| Pro-Choice Legislation: |
| Act for Our Children's Future |
| Bill Number: |
S.B. 232 [ view bill ] |
| Status: |
Introduced on September 27, 2011. Assigned to Senate Education Committee on October 20, 2011. |
| Sponsor(s): |
Senator Skindell; Cosponsors: Senators Sawyer, Cafaro, Smith, Turner |
The Act for Our Children's Future will require schools that choose to provide sex education to their students to use a medically-accurate, age-appropriate comprehensive sex education program that starts with abstinence education but then moves beyond that subject to make sure that students know how to protect themselves from sexually transmitted infections and unintended pregnancy by effectively using contraception. We expect our teens to behave in a responsible way, but responsible choices require information. Multiple peer reviewed studies have found that comprehensive sexuality education programs that teach teens about abstinence, contraception, and disease control are effective at delaying the onset of intercourse, reducing the frequency of intercourse, reducing the number of sexual partners and increasing condom and contraceptive use. (Douglas Kirby, PhD. The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. “Emerging Answers: 2007.” November 2007.) There is no question that abstinence from sexual activity is the only protection that is 100% effective against unintended pregnancy. Therefore, abstinence deserves to be part of a comprehensive sex education effort, but not the only part. The vast majority of Ohioans agree. A 2007 Quinnipiac University poll revealed that 71% of Ohio voters felt that the best approach to sex education in Ohio's schools is to focus equally on abstinence as well as the value of condoms and contraception use. This increased to 81% for voters who have kids in school. Abstinence-only-until-marriage education fails our students and does not provide them with the information they need to make responsible and healthy decisions. This bill will make sure that the students in Ohio's schools get medically accurate, age appropriate and comprehensive sex education so that they have the information they need to stay healthy. |
| Act for Our Children's Future |
| Bill Number: |
HB 338 [ view bill ] |
| Status: |
Introduced on October 4, 2011 |
| Sponsor(s): |
Representative Slesnick; Co-sponsors: Representatives Antonio, Ashford, Boyd, Celeste, Foley, Garland, Goyal, Hagan, R., Heard, Letson, Ramos, Stinziano, Yuko |
The Act for Our Children's Future will require schools that choose to provide sex education to their students to use a medically-accurate, age-appropriate comprehensive sex education program that starts with abstinence education but then moves beyond that subject to make sure that students know how to protect themselves from sexually transmitted infections and unintended pregnancy by effectively using contraception. We expect our teens to behave in a responsible way, but responsible choices require information. Multiple peer reviewed studies have found that comprehensive sexuality education programs that teach teens about abstinence, contraception, and disease control are effective at delaying the onset of intercourse, reducing the frequency of intercourse, reducing the number of sexual partners and increasing condom and contraceptive use. (Douglas Kirby, PhD. The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. “Emerging Answers: 2007.” November 2007.) There is no question that abstinence from sexual activity is the only protection that is 100% effective against unintended pregnancy. Therefore, abstinence deserves to be part of a comprehensive sex education effort, but not the only part. The vast majority of Ohioans agree. A 2007 Quinnipiac University poll revealed that 71% of Ohio voters felt that the best approach to sex education in Ohio's schools is to focus equally on abstinence as well as the value of condoms and contraception use. This increased to 81% for voters who have kids in school. Abstinence-only-until-marriage education fails our students and does not provide them with the information they need to make responsible and healthy decisions. This bill will make sure that the students in Ohio's schools get medically accurate, age appropriate and comprehensive sex education so that they have the information they need to stay healthy. |
| Birth Control Matters Resolution |
| Bill Number: |
SCR 13 [ view bill ] |
| Status: |
Introduced June 8, 2011, referred to Senate Rules and Reference Committee |
| Sponsor(s): |
Sponsor Charletta Tavares, co-sponsors Senators Sawyer, Kearney, Turner, Schiavoni |
Senate Concurrent Resolution 13 (attached) that highlights the importance and health benefits of birth control and asks the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to recognize birth control as women’s preventive care.
