have the authority to 'finally enact' laws under the 14th Amendment.
'If Congress did enact a law saying something like this, then that could override the Ohio constitution, so federal laws do override state constitutions,' Kobil said. 'However, their problem is they're attempting to make a state law that overrides Ohio's constitution, and they've simply not got the authority to do that.'
The reproductive rights group Abortion Forward criticized the lawmakers for introducing a bill that directly contradicts voters' choice to enshrine reproductive rights, and stated the effort would strip Ohioans of their ability to make their own healthcare decisions.
'These out-of-touch anti-abortion extremists want to give legal rights to fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses,' Executive Director Kellie Copeland said in a statement. 'Bills like this embolden law enforcement to surveil and investigate people for their actions during pregnancy – families and loved ones could be targeted by law enforcement for helping someone access an abortion, miscarriage care, or even IVF.'
Columbus among most bedbug-infested cities in the country, recent analysis finds
While Ohio lawmakers have introduced numerous abortion restriction bills over the years, the new act marks the first one that would provide equal protection to embryos and fetuses under the law, according to the news release. Ohio Right to Life, a nonprofit that has long lobbied for abortion restrictions, told NBC4 it does not support the proposed legislation.
'At no time have we supported criminalizing birth mothers who abort their children,' President Mike Gonidokis said. 'Now is not the time to target pregnant women with misguided legislation, but to embrace the fact that women need real choices and life-affirming help to have a healthy child and raise them in Ohio. This legislation does not meet this standard.'
Since the beginning of this year, Republican lawmakers in 10 other states have introduced bills that aim to charge pregnant women with homicide if they receive an abortion. Currently, no state legally defines abortion as homicide.
The sponsors of Ohio's incoming bill did not immediately answer a request for comment.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Graham: Senate will move ‘soon' on Russia, China sanctions
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Tuesday that the Senate will move 'soon' on a 'tough' Russia sanctions bill that will also penalize the Kremlin's top energy recipients, China and India. 'President @realDonaldTrump is spot on about the games Putin is playing,' Graham said in a Tuesday post on X. 'The Senate will move soon on a tough sanctions bill – not only against Russia – but also against countries like China and India that buy Russian energy products that finance Putin's war machine. The Senate bill has a presidential waiver to give President Trump maximum leverage.' 'When it comes to Putin and those who support his war machine, it is time to change the game,' added the South Carolina Republican, a prominent supporter of Ukraine in the Senate. Graham renewed his push for the sanctions bill, a measure that has more than 80 co-sponsors in the Senate, as President Trump has continued to express his frustration with Russian President Vladimir Putin. 'That is a war that it should have never happened. A lot of people are dying and it should end. We get a lot of bull**** thrown at us by Putin, if you want to know the truth. He's very nice all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless,' Trump told reporters at the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday. Trump confirmed, when asked by a reporter on Tuesday, that he is 'looking at' Graham's sanctions bill. The measure would impose a 500 percent tariff on imports from any nation that purchases Russian uranium, gas and oil. Graham has been in constant contact with Trump about the bill and lawmakers in the upper chamber are waiting for the president's approval to bring it to the floor. Graham is proposing a carveout to his bill to spare countries who still import Russian gas, but have supported Ukraine in their three-year war with the Kremlin's military. 'A lot of countries still buy Russian oil and gas but less. Some European countries still have relationships with Russia, but they've been very helpful to Ukraine. So I want to carve them out,' Graham told reporters last month. 'There's some of our allies who've really helped Ukraine but would be affected by the bill, they've earned their way to get a carveout,' the senator added. 'Those who have helped Ukraine, meaningfully, will get a carveout. In other words you'll incentivize people to help Ukraine.' Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters on Tuesday that 'we'll have more to say about that later this week' when talking about Graham's measure and added that there is a 'lot of interest' in moving the bill forward. The Pentagon is expected to resume sending some defensive weapons to Ukraine, marking a reversal after the shipments were halted last week amid concerns of U.S. stockpiles running low. Trump said on Monday that the U.S. needs to supply Ukraine with weapons so that the war-torn country can defend itself from the Russian military's attacks. 'Defensive weapons, primarily, but they're getting hit very, very hard. So many people are dying in that mess. We're going to send some more weapons,' the president told reporters. The Defense Department confirmed the move Monday night, adding that the review of U.S. munitions will continue. Trump expressed disappointment with Putin after speaking with the Russian leader on Thursday, saying that the Kremlin head is not 'looking to stop' and that he made 'no progress' in forging a potential ceasefire agreement between Moscow and Kyiv. Trump spoke with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Friday. Ukraine's leader said the two presidents had a 'very important and fruitful' conversation. The two leaders spoke about the Russian attacks and agreed that 'we will work together to strengthen protection of our skies.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The Supreme Court's Super-Neutral Principle That Applies Only to Democratic Presidents
