Court Disqualifies Proposed Nevada Reproductive Freedom Amendment From 2024 Ballot

In Washington v. Aguilar, (NV Dist. Ct., Nov. 21, 2023), a Nevada state trial court held that an Initiative Petition proposing a Reproductive Freedom Constitutional Amendment could not be placed on the 2024 ballot. The court held that the initiative proposal violates the single subject rule, contains a misleading description of the Amendment's effect and contains an unfunded mandate.  The court said in part:

This Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the Petition embraces a multitude of subjects that amount to logrolling. Subsection 1, alone, embraces the following subjects: prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, vasectomy, tubal ligation, abortion, abortion care, management of a miscarriage, and infertility care. Subsection 1 purportedly creates a “fundamental right to reproductive freedom,” but there is no limiting language in that section to circumscribe that right such that the section embraces a single and articulable subject....

The court found the description of the Amendment misleading because "it fails to mention that the law will bar the State from prosecuting, fining, or regulating any miscarriage or stillbirth"; it fails to mention that a medical provider can order a late term abortion to protect the pregnant person's health.; and it fails to explain that it affects equality and equal protection.

Finally, the court found that the proposed Amendment creates an unfunded mandate because a Panel or Board would need to be created to determine whether a healthcare provider acted within the standard of care.

Nevada Independent reports on the decision.

Oklahoma Supreme Court Temporarily Enjoins 3 Laws Restricting Abortions

In Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice v. Drummond, (OK Sup. Ct, Nov. 14, 2023), the Oklahoma Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision directed the trial court to issue a temporary injunction preventing enforcement of three statutes that impose regulatory requirements on abortions while challenges to the laws proceed. The court's majority opinion says in part:

[In Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice v. Drummond I] we held that the Oklahoma Constitution protects a limited right to an abortion, i.e., one that creates an inherent right of the mother to terminate a pregnancy when necessary to preserve her life.... This ... was defined to mean: a woman has an inherent right to choose to terminate her pregnancy if, at any point in the pregnancy, the woman's physician has determined to a reasonable degree of medical certainty or probability that the continuation of the pregnancy will endanger the woman's life due to the pregnancy itself or due to a medical condition that the woman is either currently suffering from or likely to suffer from during the pregnancy.... We made no ruling on whether the Oklahoma Constitution provides a right to an elective termination of a pregnancy....

H.B. 1904 provides a new requirement that a physician who performs an abortion must be board-certified in obstetrics and gynecology. S.B. 779 requires a physician who is certified to provide an abortion-inducing drug either to have admitting privileges at a hospital in the county or contiguous to the county where the abortion-inducing drug was administered or to have a written agreement with an associated physician in such location. S.B. 778 requires an Ultrasound be performed at least 72 hours prior to providing an abortion-inducing drug, but it does make an exception if such requirement would pose a greater risk of death or impairment.....

The clear weight of the evidence presented showed the apparent effect of the three Acts would place unnecessary burdens on the lawful termination of a pregnancy....

Maintaining the status quo would further the public interest of protecting a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy in order to preserve her life....

A concurring opinion and four dissenting opinions were filed. A dissent by Chief Justice Kane, joined by Justice Kuehn, says in part:

The constitutional analysis undertaken by the majority continues to omit the weighing of the rights and interests of the unborn. Any analysis of an abortion statute that proceeds under the proposition that the life of the unborn is unworthy of consideration is defective. In a separate concurring writing, my colleague makes the identical point as to the life of the mother. I completely agree with my colleague on this. However, the interests of the mother were the only interests considered by the majority- the rights of the unborn remain unheard.

AP reports on the decision.

Court Enjoins Idaho's Ban on Aiding a Minor in Obtaining an Abortion

In Matsumoto v, Labrador I, (D ID, Nov. 8, 2023), an Idaho federal district court issued a preliminary injunction against enforcing Idaho Code Section 18-623 which provides in part:

An adult who, with the intent to conceal an abortion from the parents or guardian of a pregnant, unemancipated minor, either procures an abortion ... or obtains an abortion-inducing drug for the pregnant minor to use for an abortion by recruiting, harboring, or transporting the pregnant minor within this state commits the crime of abortion trafficking.

The court said in part:

The Court finds Idaho Code Section 18-623 is a content-based regulation of protected speech and expression. The statute plainly regulates expression based on content by restricting adults from engaging in activities that advocate, assist, and communicate information and support to pregnant minors about legal abortion options....