|
| Compassionate Assistance for Rape Emergencies |
| Bill Number: |
Not introduced yet. [ view bill ] |
| Status: |
|
| Sponsor(s): |
|
The Compassionate Assistance for Rape Emergencies Act will ensure that all rape survivors get access to emergency contraception (aka the morning after pill or Plan B) in hospital emergency rooms in Ohio, to prevent a pregnancy from occurring following the sexual assault. It will also require the hospital to give the survivor information about the possible transmission of sexually transmitted infections and be given any preventative treatment for those infections. In a 2007 study, the NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio Foundation found that almost 20% of hospitals in Ohio did not guarantee access to emergency contraception for rape survivors. This is totally unacceptable. We need to make sure that survivors get comprehensive medical treatment following their assault no matter where they live or what hospital they go to. We believe all women deserve CARE. To learn more about the bill watch Representative Dan Stewart's statement when he reintroduced the bill in a previous session, or the statement of Sondra Miller from the Cleveland Rape Crisis Center at the press conference on 10/28/2009, or check out our emergency contraception section to learn all about this issue. |
| Contraceptive Equity |
| Bill Number: |
[ view bill ] |
| Status: |
Not introduced yet. |
| Sponsor(s): |
|
Contraceptive Equity, will ensure that health insurance plans that cover prescription drugs also cover prescription contraceptives at the same level that they cover other prescription drugs. It also requires such a policy to include coverage for the visits associated with fitting or inserting a contraceptive device. With the majority of prescription plans covering drugs like Viagra isn't it only fair that they also cover the full range of FDA approved prescription contraceptives? |
| The Ohio Prevention First Act |
| Bill Number: |
HB 281 [ view bill ] |
| Status: |
Introduced in the Ohio House on June 23, 2011 |
| Sponsor(s): |
Sponsor: State Representative Nickie Antonio. Co-sponsors: Representatives Ramos, Foley, Slesnick, Celeste, Hagan, R., Fedor, O'Brien, Ashford, Letson, Yuko, Garland, Boyd, Milkovich, Heard, Stinziano, Goyal, Pillich, Gentile |
The Ohio Prevention First Act will increase access to family planning services and medically accurate, age appropriate comprehensive sex education in Ohio. The provisions of the bill include: - Forbidding a health insurance company from limiting or excluding coverage for FDA-approved prescription contraception if the policy covers other prescription drugs or devices.
- Requiring sex education classes to provide students with medically accurate information about abstinence, contraception and condom use as ways to prevent unintended pregnancy and STD's including HIV/AIDS.
- Creating a teen pregnancy prevention state task force that would recommend medically accurate and scientifically proven effective programs for reducing Ohio's teen pregnancy rate.
- Requiring a pharmacy to dispense any prescribed drug, devise, or over-the-counter medication in stock without delay, consistent with the normal time frame.
- Ensuring that sexual assault victims have access to emergency contraception and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases in all hospital emergency rooms.
- Requiring the Department of Health to create and make available on their website, materials to educate medical professionals and the general public about emergency contraception.
|
| |
| Anti-Choice Legislation: |
| Fende Abortion Ban |
| Bill Number: |
H.B. 7 [ view bill ] |
| Status: |
Introduced on January 11, 2011, sponsor testimony on February 2, 2011. Further action not expected because H.B. 78, which is similar to H.B. 7, was signed by Governor Kasich on July 20, 2011. |
| Sponsor(s): |
State Representative Lorraine Fende (D). No co-sponsors |
Ohio bill H.B. 7 would ban abortion at 24 weeks and would require viability testing at 22 weeks gestation. This bill lacks an adequate health exception. Specifically, the bill contradicts long standing jurisprudence requiring that any ban on abortion maintain exceptions that fully protect the life and health of the pregnant woman. NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio supports the legal framework established in Roe v. Wade and does not oppose restrictions on post-viability abortion so long as they contain adequate exceptions to protect the woman's life and health. However, NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio opposes the ban proposed in OH H.B. 7 because its health exception is dangerously narrow. This bill lacks an exception to protect a woman’s health against grave risks posed by a temporary medical condition, and goes even further to explicitly disqualify even the most serious of mental health conditions from the permitted exceptions to this ban. |
| Judicial Bypass Restriction- House |
| Bill Number: |
House Bill 63 [ view bill ] |
| Status: |
Signed into law by Governor Kasish on November 3, 2011. |
| Sponsor(s): |
Representatives Ron Yong (R-Leroy Township) and Lynn Slaby (R-Summit County). Co-Sponsors: Representatives J. Adams, Thompson, Huffman, Hayes, Roegner, Henne, Brenner, Maag, Boose, Blessing, Wachtmann, Ruhl, Gardner, Grossman, Hackett, Martin, Kozlowski, Donvilla, Stebelton, Newbold, Derickson, Stautberg, Hottinger, Hall, Goodwin, Blair, Combs, McKenney, Bubp, Uecker, Burke, Balderson, Amstutz, Buchy, Beck, R. Adams, McClain, Rosenberger, Johnson, Mecklenborg |
Read Sponsor Testimony Read Proponent Testimony Bill Summary: This bill would revise the procedure that minors must go through if they cannot get the consent of one of their parents before they get an abortion. This process is known as judicial bypass, and is already an onerous process for young women needing an abortion. This bill would make this an even more difficult process to navigate by requiring the following: - the judge must "specifically inquire about the minor's understanding of the possible physical and emotional complications of abortion and how the minor would respond if the minor experienced those complications after the abortion (this reinforces the unscientific notion that anti-choice organizations are trying to push that abortion causes mental disorders, which has not been proven by medical research);
- the judge must "specifically inquire about the extent to which anyone has instructed the minor on how to answer questions and on what testimony to give at the hearing (potentially breaking lawyer-client confidentiality rules);
- it also requires the judge to use a higher level of evidence to base his/her ruling on, rather than giving them the right to make a judgment based on his/her understanding of the case and facts on hand.