This week's Slate Plus bonus episode of Amicus is a mailbag special in which co-hosts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern answer listeners' burning questions about the law under the joint reign of Donald Trump's monarchical presidency and our imperial Supreme Court. Amicus listeners have a lot of smart questions, so we're continuing our occasional 'Dear (Juris)Prudence' series, in which we share your questions, as well as Dahlia's and Mark's answers. Write to amicus@ to pose a question to Dahlia and Mark. The following transcript has been edited and condensed for clarity. Dear (Juris)Prudence, Can you explain why the major-questions doctrine wasn't invoked when deciding the Trump v. CASA birthright citizenship case but was used in overturning student loan relief under President Joe Biden? Is it because the justices didn't decide the merits of CASA but did decide the merits of student loan relief? And if so, why can the court seemingly then choose to decide procedure rather than merits? —Paul Michael Davis Mark Joseph Stern: I'll start with the procedural question vs. the merits. That is totally at the Supreme Court's discretion. The court could have asked the parties in Trump v. CASA to talk about birthright citizenship and tee up a ruling on Trump's executive order because it obviously violates the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. And it shouldn't have been difficult for the court to say so. But instead, it manipulated the docket, manipulated the case, to make it an attack on the universal injunctions that had been holding this executive order back from being implemented, and ignored the merits altogether. The converse happened in the student loan case. That was really a case about standing, because no one was clearly injured by the Biden administration's student loan forgiveness. The Supreme Court, as Justice Elena Kagan wrote persuasively in her dissent, should have started and ended by saying that nobody had standing in that case. Instead, the court manipulated its standing doctrine to pretend that there was standing by some party, and then the court swiftly reached the merits and invoked the so-called major-questions doctrine, saying that the policy was unlawful. In doing so, Kagan expressly said, the majority violated the Constitution by exceeding its power—a pretty rare charge for a justice to levy at the majority. So that choice—whether to decide a procedural issue or reach for the merits—is all totally discretionary. But we should always pay attention to how the court is tweaking its docket and the questions that it takes up to reach the outcome that it wants to. The first part of your question was about the major-questions doctrine, however. Dahlia and I always put this 'doctrine' in air quotes. It's not a real thing. It's totally malleable. It's total BS, resting on what five or six justices see as a major question, and when they think they've spotted a major question, then they apply super close scrutiny to what the executive branch has tried to do, and will usually strike it down. They did this with the student loan relief program under Biden. They did it with climate regulation under Biden. I doubt that they will do this to anything that Donald Trump tries to enact. I still think it's likely they'll strike down the birthright citizenship order on the merits, though I'm less certain of that than I was a couple of weeks ago. I still think it's more likely than not, but I doubt they'll invoke the major-questions doctrine. I think that that doctrine will lie dormant throughout four years of Trump, and if you had any doubt about that, I'll note that Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence at the end of June in which he strongly implied that the major-questions doctrine wouldn't apply to Trump's tariffs. Remember, one of the grounds that the lower court used to strike down the tariffs was essentially invoking the major-questions doctrine to say that Congress hadn't given Trump this power clearly enough. So it was a major question about a power that Trump couldn't exercise, and here is Kavanaugh, one of the key creators of the doctrine, who wielded it so ferociously under Biden, giving up in advance and strongly suggesting that his pet doctrine just doesn't apply to tariffs, because that's foreign trade and that's beyond the remit of the federal judiciary. This is why I fundamentally object to this doctrine in the first place. It is so malleable that all it really does is help courts pick the outcome that they want to reach, then guide themselves along the way, acting as though they have an actual legal basis for doing so.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Attorney General Pam Bondi fires local federal prosecutor involved in Jan. 6 criminal cases, Leo Govoni case
TAMPA, Fla. (WFLA) — The Department of Justice fired at least three prosecutors involved in U.S. Capitol riot criminal cases. 8 On Your Side obtained one of the termination letters that was signed by Attorney General Pam Bondi. The letter did not provide a reason for the removal from the Federal Service, effective immediately, citing only 'Article II of the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States.' Close Thanks for signing up! Watch for us in your inbox. Subscribe Now 8 On Your Side has learned that U.S. Attorney General and Temple Terrace native, Pam Bondi, has fired assistant U.S. Attorney Mike Gordon. Gordon was one of many federal prosecutors who worked on cases involving the January 6th rioters. Gordon was also the lead prosecutor on the Leo Govoni case. Daughter blames Leo Govoni for dad's death after funds for chemo treatment went missing The Pinellas County businessman accused of draining $100 million from special needs trusts meant to help disabled people and their families was criminally indicted two weeks ago. Govoni's personal accountant, John Witeck, was also arrested. They two are facing 15 grand jury charges: conspiracy to commit mail fraud, and wire fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering conspiracy, bank fraud, illegal monetary transactions, and false bankruptcy declaration. The letter we obtained is dated dated June 27, 2025. That is one day after Gordon argued in federal court for Govoni not to be released pending trial. The letter did not include a reason for termination. Investigative Reporter Brittany Muller reached out to the U.S. Attorney's Office of the Middle District of Florida, and a spokesperson wrote, 'The case against Leo Govoni and John Witeck will proceed as scheduled.' The spokesperson would not comment on Gordon's termination. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