Here, Idaho Code Section 18-623 fails to provide fair notice or ascertainable standard of what is and what is not abortion trafficking. The terms “recruiting, harboring, or transporting” are undefined, overbroad, and vague, making it impossible for a reasonable person to distinguish between permissible and impermissible activities....

In Matsumoto v. Labrador II, (D ID, Nov. 8, 2023), the same court refused to dismiss plaintiffs' First Amendment speech and 14th Amendment vagueness challenges as well as their right to interstate travel claims. However the court did dismiss plaintiffs right to intrastate travel challenge.

Reuters reports on the preliminary injunction.

Anti-Abortion Legislators in Ohio Will Seek to Remove Jurisdiction of Courts to Interpret New Constitutional Amendment

 As previously reported, abortion opponents in Ohio have taken several approaches in their unsuccessful attempt to prevent the adoption of a reproductive rights amendment to the Ohio Constitution. First they unsuccessfully attempted to amend the state constitution to increase the percentage of voters needed to adopt a constitutional amendment.  Then the state Ballot board adopted a description of the proposed amendment that was seen as painting the amendment in a less favorable light.  Nevertheless, earlier this week voters adopted the amendment by a vote of 56.6% to 43.4%.  Several legislators now say they will attempt to remove jurisdiction from Ohio courts to interpret the new amendment.  In a November 9 press release from the state legislature's Republican Newsroom, Republican legislators said in part:

“Foreign billionaires don't get to make Ohio laws,” said Jennifer Gross (R-West Chester), pointing to millions from billionaires outside America that helped fund Issue 1. Gross added, “This is foreign election interference, and it will not stand.”...

Representative Beth Lear (R-Galena) stated, “No amendment can overturn the God given rights with which we were born.”

To prevent mischief by pro-abortion courts with Issue 1, Ohio legislators will consider removing jurisdiction from the judiciary over this ambiguous ballot initiative. The Ohio legislature alone will consider what, if any, modifications to make to existing laws based on public hearings and input from legal experts on both sides.

Suit Challenges Michigan's Reproductive Freedom Amendment on Federal Constitutional Grounds

In November 2022, Michigan voters passed a state constitutional amendment providing a right to reproductive freedom. Yesterday a group of plaintiffs filed suit in a Michigan federal district court contending that the state constitutional amendment violates the 1st and 14th Amendments to the federal Constitution, as well as the Constitution's Guarantee Clause. Among the 16 plaintiffs is "Jane Roe, a fictitious name on behalf of preborn babies." The complaint (full text) in Right to Life of Michigan v. Whitmer, (WD MI, filed 11/8/2023), alleges in part:

By reason of Article I, § 28 of the Michigan Constitution ..., Defendants have deprived Plaintiffs, specifically including women, and in particular pregnant women; preborn human beings, including Jane Roe and similarly situated individuals; preborn human beings with disabilities; partially born human beings; and human beings born following a failed abortion of the equal protection of the law guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment....

 Article I, § 28 permits individuals, including public school officials, medical professionals, and others, to aid or assist a minor child with procuring an abortion, obtaining contraception, obtaining “gender reassignment” medication or procedures, and becoming sterilized without parental knowledge or consent and with impunity in violation of Plaintiffs’ parental rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

... Article I, § 28 permits adults to engage in sexual acts with minors so long as the minor consents, thereby undermining the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children in violation of Plaintiffs’ parental rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment....

Article I, § 28 nullifies all statutory protection provided to physicians and other medical professionals ... who object to abortion, contraception, “gender reassignment” medication/procedures, sterilization, puberty blockers, and other harmful medical procedures related to “reproduction” on moral and religious grounds in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs....

Article I, § 28 deprives preborn human beings, including Jane Roe and similarly situated individuals, preborn human beings with disabilities, partially born human beings, and human beings born following a failed abortion of the right to life and liberty without due process of law....

Article I, § 28, which was passed pursuant to the process of amending the Michigan Constitution, nullifies the legitimate authority of a coordinate branch of government, the Legislative Branch, by prohibiting it from regulating or governing in a broad area of the law (“reproduction”) that has historically been within its legitimate domain in violation of the Guarantee Clause of the United States Constitution....

