To Chairwoman Schmidt, Vice Chair Deeter, Ranking Member Somani, and members of the House Health Committee, thank you for this opportunity to provide (written only) opponent testimony for House Bill 347.
About 2.5 years ago, Ohioans decided they had enough of politicians meddling in their private, health care decisions and overwhelmingly passed then-Issue One, the Reproductive Freedom Amendment.
Since that time (and before), Ohio legislators have repeatedly ignored the will of Ohio voters and devised numerous ways to attempt to subvert the plain language of this constitutional amendment. Unfortunately for them, the language of this amendment is clear and succinct, although they pretend otherwise.
HB 347 is the latest attempt, requiring consultation with a doctor at least 24 hours before an abortion, and where that doctor is legally required to provide specific information to their patient, including about possible complications, alternatives to abortion, and more. Failure to do so means the abortion cannot legally be performed.
In other words, by erecting these roadblocks, HB 347 is an unconstitutional burden on the right to reproductive choice. That is exactly why Ohio’s current law mandating a 24-hour waiting period before an abortion has been enjoined by a state court (Pre-Term Cleveland, et al v. Dave Yost).
This is similar to those burdens that placed regulations on how to dispose of fetal tissue (unanimously affirmed as unconstitutional last week by the Ohio First District Court of Appeals), and the so-called “Heartbeat Bill” (quickly, and currently, enjoined by the trial court). Passage of HB 347 will meet a similar fate in court as the lawsuits that came before it.
Sponsors and supporters want us all to believe HB 347 is legally, medically, and scientifically distinct from these lawsuits and the explicit protections now found in the Ohio Constitution. They claim HB 347 is not really about abortion, but is, instead, all about protecting patients and providing information.
However, no amount of attempted gaslighting from those who should and do know better saves HB 347 from its various and numerous constitutional infirmities. Ohio would be better served by the General Assembly removing all language and references to now unconstitutional abortion provisions in the Ohio Revised Code instead of entertaining legislation promoted by those who demand their religious beliefs about abortion apply to everyone else, all the time.
For all these reasons and more, the ACLU of Ohio encourages this committee’s rejection of House Bill 347.