Minors who are able to go to their parents and tell them about their pregnancy and discuss their options do in-fact do that, more than 60% of minors in states where parental consent or notification is not required still involve their parent in the decision. The minors who cannot tell their parents have good reasons why they can't, and the Judicial Bypass process is set up to protect those minors from harm. We cannot allow anti-choice legislators to continue these political stunts that put women's lives at risk, no one should try to score political points by gambling with other people's health and lives.
|
| Judicial Bypass Restriction- Senate |
| Bill Number: |
Senate Bill 8 [ view bill ] |
| Status: |
Introduced 2/1/2011--Companion Bill Am. H.B. 63 signed into law by Governor Kasich on November 4, 2011. |
| Sponsor(s): |
Senators Timothy Grendell (R-Chesterland) and Karen Gillmor (R-Tiffin). Co-Sponsors: Senators Faber, Wagoner, Schaffer, Seitz, Jordan, Jones |
This bill would revise the procedure that minors must go through if they cannot get the consent of one of their parents before they get an abortion. This process is known as judicial bypass, and is already an onerous process for young women needing an abortion. This bill would make this an even more difficult process to navigate by requiring the following: - the judge must "specifically inquire about the minor's understanding of the possible physical and emotional complications of abortion and how the minor would respond if the minor experienced those complications after the abortion (this reinforces the unscientific notion that anti-choice organizations are trying to push that abortion causes mental disorders, which has not been proven by medical research);
- the judge must "specifically inquire about the extent to which anyone has instructed the minor on how to answer questions and on what testimony to give at the hearing (potentially breaking lawyer-client confidentiality rules);
- it also requires the judge to use a higher level of evidence to base his/her ruling on, rather than giving them the right to make a judgment based on his/her understanding of the case and facts on hand.
Minors who are able to go to their parents and tell them about their pregnancy and discuss their options do in-fact do that, more than 60% of minors in states where parental consent or notification is not required still involve their parent in the decision. The minors who cannot tell their parents have good reasons why they can't, and the Judicial Bypass process is set up to protect those minors from harm. We cannot allow anti-choice legislators to continue these political stunts that put women's lives at risk, no one should try to score political points by gambling with other people's health and lives.
|
| Lehner Abortion Ban |
| Bill Number: |
Senate Bill 72 [ view bill ] |
| Status: |
Passed by the Ohio Senate on April 6, 2011. Companion bill, H.B. 78 signed by Governor Kasich on July 20, 2011. |
| Sponsor(s): |
Senator Lehner and Cosponsors: Senators Bacon, Beagle, Cates, Daniels, Faber, Gillmor, Grendell, Hite, Hughes, Jordan, Patton, Schaffer, Seitz, Wagoner, Wilson |
Ohio bill S.B. 72 would ban abortion at 24 weeks and would require viability testing at 20 weeks gestation. Like H.B. 7 and H.B. 78 this bill lacks an adequate health exception. Specifically, the bill contradicts long standing jurisprudence requiring that any ban on abortion maintain exceptions that fully protect the life and health of the pregnant woman. NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio supports the legal framework established in Roe v. Wade and does not oppose restrictions on post-viability abortion so long as they contain adequate exceptions to protect the woman's life and health. However, NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio opposes the ban proposed in OH S.B. 72 because its health exception is dangerously narrow. This bill lacks an exception to protect a woman’s health against grave risks posed by a temporary medical condition, and goes even further to explicitly disqualify even the most serious of mental health conditions from the permitted exceptions to this ban.
