The recent AP article on Ohio’s Issue 1, entitled “Ohio votes on abortion rights this fall. Misinformation about the proposal is spreading” provides a seemingly comprehensive overview of the proposed constitutional amendment. However, a closer look at the claims made in the article shows that it utterly fails to address critical concerns about the amendment, particularly the grave implications of its loopholes.

Loopholes Allowing Late-Term Abortions and Potential Infanticide

It is alarming that the AP article neglects to address the glaring loophole in Issue 1, which could permit late-term abortions, and even pave the way for infanticide. Radical abortion activists supporting Issue 1 are now downplaying this by suggesting that abortions “up to the point of birth” are a myth. The actual facts paint a different picture:

• The U.S. witnesses over 50,000 abortions annually post the 15-week mark, a stage when unborn babies can sense pain, and a staggering 10,000 after the 20-week mark.
• Dr. Warren Hern from Colorado, due to the absence of gestational limits, has specialized in “late-abortions,” even up to 35 weeks, for half a century.
• A legal expert from Ohio recently confirmed that this amendment could endorse unrestricted abortion and even sanction “infanticide on demand.”
• Dr. Martin Haskell, an Ohio-based abortionist, admitted that a whopping 80% of the partial-birth abortions he carried out were elective. His “dilation and extraction” method, known as partial-birth abortion, is particularly gruesome.

Parental Consent Laws at Risk

The AP article’s claim that Issue 1 will not impact Ohio’s parental consent law is misleading. While the amendment might not address this directly, the implications are evident:

• Ohio’s Attorney General, Dave Yost’s legal analysis of Issue 1 mentioned that Ohio’s parental-consent law might not hold ground post the amendment.
• Ohio reporter Laura Hancock has voiced concerns about current parental consent laws facing legal battles.
• In Michigan, a similar measure led to the removal of the parental consent question from informed consent paperwork.

Misrepresentation of Medical Conditions

Issue 1 supporters are propagating the fallacy that this radical measure is to safeguard Ohio women undergoing miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies. In reality, Ohio’s current laws already offer these protections. Particularly dishonest is the fact that the AP article did not highlight:

• The Ohio Department of Health’s confirmation that current state regulations do not obstruct emergency care for miscarriages.
• In addition to the health department, a group of board-certified Ohio OB/GYNs has debunked this particular misinformation disseminated by Issue 1 advocates.

Questionable “Expert” Opinions

• If the AP’s own biases were not bad enough, the AP article also presents abortion supporters as if they were neutral experts, when in fact, they have evident biases:

• Jessie Hill, who is cited by the AP article as a legal expert, not only argued against the Ohio Heartbeat Bill in court, but was also part of the team that drafted Issue 1. Hill’s political contributions are almost exclusively to Democrats.
• Dan Kobil and Tracy Thomas (both cited as expert constitutional law professors) in fact have donation histories that reveal clear partisan inclinations, with contributions to numerous Democratic campaigns.

Abortion Advocates Own the Media

While pro-lifers in Ohio and around the country are fighting mightily to fundraise and put up costly TV and print ads, what the AP article shows is that the media is a free and unlimited PR machine for the abortion movement. While the credibility of mainstream media outlets like the AP has been badly diminished, in closely fought cultural and political battles the unlimited publicity and media spin enjoyed by the pro-abortion movement is very difficult to overcome.