Frank LaRose and Mike Gonidakis, pushing to make it much harder for voters to change the Ohio Constitution, claim that no “reasonable person” would consider banning contraceptives. That’s not true — unless they think U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and a Republican member of the Ohio legislature are not reasonable people.
LaRose, Ohio’s secretary of state, and Gonidakis, president of Ohio Right to Life, attended a rally tardy last month NBC4 Debate about Number 1amendment to the constitution, which will be the only item on Tuesday’s vote. It would radically change a recipe from a hundred years ago This was intended to allow voters to change the state constitution if they felt the government was not responding to their demands.
It would take just 50 percent support to pass Issue 1, but it would raise the bar for future amendments to 60 percent. And while it wouldn’t impose any fresh requirements on a divided-district state legislature to put a proposed amendment on the ballot, it would make it much harder for citizen groups to get an anti-gerrymandering amendment on the ballot, for example.
LaRose and Gonidakis say their goal is to “protect” the Ohio Constitution from wealthy outside interests. But as of tardy last month, 82% of the funding for the effort came from Illinois billionaire who also funded the January 6, 2021, rally leading up to the deadly attack on the U.S. Capitol. He has given millions to candidates who falsely claim that Donald Trump won the 2020 election.
LaRose also provided other, sometimes contradictory, reasons to limit voter access to the Ohio Constitution.
When he was pushing an earlier version of the amendment last year, LaRose was asked if the goal was to block the abortion rights amendment in response to Senate Bill No. 23 — Ohio’s abortion law, which went into effect after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022.
“That’s not the purpose of this type of change,” LaRose responded, adding that he wanted the amendment to be driven by long-term considerations.
However, speaking to a Republican audience in June 2023, LaRose said:It is 100% about ensuring that the radical pro-abortion amendment is not included in our constitution.”
During last month’s debate, LaRose and Gonidakis repeatedly used the word “radical” to describe proposed abortion rights amendment which will be on the ballot in November.
But they failed to mention what happened when a state abortion law that does not make exceptions for rape and incest went into effect last summer before it was put on hold by a state court.
10-year-old rape victim she was forced to go abroad to terminate her pregnancy and at least two other minors who were raped They were denied abortions in Ohio. The same was true for cancer patients waiting for treatment and women whose fetuses had stern abnormalities or other conditions that made pregnancy impossible.
Issue 1’s opponents have said one of its primary goals is to defeat the November abortion rights measure. Based on polls, it seems likely that the amendment will receive 50 percent of the vote, but whether it can get 60 percent is much more questionable.
And in the debate, Issue 1’s leading opponent, state Rep. Allison Russo, D-Upper Arlington, said some abortion opponents in Ohio might try to outlaw contraception. Gonidakis and LaRose said that was absurd.
“She can’t cite a law banning contraception,” Gonidakis said. “I don’t know who would even think of doing something like that. It’s ridiculous. There’s no one who has a program banning contraception — it’s fear mongering.”
LaRose appealed to Progressive Action Fund Advertisement showing a couple in bed. When the woman asks the man if he has a condom, a man in a suit appears and says, “I’m your Republican congressman. Now that we’re in charge, we’re banning contraception.”
LaRose said the advertising crossed all lines.
“There’s a salacious ad that depicts a sex scene that’s being used to say people want to take away contraceptives other than abortion,” he said. “No reasonable person is talking about banning contraceptives. Let’s be clear and stop spreading fear.”
LaRose reiterated that no “reasonable” person is talking about banning contraception.
“I can tell you 100 percent that every reasonable person I know thinks people should have access to this if they choose to do so,” he said. “It’s a moral issue for some people. Some people don’t want to use it. Others do.”
But some prominent abortion opponents have raised the issue of ending contraceptive rights. The most prominent is Supreme Court Justice Thomas.
He said so in his support Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Healthlast year’s decision invalidating the right to abortion guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
“… in future cases, we should reconsider all of the significant due process precedents of this Court, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” Thomas wrote. “Because every significant due process decision is ‘demonstrably wrong.’”
“Griswold” refers to Griswold v. Connecticuta 1965 ruling finding that an 1879 Connecticut law banning contraception was unconstitutional.
Thomas isn’t alone. After Dobbs’ decision last year, Ohio state Rep. Jean Schmidt — a Clermont County Republican who has previously said rape is ugly but an “opportunity” for women — said she would consider banning contraceptives.
“That’s a topic for another day, and I’ll have to hear both sides of the debate,” Schmidt told a Cincinnati radio host. according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer.
LaRose and Gonidakis’ offices did not respond when asked whether the two Issue 1 supporters believe Thomas, Schmidt and Click are not “reasonable” people.
LaRose’s office was also asked about the secretary of state’s utilize of the phrase “non-abortion contraceptives.” Did he say he considered some common forms of contraception to be “abortions” and therefore should be banned?
LaRose’s spokesman, Tom Nichols, did not respond.