Right To Life Michigan issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. Detroit News reports on the lawsuit.  [Thanks to Scott Mange and Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Ohioans Vote On Reproductive Rights Amendment

In Ohio today, voters are casting ballots on State Issue 1 that, if approved will add the following to the Ohio Constitution:

Article I, Section 22. The Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety

A. 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.

B. The State shall not, directly or indirectly, burden, penalize, prohibit, interfere with, or discriminate against either:

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.

However, abortion may be prohibited after fetal viability. But in no case may such an abortion be prohibited if in the professional judgment of the pregnant patient’s treating physician it is necessary to protect the pregnant patient’s life or health.

C. As used in this Section:

1. “Fetal viability” means “the point in a pregnancy when, in the professional judgment of the pregnant patient's treating physician, the fetus has a significant likelihood of survival outside the uterus with reasonable measures. This is determined on a case-by-case basis.”

2. “State” includes any governmental entity and any political subdivision.

D. This Section is self-executing.

Ballotpedia has additional information on the proposed amendment. Live election results will be available here.

UPDATE: With 84% of the precincts reporting, the measure has passed 55.6% to 44.4%.

Missouri Appeals Court Finds Secretary of State's Ballot Summary of Abortion Rights Initiatives Unfair

In Fitz-James v. Ashcroft, (MO App., Oct. 31, 2023), a Missouri state appeals court agreed with a trial court that ballot summaries prepared by the Secretary of State for six different abortion rights initiative proposals were insufficient and unfair.  Three of the offending summaries read as follows:

Do you want the Missouri Constitution to:

• allow for dangerous, unregulated, and unrestricted abortions, from conception to live birth, without requiring a medical license or potentially being subject to medical malpractice;

• nullify longstanding Missouri law protecting the right to life, including but not limited to partial-birth abortion;

• allow for laws to be enacted regulating abortion procedures after Fetal Viability, while guaranteeing the right of any woman, including a minor, to end the life of their unborn child at any time; and 

• require the government not to discriminate against persons providing or obtaining an abortion, potentially including tax-payer funding.

The appeals court, with a few modifications, accepted the trial court's rewritten versions of the ballot summaries. For example, the appeals court prescribed the following rewrite for one of the proposals:

Do you want to amend the Missouri Constitution to:

• establish a right to make decisions about reproductive health care, including abortion and contraceptives, with any governmental interference of that right presumed invalid;

• remove Missouri’s ban on abortion;

• allow regulation of reproductive health care to improve or maintain the health of the patient;

• require the government not to discriminate, in government programs, funding, and other activities, against persons providing or obtaining reproductive health care; and

• allow abortion to be restricted or banned after Fetal Viability except to protect the life or health of the woman?

The Secretary of State issued a press release criticizing the decision and saying that he plans to appeal it.  AP reports on the decision. (See prior related posting.) [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Free Speech and Free Exercise Challenges to Law Restricting Sidewalk Counselors Moves Ahead

In Pro-Life Action Ministries v. City of Minneapolis, (D MN, Oct. 30,2022), a Minnesota federal district court dismissed void-for-vagueness and an expressive-association challenges to a Minneapolis ordinance that bans physically disrupting access to a reproductive healthcare facility.  The court however refused to dismiss plaintiff's free speech, free exercise of religion and overbreadth claims. It said that it is impossible, without a trial record that explores historical background, legislative history, and contemporaneous statements of decisionmakers to determine whether the law is neutral and generally applicable, or whether, instead, it targets religious conduct. A trial record is also needed to decide whether the law is narrowly tailored. The suit was brought by a Christian nonprofit organization that engages in “sidewalk counseling” outside abortion clinics.

Court Enjoins Enforcement of Kansas Abortion Disclosure and Waiting Period Requirements

 In Hodes & Nauser MDs PA v. Kobach, (KS Dist. Ct., Oct. 30, 2023), a Kansas state trial court in a 92-page opinion issued a temporary injunction barring enforcement of the abortion disclosure and waiting period requirements in Kansas Woman’s-Right-to-Know Act and its Medication Abortion Reversal Amendment. The court, relying on state constitutional provisions, said in part:

The Kansas Supreme Court has previously noted that trial courts face a “heavy task” when wrestling with these issues, and this Court concurs in the observation that no easy decisions exist on what may be one of the most divisive social issues of our modern history.... Inevitably, some likely will disagree or take issue with the interim conclusions reached herein on Plaintiffs’ motion for a Temporary Injunction, whether based upon specific moral, ethical, or spiritual concerns. However, such considerations are (and must be) separate and apart from this Court’s role in evaluating the potential constitutional encroachment (or lack thereof) of the State’s efforts to impose its authority under the auspices of police power, given our state Founding Father’s emphasis on (and the primacy of) the people’s inalienable natural rights. Those constitutional guarantees include the people’s rights to make their own decisions regarding their bodies, health, family formation, and family life-decisions that can include whether to continue a pregnancy—all of which are necessary corollaries to the right of bodily autonomy. Similarly, the right to freedom of speech, whether to speak or avoid compelled speech, is also a fundamental right that our state founders held dear and enshrined in the Bill of Rights, thus, it demands protection under a strict scrutiny standard in this case....

The Court has great respect for the deeply held beliefs on either side of this contentious issue. Nevertheless, the State’s capacity to legislate pursuant to its own moral scruples is necessarily curbed by the Kansas Constitution and its Bill of Rights. The State may pick a side and viewpoint, but in doing so, it may not trespass upon the natural inalienable rights of the people. In this case, the preliminary record before the Court demonstrates that the provisions at issue invade and unconstitutionally infringe upon Kansans’ fundamental rights under Section 1 and 11 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights.

KWCH News reported on the decision.

Satanic Temple Lacks Standing to Challenge Indiana Abortion Ban

 In The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Rokita, (SD IN, Oct. 23, 2023), an Indiana federal district court dismissed The Satanic Temple's challenge under Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act to the state's ban on abortions. The court dismissed for lack of standing, finding that TST failed to identify any of its members who are pregnant and has no clinic of its own operating in Indiana. Indiana's Attorney General issued a press release announcing the decision. Indiana Capital Chronicle reports on the decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Tennessee Sues to Restore Title X Grant Without Making Abortion Referrals

Tennessee's Attorney General this week filed suit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services seeking to restore Tennessee's $7 million annual Title X family planning grant which had been cancelled because of the state's abortion referral policy.  The complaint (full text) in State of Tennessee v. Becerra, (ED TN, filed 10/24/2023), challenges the HHS rule that requires Title X grantees to furnish information and nondirective counseling on abortion if pregnant clients request it.  Tennessee was only willing to make referrals and provide counseling as to procedures that are legal in Tennessee,  HHS takes the position that where, as in Tennessee, abortion is outlawed, out-of-state referrals would be required. the suit contends that the HHS rule violates various provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. It asks the court, among other things, to:

Enjoin Defendants from withholding Title X funds from Tennessee for refusing to offer counseling and referrals (including out-of-state) for abortions that are otherwise illegal under Tennessee law.

Catholic World Report reports on the lawsuit.

Georgia Supreme Court: 2019 Heartbeat Abortion Ban Was Not Void Ab Initio

In State of Georgia v. SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective, (GA Sup. Ct., Oct. 24, 2023), the Georgia Supreme Court rejected a state trial court's holding that the state's heartbeat abortion ban (Living Infants Fairness and Equality Act) enacted in 2019 was void ab initio. The state Supreme Court had previously granted a stay of the trial court's order while the appeal was pending. Yesterday's decision keeps the law in effect while other challenges to it work their way through the courts. In yesterday's decision, the court said in part:

[T]he trial court concluded that portions of the LIFE Act were void when enacted in 2019 because they “were plainly unconstitutional [under the United States Constitution] when drafted, voted upon, and enacted.” According to the trial court, this was true even though the LIFE Act would comply with the United States Constitution if enacted today and the same United States Constitution governs today as governed when the LIFE Act was enacted.

This incorrect conclusion rests on a faulty premise — that, in Dobbs, the United States Supreme Court changed not only its interpretation of the United States Constitution but also the meaning of the Constitution itself. This could be true, however, only if (1) the United States Supreme Court, as opposed to the United States Constitution, is the source of the Constitution’s meaning or (2) the United States Supreme Court has the power not only to interpret the Constitution but also to amend it.... [B]oth of these propositions conflict with well-established, foundational principles of law that are essential to our system of government.

The case now goes back to the trial court for it to consider other challenges under the state constitution to the law.

Justice Ellington filed a dissenting opinion. WABE News reports on the decision. ACLU issued a press release reacting to the decision.