|
| Mandatory Permission Slip Bill |
| Bill Number: |
Not introduced yet. [ view bill ] |
| Status: |
Unknown. |
| Sponsor(s): |
State Representative John Adams |
This bill would require a woman to get the permission of the man involved in the pregnancy before she could have an abortion. If she did not know who that was, she would be compelled to pay for and participate in a paternity test to determine the identity of the man. If she was raped she would have to prove that she reported the rape, and if she was a victim of incest she would have to go through paternity testing to show that the pregnancy was a result of an act of incest. The bill does have exceptions for a woman's life and physical health, and also in the case where the man is deceased at the time of the abortion. If a woman does not get the signed permission slip or presents a man that is not responsible for the pregnancy to sign the permission slip she would be guilty of "abortion fraud" which is a misdemeanor of the first degree, and she could serve 6-12 months in jail if found guilty.
|
| Prohibition on Insurance Coverage for abortion |
| Bill Number: |
House Bill 79 [ view bill ] |
| Status: |
Passed by the Ohio House on June 28, 2011. |
| Sponsor(s): |
Representatives Danny Bubp (R-West Union) & Joseph Uecker (R-Miami Township). Co-Sponsors: Representatives J. Adams, Amstutz, Beck, Blair, Boose, Brenner, Butler, Carey, Combs, Gardner, Grossman, Hackett, Hall, Hayes, Henne, Hottinger, Huffman, Maag, Martin, McClain, Ruhl, Slaby, Wachtmann, & Young. |
| Take Action: |
Click here to take action. |
Under federal health care reform bill, states are allowed to completely outlaw abortion coverage from plans that participate in the newly created insurance "exchange." Last session, S.B. 262 was introduced to do just that. We expect similar legislation to be reintroduced which would make sure that NO plans offered in Ohio through the new insurance exchange could cover abortion, EVEN IF THE WOMAN WAS PAYING FOR IT WITH HER OWN MONEY. The majority of women in Ohio already have coverage for abortion services through their health insurance. Health care reform was supposed to INCREASE access to services, not decrease them. Unfortunately anti-choice legislators are attempting to hijack health care reform and restrict access to abortion care. During the debate on health care reform conservative legislators and voters claimed that they didn't want the government making their health care decisions for them. Apparently this sentiment does not apply to women seeking abortion services. It appears that conservative members of the Ohio Legislature think it is OK for the State of Ohio to make medical decisions for women because women are incompetent to make those decisions for themselves. |
| Reallocate Family Planning Funding |
| Bill Number: |
SB 201 [ view bill ] |
| Status: |
Introduced on July 20, 2011, referred to the Senate Finance Committee on September 21, 2011 |
| Sponsor(s): |
Senator Jordan; Cosponsor: Senator Lehner |
This bill, and the companion bill in the Ohio House (HB 298) seek to reallocate family planning funding away from organizations that also provide abortion care to government run facilities that may not be best positioned to provide family planning services to the community. This legislation puts ideology ahead of women's health.
|
| Reallocate Family Planning Funding |
| Bill Number: |
HB 298 [ view bill ] |
| Status: |
Introduced on July 13, 2001, referred to Health Committee on September 13, 2011 |
| Sponsor(s): |
Representatives Roegner, Rosenberger Co-sponsors: Representatives Martin, Maag, Derickson, Newbold, Beck, Adams, J., Conditt, Wachtmann, Buchy, Hayes, Young, Brenner, Butler, Grossman, Slaby, Blessing, Henne, Huffman, Boose, McClain, Hall, Bubp, Goodwin, Burke, Uecker, Dovilla, Thompson, Gardner, Blair |
This bill, and the companion bill in the Ohio Senate (SB 201) seek to reallocate family planning funding away from organizations that also provide abortion care to government run facilities that may not be best positioned to provide family planning services to the community. This legislation puts ideology ahead of women's health.
