Part One
On TV recently, a pleasant lady offered commentary in support of the proposed amendment concerning reproductive healthcare rights.  She warned against extremist interpretations, and urged her viewers to read the text for themselves. 
Fair enough.  I read the text.  Its provisions are even worse than I had anticipated.  They effectively allow children to overrule their parents with regard to very serious healthcare decisions.  How so?
The amendment assures that, “Every individual has a right to make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions, including but not limited to decisions on (1) contraception; (2) fertility treatment; (3) continuing one’s own pregnancy; (4) miscarriage care; and (5) abortion.” 
“Every individual” means everybody, without restriction—no age limits or doctor’s permissions are needed to qualify under this broad category.  Minor children seeking reproductive healthcare would have a right to “make and carry out” their own reproductive healthcare decisions.  This is possible because the right belongs to the individual child.  Parents would have no right to be either informed or present.  Since this right would be guaranteed in the Ohio Constitution, it would override existing laws and regulations that otherwise protect parental rights. 
Furthermore, it establishes an individual’s right to self-diagnosis.  One’s reproductive health care decisions belong by right to the individual, apparently meaning that the individual’s convictions can overrule a doctor’s opinion.  After all, the patient in this case has the right not only to make, but also to carry out those decisions.  Must parents listen to their children?  Must a doctor?  Apparently so.
The amendment further provides that, “The State shall not . . . interfere with: (1) An individual’s voluntary exercise of this right or (2) a person or entity that assists an individual exercising this right, unless the State demonstrates that it is using the least restrictive means to advance the individual’s health in accordance with widely accepted and evidence-based standards of care.”  In other words, the State cannot interfere with the individual’s reproductive decision, unless it disagrees with that individual that it would be best for his or her health.  The parents cannot change the child’s decision, nor can the doctor, but the State can.
What State entity would make such a determination?  How would it discover that such a situation even exists?  The poorly drafted amendment does not say.  In fact, it defines “State” as including “any governmental entity and any political subdivision.”  Assuming that the definition does not include federal agencies under the term “any governmental entity” (although the assumption may well be unwarranted), its wording explicitly reaches down to “any political subdivision,” which would include cities, townships, and their officers, even zoning boards and mayors.  How exactly is this proposed amendment supposed to work?
Let’s consider an example.  A teacher would be allowed to accompany a minor child to a clinic for hormonal therapy or a sterilization without informing the parents.  If the parents should happen to discover the situation, they would have no power to stop the teacher or their child.  They could not even obtain injunctive relief because any court would constitute a State entity interfering with this personal right, and the amendment specifically prohibits the State from interfering.  Teachers can influence young elementary school students all day at school, but the parents would have no right to stop their child, even if they go to court. 
Read the text.  It’s alarming.  Its careless language indicates a profound lack of concern for the fundamental issues at stake.  Any reasonable person should vote against the amendment in November. 
This constitutes just one more effort by the State to separate parents from their children.  We should not stand for it.  After all, parents matter.
Rev. Gerald J. Bednar, JD, Ph.D.
Retired