Colorado Ban on Medication Abortion Reversal Violates Clinic's Free Exercise Rights

In Bella Health and Wellness v. Weiser, (D CO, Oct. 21, 2023), a Colorado federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring the state from taking enforcement action under a law enacted earlier this year against an anti-abortion pregnancy center for offering and advertising its medication abortion reversal services. The court said in part:

Bella Health considers it a religious obligation to provide treatment for pregnant mothers and to protect unborn life if the mother seeks to stop or reverse an abortion.... The State Defendants have not contested that SB 23-190 burdens Bella Health’s religious practice. Indeed, it is not up to the State or the Court to second-guess the sincerity of Bella Health’s religious motivations or to suggest alternative means of satisfying Plaintiffs’ religious calling. 

The more difficult question is whether Section Three’s prohibition on abortion pill reversal is neutral and generally applicable. It is not for three reasons. First, the law treats comparable secular activity more favorably than Bella Health’s religious activity.... Second, the law contains mechanisms for exemptions that undercut the State’s expressed interests.... Third, the law’s object and effect is to burden religious conduct in a way that is not neutral.

Colorado Politics reports on the decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Crisis Pregnancy Center Sues Protesters Under FACE Act

 A civil suit under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act was filed last week in a New York federal district court by CompassCare which operates an anti-abortion crisis pregnancy center in a Buffalo, NY suburb.  The complaint (full text) in Crisis Pregnancy Services, Inc. v. Kamke, (WD NY, filed 10/5/2023), alleges that defendant organized a counter-protest to CompassCare's Walk for Life at which protesters blocked a highway and assaulted walkers and police.  It alleges that subsequently, one of the defendants wrote graffiti on the organization's driveway, intending to deter staff, volunteers and patients from entering, and on another occasion stole a no-trespassing sign. Another defendant allegedly spray painted the word Liars over the center's entrance sign.  Finally it alleges that Jane Doe defendants were involved with a firebombing and graffiti. LifeNews reports on the lawsuit.

Cert. Filed In Abortion Sidewalk Counseling Dispute

 A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed yesterday with the U.S. Supreme Court in Reilly v. City of Harrisburg, (Sup. Ct., filed 10/10/2023).  In the case, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought by anti-abortion sidewalk counselors challenging Harrisburg's ordinance creating a 20-foot buffer zone designed to exclude protesters around health-care facilities, including abortion clinics. In its opinion, the 3rd Circuit agreed that the city did not have a policy or custom prohibiting one-on-one sidewalk counseling. Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for review.

9th Circuit Stays Pending Appeal Feds' Partial Injunction Against Idaho Abortion Ban

In United States v. State of Idaho, (9th Cir., Sept. 28, 2023), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals stayed, pending appeal, a district court's injunction barring enforcement of Idaho's abortion ban ("section 622") to the extent it conflicts with the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). (See prior posting.) The appeals court said in part:

The Legislature has made a strong showing that EMTALA does not preempt section 622. EMTALA does not require abortions, and even if it did in some circumstances, that requirement would not directly conflict with section 622. The federal government will not be injured by the stay of an order preliminarily enjoining enforcement of a state law that does not conflict with its own. Idaho, on the other hand, will be irreparably injured absent a stay because the preliminary injunction directly harms its sovereignty.

Politico reports on the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Supreme Court Opens Fall Term

The U.S. Supreme Court today opened its Fall 2023 Term today by issuing the typically long first-day-of-term Order List. The Court denied review in hundreds of cases.  Among the interesting cases were Truong v. Stitt, (Docket No. 22-7743) and Truong v. Dewine, (Docket No. 22-7800), in which a pro se plaintiff sued a lengthy list of defendants-- including five U.S. Supreme Court Justices-- challenging, among other things, Oklahoma's (10th Circuit opinion) and Ohio's (district court opinion) laws restricting abortions. In disposing of the cases, the Supreme Court said:

Because the Court lacks a quorum, 28 U. S. C. §1, and since the qualified Justices are of the opinion that the case cannot be heard and determined at the next Term of the Court, the judgment is affirmed under 28 U. S. C. §2109, which provides that under these circumstances "the court shall enter its order affirming the judgment of the court from which the case was brought for review with the same effect as upon affirmance by an equally divided court." Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, Justice Kavanaugh, and Justice Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Yesterday, before the start of the new term, the traditional Red Mass was held at the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle in Washington, D.C.  Catholic Standard, reporting on the Mass, said that Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Barrett; and retired Justice Kennedy were in attendance.