|
| State Budget |
| Bill Number: |
HB 153 [ view bill ] |
| Status: |
Passed Ohio Senate on June 28, 2011. |
| Sponsor(s): |
|
The state budget ncludes two abortion restrictions that were added at the 11th hour without benefit of hearings. This legislation would bar local public employee insurance plans from covering abortions and bar public hospitals from providing abortions (even those paid for with private dollars) except in cases of reported rape or incest or to save the life of the woman.
|
| Uecker/Roegner Abortion Ban |
| Bill Number: |
H.B. 78 [ view bill ] |
| Status: |
Signed by Governor Kasich on July 20, 2011. |
| Sponsor(s): |
Representatives Joseph Uecker and Kristina Roegner. Co-Sponsors, Representatives J. Adams, Snitchler, Henne, Brenner, Beck, Boose, McClain, Grossman, Thompson, Stautberg, Martin, Huffman, Kozlowski, Donvilla, Derickson, Hall, Combs, Slaby, Hottinger, Goodwin, Carey, Maag, Gardner, Bubp, Hayes, Mecklenborg, Blessing, Young, Sears, Hackett, Butler, Johnson, Amstutz, Wachtmann, Blair, Schuring, Buchy, Gonzales, Newbold, Rosenberger, McKenney, Burke, R. Adams, and Balderson. |
Read Sponsor Testimony: Ohio bill H.B. 78 bans abortion at 24 weeks and requires viability testing at 20 weeks gestation. Like H.B. 7 this bill lacks an adequate health exception. Specifically, the bill contradicts long standing jurisprudence requiring that any ban on abortion maintain exceptions that fully protect the life and health of the pregnant woman. NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio supports the legal framework established in Roe v. Wade and does not oppose restrictions on post-viability abortion so long as they contain adequate exceptions to protect the woman's life and health. However, NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio opposes OH H.B. 78 because its health exception is dangerously narrow. This bill lacks an exception to protect a woman’s health against grave risks posed by a temporary medical condition, and goes even further to explicitly disqualify even the most serious of mental health conditions from the permitted exceptions to this ban.
|
| Wachtmann Abortion Ban, so-called Heartbeat Bill |
| Bill Number: |
House Bill 125 [ view bill ] |
| Status: |
Passed Ohio House Health on June 28, 2011. |
| Sponsor(s): |
Representative Wachtmann and Cosponsors: Representatives Henne, Buchy, Blessing, Rosenberger, Amstutz, McClain, Stautberg, Maag, Bubp, Adams, J., Snitchler, Sears, Roegner, Burke, Grossman, Hottinger, Johnson, Martin, Gardner, Combs, Beck, Schuring, Goodwin, Adams, R., Young, Brenner, Huffman, Hall, Mecklenborg, Slaby, Carey, Blair, Gonzales, Hackett, Kozlowski, Balderson, Hayes, Baker, Dovilla, Boose, Peterson, Derickson, Ruhl, Landis, Sprague, Newbold, Thompson, Uecker |
| Take Action: |
Click here to take action. |
H.B. 125 has been dubbed “The Heartbeat Bill” by its supporters because it would require doctors to search for a fetal heartbeat prior to performing an abortion. If a heartbeat is found, the abortion would be outlawed except to protect the woman’s health or to save her life. NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio strongly opposes H.B. 125. This legislation is clearly unconstitutional and is designed to challenge Roe v. Wade and to invite the Supreme Court to allow states to outlaw abortion prior to fetal viability. This legislation, if upheld, would ban abortion at a point in pregnancy when many women do not yet realize they are pregnant. This measure exposes the anti-choice movement’s true disregard for the health and well-being of women, and would virtually eliminate access to legal abortion in Ohio. It does not even provide exceptions for survivors of rape or incest or in cases of fetal anomalies. This bill interferes with the doctor-patient relationship. This legislation requires doctors to perform tests to search for a fetal heartbeat, mandates the conversation she/he must have with their patient and further requires the patient to sign a statement that she has been told what that state has mandated. There is no exception to this requirement, even for women seeking abortion care due to health concerns, fetal anomalies, or in cases of rape or incest. Even if the abortion ban in this legislation is struck down by the courts, it is possible that this provision would be upheld, thus creating another permanent burdensome intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship. Whoever violates division (E) of this section is guilty of performing an abortion after the detection of a fetal heartbeat, a felony of the fifth degree, though the pregnant woman is exempted. |
| |
|