Texas AG Sues Yelp for $1M for Mislabeling Pregnancy Resource Centers

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton last week filed a civil lawsuit against Yelp contending that it violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices- Consumer Protection Act by posting a "consumer notice" on the Yelp listings of anti-abortion Crisis Pregnancy Centers. The complaint (full text) in State of Texas v. Yelp, Inc., (TX Dist. Ct., filed 9/28/2023), alleges in part:

Yelp has engaged in deceptive trade practices, including disparagement of the goods, services, or business of another by false or misleading representation of facts.... Specifically, Yelp posted a “consumer notice” on the Yelp business pages of every pregnancy resource center across the nation, misleadingly stating that these centers “typically provide limited medical services and may not have licensed medical professionals onsite.” That was false. Pregnancy resource centers provide significant care and counseling to pregnant women. And they commonly provide significant medical services, and have licensed medical professionals onsite....

In or around February 2023, after approximately six months of displaying false and misleading disclaimers on the business pages of pregnancy resource centers, Yelp finally removed the misleading disclaimer regarding the alleged lack of medical professionals and medical services onsite, replacing it with a new disclaimer that stated: “This is a Crisis Pregnancy Center. Crisis Pregnancy Centers do not offer abortions or referrals to abortion providers.”

In addition to injunctive relief, the suit asks for civil penalties, attorneys' fees, restitution and costs that total at least $1 million. Paxton's office issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Ohio Supreme Court Upholds Most of Ballot Board's Description of Reproductive Rights Initiative

In State ex. rel. Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights v. Ohio Ballot Board, (OH Sup. Ct., Sept. 19, 2023), the Ohio Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion concurred in fully by Justice Fischer and (with a short opinion) by Donnelly, upheld most of the ballot language drafted by the Ohio Ballot Board to describe a Reproductive Freedom initiative that will be on the November ballot.  The Board substituted its description for the proponent's request that the full text of the amendment appear on the ballot. (See prior related posting.) The majority of the Court disapproved only the Ballot Board's substitution of "citizens of the State of Ohio" for the term "State" used in the proposed amendment.  One of the Ballot Board's changes approved by the majority was its substitution of the term "unborn child" for the term "fetus" in the text of the proposed amendment.  The majority said in part:

According to relators, “[o]ne’s judgment about the developmental stage at which the ethical status of ‘unborn child’ attaches has obvious implications for whether and how one believes abortion should be regulated.” Relators argue that the terms “fetus” or “fetal viability,” which appear in the proposed amendment’s text, are scientifically accurate and do not carry the same moral judgment as “unborn child.”

We reject relators’ argument. Importantly, relators do not argue that the term “unborn child” is factually inaccurate. To the contrary, their argument asserts that “unborn child” is a divisive term that elicits a moral judgment whereas the terms “fetus” and “fetal viability” are more neutral and scientific. But this argument does not establish that the ballot board’s language constitutes improper persuasion.

Justice Stewart and Justice Brunner each filed an opinion finding all of the Ballot Board's language unacceptable. Justice Brunner said in part:

A majority of respondent Ohio Ballot Board’s members ... obfuscated the actual language of the proposed state constitutional amendment by substituting their own language and creating out of whole cloth a veil of deceit and bias in their desire to impose their views on Ohio voters about what they think is the substance of the proposed amendment. And they did this by completely recrafting simple and straightforward amendment language into a version that contains more words than the amendment itself. The evidence in the record makes clear that it was their intent to use their positions on the board to influence the outcome of the election with the ballot language the board certified for the proposed amendment.

Justice Deters, in an opinion concurred in by Chief Justice Kennedy and Justice DeWine, concluded that they would have upheld all of the Ballot Board's language, saying that it "does not mislead, deceive, or defraud voters."

NBC News reports on the decision.

Florida Supreme Court Hears Arguments On 15-Week Abortion Ban

On Friday the Florida Supreme Court heard oral arguments (video of full oral arguments) in Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida v. State of Florida, (FL Sup. Ct., 9/8/2-23). At issue in the case is a state constitutional challenge to Florida's 15-week abortion ban.  The Florida Supreme Court has links to all the pleadings and briefs in the case.